Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in support of the rule and the Henry J. Hyde U.N. Reform Act, and just as proud to rise in tribute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde).

When the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) feels something needs fixing, we had better take notice and know it needs fixing.

We need an organization of nations that cares about human rights, but we need a united group of nations that believes more in the rights of individuals than it believes that the right of individuals is to plunder others.

It should be noticed that at a time when the United Nations' reputation for truth, justice, and following its own rules is at an all-time low, it should be doing everything it can to bring information to light, whether it is good or bad. If the U.N. leadership, however, spent half the time lining the fabric of freedom than it has been lining the pockets of friends and family, then this would be approaching utopia. That is not the case.

Last month there was an investigator who had something called a conscience. He wanted to come forward with information. What did the U.N. do? They hired attorneys to have an injunction to keep us from knowing the truth.

It is time to be united and holding the United Nations accountable. Support the rule on the Henry H. Hyde bill.

Mr. Speaker, on the birthday of my daughter, Katy, who was born 8-10 weeks prematurely, but still lives and blesses my life. There are so many well-meaning people who want to see others cured. We, everyone of us in this body, want that. We know that. It is being said that no one will be harmed by the use or destruction of human embryos that were going to be waste anyway. Dear friends, when you use the product of the callous mistreatment of life, even though you use sterilized gloves, you nonetheless are an accomplice after the fact in encouraging future such destruction and mistreatment--even though you have the very very best of intentions. How many times as a judge have I heard, ``But, I never meant to hurt anyone. I thought I was just helping.''

In the recent past, we lost a great American who had been injured in an accident and who encouraged the use of embryonic stem cells. That man had a heart as big as all outdoors and is an inspiration to so very many of us. His strength and courage and perseverance in the face of unsurmountable odds should be an encouragement for all who face adversity. He is quoted as saying something that others have said, but as a justification for embryonic stem cell usage--basically that we should be about doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people. That is the utilitarian way.

It is worth noting that if a society only did what was the greatest good for the greatest number of people, that society would kill off the elderly who were no longer productive and kill off the young who were not likely to ever be very productive. That would also be a society that did not spend time trying to fix something that had been extremely broken. That is a society that would simply weigh the cost to repair a human, decide that such person was ``Totaled'' then clone a new one to replace it. That society would be killing its very soul.

That is not the American way. We want to be a help to the helpless, and speak for those who can't speak. A moral society should do that. To demand money from American taxpayers so that we as a Congress can encourage the destructive use of life under the guise that it may be thrown away anyway, is not a direction that this America should go. Our history has been that, rather than destroying life, we go to all kinds of extremes to save it. If a child is in a deep hole, America sends all the resources it has to try to save it regardless of cost. When someone may not return from a trip to the moon, we use every available resource to try to bring them home. When a soldier is captured or out on the battlefield wounded, many others often risk their lives to save the one. That has been, that should be our legacy. What a legacy! But to demand money with the full force of the federal government's enforcement and the IRS so that the beginning of life can be destroyed, will add

such a darkness on the conscience of this society, we simply should go no farther down that road.

It is a bit offensive that some would come forward and assert that we are telling individuals with Lou Gehrigs disease and other terribly debilitating diseases that we will not look for a cure--that we basically do not care. We are looking for cures and we are doing so with the most promising avenues available and that is with stem cells that do not destroy life.

It is extremely offensive that some would come forward and say basically that in the name of religion, Christian and Jewish groups support the federal government's certain destruction of embryos under the possibility that at some point it somehow may lead to possibly saving a life or lives. If we are going to invoke the thought of, as our forefathers' put it, our Creator, then let's at least invoke our Creator's unwavering honesty. The truth is that this bill is not determining whether embryonic stem cell research will go on. IF it is so incredibly and amazingly promising, do you know who would be all over this? Private pharmaceutical and health care industries would be in pursuit knowing that if they find a cure, they will be the most profitable company on the face of the earth.

But it is not private investment capital that is being sought. It is people wanting grants that will be torn from the pockets of taxpayers against the will of perhaps half of them or more (polling data from those with an agenda is not all that trustworthy) and putting it into someone else's pocket in the name of destroying embryos.

Embryonic stem cell research can go on and has gone on with billions of dollars from some states and from some private money. What many of us are saying about this legislation is, if it is so promising, you go raise the capital privately by buying stock to use in embryonic stem cell research, and let our tax dollars go to the stem cell research that seeks to both save and make lives better. I know this is a matter of conscience, and I do so know and believe in the integrity and great intentions of many of those who disagree, but please do not take my tax dollars for money to destroy life. Let those who feel so compelled, spend your own, but I would hope even then you would spend your own money on the lines with the most promise and not take life in the name of helping life.

May God not only bless, but have mercy on us all.

Mr. Speaker, I do applaud the comments being a Rotarian. Rotary International has done a great deal.

But I rise today because, yesterday, we heard and read news reports of the United Nations efforts to keep secret the very information with which it should have been most forthcoming. At a time when the United Nations' reputation for trust, justice, fairness and following its own rules is at an all time low, it should be doing everything it can to bring information to light, whether it is good or bad.

However, this United Nations and apparently its leader has far more guilty culpability than many of us ever suspected. The United Nations' leadership seems united in one thing: Do not let people discover the truth. The U.N. leadership, if it spent half the time lining the fabric of freedom as it is alleged to have done in lining the pockets of his family and friends, we would not have these problems.

If the U.N. is going to cover up the wrongs it has done from those who pay for the U.N., then it is high time we cover our U.S. bank account from them. We are literally paying them to hire guns, to hide information from us. Organized crime is said to have cleaners that come in and clean up after illegal activity. Sounds like the Secretary General himself has full-time cleaners on his staff.

It is time to hold the U.N. accountable.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe), the former judge from Houston.

I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King). I thought those were very profound comments.

Mr. Speaker, I heard the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) mention something earlier and this was also touched on by the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), but regarding the beginning of this Nation and how we had separated ourselves from Europe, particularly in the War For Independence that began with the 1776 Declaration of Independence and how we won that war and we separated ourselves. And then of course the Articles of Confederation did not work, and then 1789 we did have this wonderful Constitution.

I had also heard the gentleman say we won yet again, the battle with the British in the War of 1812. As the gentleman mentioned, here where we are standing and actually back in Statuary Hall as it is now, that was the old House Chamber and the British came up and they burned it, and actually the middle part burned. It was wooden. And the gentleman mentioned that we had defeated them. We ran them out after they burned much of Washington. I would like to expand on that.

I had thought, an old history major like me, I thought our American forces rallied and drove the British out in 1814 after they burned much of the town. But apparently the American forces were in such disarray they were in no situation where they could have allied and defeated the British at that time. We had some help at that point.

It turns out the night they set what is now Statuary Hall and the old Senate Chamber on fire, there was a big rain storm that came that put out the fire that kept the fire from completely destroying the building which left enough that they could work from afterward.

It was not American troops the next day and after that drove the British troops out. But as it turns out there was an incredible wind storm that arose. And it was of such force and such magnitude, it is given credit for killing 30 British troops. It knocked British cannons off their mounts. It created a great deal of confusion. It played a part in the accidental explosion of the British gunpowder statutes. It created such chaos the British fled on their own because of those acts of nature.

Well, as you know, insurance companies would call those acts of God, and I would tend to agree with them. Those were acts of God. I would like to think the Americans rallied. They could not do it. There was a higher power involved. But when we look at this issue, the gentleman took the oath to the Constitution. I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution. I took that same oath when I went into the United States Army. I spent 4 years on active duty.

It is worth noting in a letter to Abigail Adams dated September 11, 1804, Thomas Jefferson was very concerned after the decision in Marbury v. Madison; he cautioned that judicial review would lead to a form of despotism. Judicial review is not a power explicitly granted in the U.S. Constitution. But in Marbury v. Madison, the court inferred this power based on the fact that Constitution is the supreme law of the land. But judges should always remember that the Constitution itself is the supreme law of this land and that each judge should never forget their oath to uphold the supreme law of the land and not be citing the law from other jurisdictions, from other lands that have nothing to do with our Constitution.

I tell you that Justice Scalia is an amazing intellect. In the Roper v. Simmons case, I do not take issue here with the outcome of the case, but for our purposes I would like to take issue and I think it is critical we take issue with the methodology in arriving at their opinion. And Justice Scalia did that in his dissent on behalf of himself and Chief Justice Rehnquist and also Justice Thomas.

He said this, this is just an excerpt, ``In urging approval of a Constitution that gave life tenured judges the power to nullify laws enacted by the people's representative, Alexander Hamilton assured the citizens of New York that there was little risk in this since 'the judiciary has neither force nor will but merely judgment.' ''

That is from the Federalist No. 78, page 465.

Hamilton had in mind a traditional judiciary ``bound down by strict rules and precedents which served to define and point their duty in every particular case that comes before them.''

Bound down indeed, says Scalia. What a mockery today's opinion makes of Hamilton's expectation, announcing the Court's conclusion that the meaning of our Constitution has changed over the past 15 years. Not, mind you, that this Court's decision 15 years ago was wrong, but that the Constitution has changed.

The Court reaches this implausible result by purporting to revert not to the original meaning of either amendment, but to ``the evolved standards of decency'' of our national society.

It then finds, and this is Scalia still talking, it then finds on a flimsiest of grounds that a national consensus which could not be perceived in our people's laws barely 15 years ago now solidly exists. Worst still, the Court says in so many words that what our people's laws say about the issue does not in the last analysis matter. This is Scalia still quoting:

``In the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of acceptability of the death penalty under the eighth amendment.''

Now, the Court has thus proclaimed itself the sole arbiter of our Nation's moral standards, and in the course of discharging that awesome responsibility, purports to take guidance from the views of foreign courts and legislatures. Because I do not believe that the meaning of our eighth amendment, any more than the meaning of other provisions of our Constitution should be determined by the subjective views of five members of this Court and like-minded foreigners, I dissent.

This is Justice Scalia.

Similarly, in Roper, Justice O'Connor called on the Court to substitute basically its own moral judgment for ``the judgment of the nations' legislatures.''

The majority, however, persists in imposing its will on the States and backs its decision up by citing the mandates of foreign legislatures.

The usurpation of the voice of the people began roughly with New York v. Lochner, and the word Lochnerization has since been used to describe cases in which the judiciary overrides the democratic law-making authority and imposes its own morality, or in some cases lack of morality, on the people.

Lochner was a 1905 case that has since been overruled; but in this case, the Supreme Court told the New York legislature it could not regulate certain items.

So this usurpation continued with Roe v. Wade and again most recently in Lawrence v. Texas.

Now, as the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) had mentioned, there was a very nice lunch today. And the Supreme Court was very gracious in reaching out and having members of the Committee on the Judiciary. There were Senators. There were some of us from the House Committee on the Judiciary. There was a few staff members. And we heard from Justice Stevens, Justice O'Connor, Justice Breyer, Justice Kennedy and Justice Souter.

I would say those are very, very hard-working, well-meaning Justices. But good intentions are not enough. We know from history itself when we think about the words ``this means peace in our time,'' Chamberlain had the best of intentions. He meant well. He thought he was doing what was best for the world, and what he was doing was giving homage and helping a tyrant like Hitler. And so good intentions simply are not enough.

That oath must be upheld. So that is why I do take issue with the rationale in these cases. These are fine judges, but they have gone astray when they venture out beyond their oath and neglect that from which they have sworn to uphold.

If I might, one of the most frustrating things in this body has been the way people can play fast and loose with what is real, absolute truth. The Constitution is truth. The Constitution does not change. It should not just go flittering here and there, depending on the whims of the Court.

Just like I heard prior to us coming in, the prior presentation about Social Security, and I could not help but note when there was talk of, well, in 2017 these old Republicans, they are talking about it is going bankrupt, and that is just all a facade of sorts, basically paraphrasing. Then the words were said, but it is actually in 2017 when there is more cash going out than comes in. We fall back on these trillions of dollars that are in cash bonds that will continue to earn interest. Cash sounds like there is cash there. There is nothing there. There are IOUs. There are Federal IOUs, and to say they will continue to draw interest, they stick more IOUs in there and say there is your interest. That is just so disingenuous. It is so misleading, and even though I really believe those people saying those things have the best of intentions, they are doing great harm to the Nation by misleading.

In the same way, the Court has the best of intentions. They mean well. They think they are doing this great service. They go to the different seminars and they speak in different places, and they hear these different things from other people who maybe look down on our laws for this or our laws for that. That has nothing to do with our Constitution.

I really appreciate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) yielding to me to say some of these things that are so overwhelming in my heart and soul, as I look to the days ahead. I know they trouble my colleague greatly and I know that both of us came from the same school, if you are going to legislate, by golly, take off the robe, come off the bench, run for the legislature and if, God willing, you get elected, then you can come legislate. I agreed with you on that. We did the same thing. We are here, and hopefully America will help bring the justices back to reality, and the reality is they took an oath to support and defend the Constitution.

So I appreciate that time, and let me just say, there has been a lot of misleading information saying that some people, by their comments, they are doing great harm and inciting violence. I tell you what, as a judge I know you were tough and I was, too. Anybody that threatens, attempts to use force, attempts to use violence of any kind, they need to go to prison when it comes to our courts.

That is why we are pushing the bill to make the sentences even tougher for anybody that is involved in that, but by golly, our Constitution promised us that First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Neither the Supreme Court nor anybody else should restrict what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights has granted to us. God willing, they will not and America will not let them do it in a nonviolent way.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this supplemental bill is a good bill. I was privileged to go with my good friend, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), to Iraq. We visited with the troops. And some of the troops indicated that they got the satellite transmissions, some of the news. They had heard some of our friends on the other side of the aisle saying they were wasting their lives. They had heard some of newscasters saying that they were wasting lives.

But they said after the election they knew why they were there: they were setting a historical precedent in the cradle of civilization. They were doing good and they knew it, and they know it today. And we owe it to our troops to make sure that they have everything they need to make Iraq, or give them the opportunity to create that democracy.

In talking to Sunnis, the Sunnis were upset with their leadership that told them not to vote. They said, please, if you would just stand behind the Iraqi police and armed services to make sure we get one more chance to vote. One former general under Saddam Hussein said, if you will do that, I believe you will see 95 percent of the violence in Iraq go away.

Folks, this is historic, what we have undertaken; and it does not just help Iraq. It deals with terrorism around the world. It sends that message. It has already sent shivers throughout the Middle East, and it has helped us right here in America. That is why we are doing it. So we need to support that.

Also, I want to address one other thing that has been brought up. I have heard people on television, I have heard colleagues across the aisle, some folks I have great respect for, indicating that there is nothing in the Real ID bill that would have changed anything on 9/11.

And I have respect for some of these people that I have heard say that, and I wish that they would read the bill instead of just relying on talking points or something from the leadership. Because, if you look, under evidence of lawful status, which is required in order to have a driver's license that will be an acceptable form of identification to get on an airplane, it says, you cannot use a driver's license if it does not come from a State that makes sure you are in lawful status.

And if you are in a temporary status, it must be a temporary driver's license that says on there the same date your permit to be in this country expires. If we had had that in place on 9/11, then every one of the hijackers would have tried to get onboard an airplane with an invalid, out-of-date driver's license, and should have been stopped.

Folks, this goes in a number of directions, all coming together to help with the fight against terrorism. It would have helped on 9/11; it will help prevent 9/11s in the future. I would encourage everyone to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis) for his touching remarks. He is so right.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to pay tribute as my colleague, a former judge, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) has indicated a celebration of Cinco de Mayo. We will be enjoying that this weekend there in Tyler. I appreciate Gus Ramirez and Salvador Sanchez and other friends that are putting that on again this year.

Last week I read an article about the ongoing investigation in Austin by the local Democrat District Attorney, Ronnie Earl, and became concerned. I had previously understood that he had convinced a grand jury to indict a number of corporations regarding contributions they had made from which he was raising the issue of legality. For some reason I had the impression that a few of those corporations had pled either no contest or guilty, and as part of a plea agreement, they had agreed to make contributions to some educational entity.

Now, I realize I cannot always rely on every newspaper to always get the facts right, so I went back and looked at other newspaper articles about other cases after I saw that one, and according to those articles the Austin District Attorney got potentially four corporate defendants to promise to pay financial support to the LBJ School of Public Affairs there in Austin and in return he would dismiss all charges.

Now, as a former District Judge and Chief Justice this caused me a great deal of concern. As a former District Judge who believes strongly in law and order, so much so that I have sent friends or children of friends to prison while my friends were weeping and asking me not to do so, because I knew that is what the law required and that is what I would do in any other case if they were not the children of my friends.

So I believe that there is a crime and there is an appropriate punishment. And I do not know all the facts or evidence in these cases and I am not here to defend anyone involved. But I do know that District Attorneys take an oath as attorneys and they also take oaths as a District Attorney. They are not supposed to prosecute or persecute people or entities unless there is a case.

Now, if there is evidence to support that a crime has been committed, then he should prosecute. When the District Attorney in Austin files a motion to dismiss, it should be because there is no case with which to go forward.

If a district attorney drops charges after soliciting and requiring a defendant to pay money to an entity of the District Attorney's choosing, it has a rather unseemly odor to it. Let me explain one of the reasons that it may.

Under the Texas Penal Code Section 36.02, it indicates in part, and there is a bunch of different wording in parts to it but I will read potentially applicable parts that may have a ring to them.

A, a person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly, there are different words, but intentionally or knowingly solicits from another any benefit as consideration for the recipient's decision, vote, recommendation, or other exercise of official discretion in a judicial or administrative proceeding.

An offense under the section is a felony under the second degree. It may be the ``benefit'' under this would have to go to the individual itself but since the law does not say, we will let somebody else determine that. But regardless, if a D.A. can force people or entities to pay in order to avoid being prosecuted, then no one is safe from extortion. Whether or not the entity receiving the benefit is worthy is not the issue.

Whether it is a criminal offense to get someone to agree to pay money to another in order to avoid being prosecuted under the law is raised here. Whether or not such conduct rises to the level of criminal status is for others to decide, but it sure smells like extortion, even if the law allows it. A fine institution like the LBJ School should not have to rely on extortion in order to funds its education.

Right now the legislature is meeting in Texas to try to fund our education. How tragic if it turns out it was legal to fund educational institutions just by threatening to prosecute if somebody does not pay the chosen school of the bullying law enforcement agency.

In Austin, the district attorney is allegedly investigating illegal payments. What irony if he will only drop charges as part of his official duties if you make the very kind of payments he was supposed to be investigating.

Sounds like the wolf is in charge of the hen house in Austin.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe). That was very inspirational. I was not sure rice farming could be that inspirational; but after the gentleman from Texas talked about it, I feel better already.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to be before this body tonight and to address a number of things on a number of different issues. I have got to say, for those who have never been on this floor, it is a humbling experience. And I know that when on January 4, I sat right over there in that chair on the aisle and when the Speaker, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), said, ``Raise your right hand,'' and he repeated the oath that we were going to take, and I raised my right hand, for some reason, though I have been in here a few times before, I had never looked above the Speaker's head. And as I looked above his head, it kind of choked me up. Because above the Speaker's head are the words ``In God We Trust.'' And that goes back to the beginning of this Nation and to the fact that God has truly blessed America.

Now, in that context I have a number of things I want to talk about, a number of things that people within my district there in east Texas, the first district of Texas, the historical district where the great American Sam Rayburn was Congressman, later Speaker. I realize that nowadays that will not happen to this Congressman from the First District of Texas, but it is humbling to follow those great footsteps of a great American.

Wright Patman was my Congressman. He served in the first district. He was followed by a number of folks, like Sam Hall. He became a Federal judge after serving in Congress, just a great American. He made Marshall, Texas and all of us in east Texas proud.

So as I began about filling this time as Congressman, these 2 years that the voters have so graciously allowed me, there are a number of things that we have undertaken and one of the things I want to mention is the bill that we filed last week. It is entitled The Secure Access to Justice and Court Protection Act of 2005.

It does a number of things. We had looked around, and with my background of having been a district judge, having been a chief justice of a court of appeals, I have a great deal of sensitivity. And as we saw that the Federal judge's husband and mother in Illinois were killed as a result of her efforts and her duties as a judge, we realized something needed to be done, that it was rather tragic. As we saw what happened in Atlanta, Georgia, as we saw what happened in Tyler, Texas around the Smith County Courthouse where I served so many years as a judge. We realized something has to be done to make people realize that they can not be threatening the system that has come to mean so much. It is one of the few things that other countries do not have and that is a fair, equitable justice system.

Madam Speaker, you have heard me, I am sure, get after the Supreme Court. I have been rather upset about some of the things and some of the reasoning that they have used in arriving at some of their decisions.

I will criticize judges with whom I disagree. I will criticize the Supreme Court. It is our American right to do that. Many have fought and died to give us that right, to secure that right, but when it comes to threats or violence, they have no place whatsoever in this country.

Our justice system needs to be, if nothing else, the last bastion of civility, where people can come together. No matter what has occurred outside the courthouse, they can come together and know that we will take turns. We will sit down. We will talk in order. We will not talk over each other. We will give people the opportunity to have a fair trial, to have due process fulfilled. We will give people the right to have a speedy trial.

All of these things are so critical, and that is why I am proud to have filed this bill, and we even had people talking about bipartisan support. I have the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), a bipartisan cosponsor, staunch Democrat, but I am proud to have him as a cosponsor on this bill because this is serious, and there are a number of things that this bill does, and I wanted to briefly touch on some of those.

For one thing, it creates stiffer penalties for individuals who harm or threaten to physically harm a Federal judge, their families, jurors, witnesses, victims or informants. And to give you an illustration of what we are looking at, currently if you were to assault or threaten someone who was a Federal judge, for example, you would be looking at zero years to 8 years prison time. Now, if it is a simple assault, it would be a maximum of 1 year, a misdemeanor; but assault resulting in any bodily injury at all would get you 5 years in prison or up to 20 years in prison. Assault with a dangerous weapon, this is serious stuff, that could be anywhere, currently, zero to 20 years. However, if it was a dangerous weapon, under the bill that we filed, it would mean a minimum of 15 years in prison, a minimum of 15 years.

I know there are some people that are against mandatory minimums. I

never cared much for the Federal guidelines when they were imposed. They do have some purpose, but whatever the crime is, we have always had minimum punishments. We have always had maximum punishments. If it is a misdemeanor, the minimum would be a zero or the maximum up to a year, but we go from there and we try to set a range based on the severity of the penalty. This is what this bill does.

If you threaten any of the items I have mentioned, then you would be looking currently at a maximum of 10 years. Well, now, you would be looking, if you threaten kidnapping, with a minimum of 30 years. If it is some other type of threat, then you would be looking at 5 to 20 years, but we need to get the message out.

One of the things I ran into as a judge was sometimes you have people in the State penitentiary who thought it might be a cute idea to threaten a judge or make some threat through the mail, which would invoke Federal jurisdiction, and therefore, maybe they could get moved from a State prison. They did not like to be in a Federal facility.

Having been there, done that, knowing how some of those folks think, we want to address that, and that is addressed in this bill. Because if there is a threat and you were in prison at the time you make such a threat, you do not get moved immediately to a Federal facility. Nope, that is not the way it works.

The way it works is, you will be tried, and if convicted, you will get a sentence, and it will be mandatorily stacked on top of the State sentence. It will not begin to run until the State sentence is complete. That is fair.

We got a good suggestion from one of the Federal judge friends of mine with whom I consulted recently. He said one of the problems is people do not always know the consequences of what they are doing. He made the suggestion that if this bill passes, as I hope and urge my colleagues to help me do, if it passes, then he suggested we ought to put warnings in the State penitentiaries so that they understand, if they send out a letter that has got a threat in it, it is going to be stacked. There are so many urban legends that float around our State penitentiaries, and we need to get that straight by warning them exactly what will be the consequences of what they do.

One of the problems we have had in this country, and I addressed it as a judge and I hope that this body will be more consistent in what it does, what it recommends and what it passes. But we have had trouble convincing people we are going to keep our word. If a person or a body has no word, has no integrity, then you have got nothing, there is no believability. And I have already experienced it. There are just a tiny few people here in this body who have no credibility with their peers. That is tragic. That is tragic. A good name is critical.

So I think this, if it is passed, would let criminals know these are the consequences, and then we follow up and make sure that, by golly, they are the consequences.

There are some other things that are addressed in here as well. We would have protection for Federal judges and Federal attorneys, participants in Federal proceedings, from the filing of false and fictitious liens. In Texas, we had a problem with that. A number of us, some of my close friends, our State Supreme Court chief justice had liens that were filed.

We had a renegade group there who set up a storefront operation, and they manufactured their own summons, their own type of court system. They claimed that Texas was still an independent Nation, that they were not truly a State, and therefore, they were claiming jurisdiction. So they would send out some notice that you were being sued in their court, and obviously, people would not show up. So they would secure a default judgment for millions of dollars, take this actually fair- looking judgment down and file it with the county clerk. Well, now, it has asserted a lien, a cloud upon the title of anyone such as the chief justice there in Texas.

So the good legislators in Texas addressed that, and the way they did it was by making it a crime to file a false or fictitious lien. That needs to be done in the Federal system. We have Federal judges who are now having that very thing done to them, and it needs to be addressed, and this bill will do that.

We would also make it a Federal crime to publicly distribute certain Federal officials' personal information over the Internet. There are apparently Web sites that encourage the killing of judges, the killing of court officials, the killing of lawyers. This is just unconscionable, and as Americans and as Members of Congress, we should not give in or look the other way. We need to take it head-on and let people know this will not stand; we will fight it.

It also ensures the coordination, on a continuing basis, between the U.S. Marshal Service and the Administrative Office of the United States Courts regarding the judicial branch's security requirements. There have been problems, and we need to have better coordination between some U.S. marshals. We have got a very good U.S. marshal in the eastern district. John Moore is doing a good job. He coordinates with the Federal courts, but that needs to be done better around the country, and this bill will require that.

Another problem that has never been addressed, and it has come to light as a result of the Oklahoma City bombing, of 9/11, there was no provision that would allow, in the event of an emergency, a Federal judge to transfer venue based on just an emergency, and so that needs to be addressed. We have addressed it in this bill. In the event of an emergency situation, rather than having an Oklahoma City bombing stop all trials because they cannot be moved beyond the jurisdiction, or a New York City bombing where the city perhaps it could have been where they were under a greater threat still, so much unknown, would allow judges to move to another district, even another State if necessary, whatever is necessary in order to secure a fair and impartial conclusion to the trial that is before the court. So this would also address that as well.

There was a provision that was added at the request of others regarding the appointment of U.S. marshals. I am getting a lot of flack from the Sheriffs Association, and we may need to look at that, but we will do that and we will take a look.

We have had a hearing on this already. We should be looking at a markup next week. So things are looking good, and I appreciate the leadership allowing us to do that.

United Nations Accountability Act

Madam Speaker, I do have another bill that has not yet been filed. We are in the process of gathering sponsors for this bill, and I have simply entitled it the United Nations Accountability Act. It is high time we did have some accountability from the U.N.

So what this bill does, it just simply says, and I can just read the first prohibition. It says simply, United States assistance may not be provided to a country that opposed the position of the United States in the United Nations. It goes on to define that as meaning that, opposed the position of the United States means that the country's votes in the United Nations General Assembly during the most recent session of the General Assembly, and in the case of a country which is a member of the United Nations Security Council, the country's votes in the Security Council during the most recent session were the same as the position of the United States less than 50 percent of the time, using for this purpose the overall percentage of voting coincidences set forth in the annual report submitted to Congress pursuant to section 406 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, fiscal years 1990 and 1991. That is just the date of the act.

Each year, on March 31, there is a requirement for a new report to be filed, and in that report, it sets out the votes of all the member nations. And from that, Madam Speaker, you would be shocked, I imagine, to know but from that we have gleaned the following information. We have also gone through and pulled information, most recent we could find, as to how much U.S. aid is being given to other country.

I want to make this clear. I believe with all my heart every nation is a sovereign nation. Every nation has the right to make its own decisions. In the event a nation becomes a threat and threatens those around it, as Nazi Germany did, as Mussolini's Italy did, as Saddam Hussein's Iraq did, then it becomes necessary for self-defense. In

Texas, it is just plain old self-defense. In the event it is reasonably necessary to protect yourself, it is self-defense. We have defended this world and our country, and we have done it well, and that is a different matter.

Barring the situation like that, every country gets to make their own decisions. However, this is the United States of America. We do not have to pay people to hate us. We do not have to pay people to vote against us at every turn in the U.N. They want to do that; that is fine. What this bill says is you want to vote against us all the time in the U.N., you want to be a constant burr in our saddle, you want to cause trouble for this country, fine, but we do not have to pay you to do it.

Running down some of the countries, do you know, Madam Speaker, the nation of Egypt, great rich history in that nation, Egypt; apparently U.S. aid is around $1.86 billion and the percentage of the time that Egypt has voted with the United States in this last session that we just got the report from in March, 8.5 percent of the time. They are voting against us 91.5 percent of the time and we are paying them $1.86 billion.

Let me mention also before I go through some of the other highlights of nations that were on this list, another thing about this assistance is defined in my bill. The term ``United States assistance'' means assistance under chapter 4 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 that relates to the Economic Support Fund. Under chapter 5 of part II of that act, it relates to international military education and training and also the foreign military financing program account under section 23 of the Arms Export Control Act.

In other words, we are not going to send you money, we are not going to take your people and teach them how to fight and how to fight us while you are voting against us and actually showing yourself to be a threat to the very things that we hold dear.

You want to be just a pain, you want to be a threat, that is your business, but we are not going to pay you to do that. We are not going to train your military people, we are not going to train your pilots, you are just going to get cut off.

Now, I also want to point out that under this bill, if it were passed and signed into law as is, it would not take effect until after the March 31, 2006, report comes out from the U.N. By that, it would give countries plenty of time to understand the consequences of their acts. Just as I talked about in the prior bill, there are consequences to our actions. There need to be. And people need to know what those consequences are. So with this bill, we will give them plenty of time. They are going to know every time they take a vote that it is going to cost them. It is their choice, but we do not have to pay them to be disruptive to what we believe in.

Colombia, for example, they get $574 million. They voted with us 10.6 percent of the time in the U.N. in this last year. Jordan, $559 million we have sent to them. They are much more supportive than Colombia. They voted with us 16 percent of the time in the last session. Sudan, $435 million. Actually closer to $346 million. They voted with us 13.3 percent of the time. We have Pakistan. They vote with us less than 10 percent of the time, and we have provided $400 million in aid, just in financial assistance alone. Ethiopia, $354 million. They vote with us 13.8 percent of the time. Liberia. We give them $224 million, and 13.6 percent of the time they vote with us. Uganda, $182 million.

I mean, this really testifies to the generosity of the soul of America. Generosity is one thing, and I am proud we live in a generous Nation; but stupidity when coupled with generosity is not necessarily a real asset. In fact, I was struck. The dean of one of the schools at Yale, just a delightful, brilliant man, was telling about being in a cab, I believe it was in Chicago, and the cab driver was a foreigner. And they got to talking, and since this dean was not originally from the United States they got to talking about the attributes of America or the problems in America. And as they discussed America's strengths and weaknesses, the cab driver made this comment, and I love it, and I hope that my fellow Members will remember this. It is a great observation from someone from another country. He said, America is particularly lacking in the singular vice of jealousy.

We are a generous country, but we are not a jealous country. Is that not a great observation from someone who is not from this country? When you really get to know the heart and soul of America, we are not a jealous country. When we see another country do well, when we see another country obtaining freedom and stretching their wings to fly, this country rushes to their support. We applaud them. We help them however we can. And it makes me so proud to be a part of a Nation that is like that, a Nation that is particularly lacking in the singular vice of jealousy. That is America.

Even so, though we are not a jealous Nation, we do not have to pay people to hate us. We are paying people to do that very thing. Madam Speaker, one of the things I ran on and one of the things that drove me off the bench was that I got sick and tired of seeing case after case where we were paying people to do what was bad for the country. On the other hand, we were penalizing people for doing what was good for the country.

A good example: the marriage penalty. I have heard people talk for so long about we need to fix the marriage penalty. Well, you know what, it is real easy. You want to fix the marriage penalties? Even under the existing code, all you would have to do is say if you are married and both are working, instead of having thousands of dollars in penalties because you did the wonderful thing of becoming married, you can file married jointly or you can file as two single individuals. And in that case, hey, it is whichever one is better for you. Boom, there goes the marriage penalty; it is not a problem any more. We do not have to keep adjusting formulas, it is just fixed, and we no longer penalize people for doing the right thing.

I have heard elderly couples talk before about they wish they could get married. They always felt like it was living in sin to be living together and not married, but they could not afford to get married because the government would cut some of their Social Security if they ended up coming together as husband and wife. Well, how tragic is that? We are paying people to violate their own sense of morals, and this country should not be about doing that. Likewise, we should not be about paying countries to do what hurts us.

Going down the list a little more. Peru. We give Peru $180 million- plus. They vote with us 25 percent of the time. We have Bolivia here, $155 million-plus. They vote with us 23 percent of the time. And if somebody is listening and I touch on one of your favorite countries, or maybe your homeland, and you think, gee, I do not like the way he is talking about my country, it is like Sergeant Friday used to say, ``It is just the facts, ma'am. Just the facts.''

We have Kenya. We give them $142 million. They vote with us 12.5 percent of the time. Serbia, Montenegro, $134 million. Now, they do much better. They are with us, looks like 42.6 percent of the time. Haiti. We have sent our troops, we have sent people to fight on their behalf, we have given them money, $132 million most recently; and they vote with us 18 percent of the time. They really appreciate all we have done for them, obviously.

India, $128 million, 20 percent of the time. And this is just the U.S. aid. This is just the direct aid. There are probably all other kinds of other sources we would have to look into. This is just the direct financial aid that my staff has been able to dig up. And I do appreciate Mike and Ashley and Brian doing such hard work on this.

We have Indonesia, $125, right at $126 million. Boy, they appreciate so much our generosity. They vote with us 8.3 percent of the time in the U.N. We have Ukraine. I really think the world of Ukraine. These are independent-minded people. When I was on an exchange program over in Ukraine back in 1973, they struck me a lot like being Texans. They are very independent-minded. They just had a can-do attitude. We can make things happen. Ukraine, I am shocked to say, this great nation of Ukraine, it voted with us 28.6 percent of the time and we gave them $113 million.

Now, at this point I would like to point out there is an exception in here

in this bill, because we know a country can have a change of regime. And if they have a change of regime, and the new regime is friendly to us, then we ought to be able to help them at that point. So there is a provision here that says that if the Secretary of State determines that since the beginning of the most recent session of the General Assembly there has been a fundamental change in the leadership and the policies of the government of a country to which the prohibition in section A applies, and the Secretary believes that because of that change the government of that country will no longer oppose the position of the United States in the U.N., then the Secretary may exempt that country from the prohibition that is in this act.

So that song Santana did, ``You Have Got to Change Your Evil Ways,'' of course it talked about ``Jean and Joan and who knows who,'' but this is talking about these countries. They have to change their evil ways. And if they do, then we will start helping them again. We see a regime change, the Secretary of State certifies that they are going to be on our side now, we want to help them all we can. The fact is, we want to help all these countries. All these countries should be great to help, but as long as they are doing what they can to undermine all the good, the truth, the liberty, the freedom, the things that we hold dear, as long as they are trying to undermine those things, we should not be paying the billions of dollars that we are to help them do that, to undermine our great ideas of freedom and democracy.

I do not know if you can see, but, Madam Speaker, this is a two-page list, fine print going down here of all the people we are giving money to that vote with us less than 50 percent of the time. You have the Philippines, $111 million, 13 percent of the time they vote with us.

Russia, $107 million we have given them. And some people think Russia is the whole big former Soviet Union. Russia was one of 15 states. I was intrigued when I was in the former Soviet Union back in 1973. Most people in America knew so little about the Soviet Union. They knew all about us, and that was most interesting. They knew we had 50 States; they could talk about George Washington. You talk to Americans, they did not know much of anything about the Soviet Union.

We also have South Africa. Most folks felt like South Africa was now on our side. Freedom-loving people in America went to bat for South Africa. It was so unfair with the disparity and the treatment between the races. Under God's plan, as the Declaration of Independence said, under the Creator's plan all people should be equal. They were created that way, and by his grace should be that way. But, unfortunately, in this world of sorrow, it requires people fighting and dying to secure that right that God gave us. But here is South Africa. We give them nearly $100 million. They vote with us 11.4 percent of the time.

Bangladesh. Of course, we remember how generous not just the American Government was in times of suffering, of flood, our people poured out their hearts, they poured out their finances. And Bangladesh, they vote with us 8.6 percent of the time.

Angola, $91.75 million in aid we have given to Angola, and they vote with us 17 percent of the time.

I realize if there is anybody left watching C-SPAN that they maybe dozed off. I have been a very restful thing for them to have happen tonight, and I am pleased I could do that. The trouble is, this is serious stuff. This is our hard-earned tax dollars that are getting poured down the drain, because some of these countries have shown their contempt for freedom, for liberty, again for the things we hold dear. They are taking our money and pouring it down the drain, and feeding the egos of dictators and people that should not even be touching the money. Our taxpayers deserve this money. It is their money, and they should not have their money paid to countries that are going to stick it in our face.

So, Madam Speaker, if you do not mind, I am just going to continue down this list. We have Georgia, the great state of Georgia. I remember when I was in Ukraine, somebody told me about the fellow walking along the street in Georgia. And the Georgians like to use their hands all the time when they talk. So this guy was walking along carrying a watermelon, and a tourist came up to the Georgian, and this is in the Asian Georgia, not our U.S. Georgia, but he came up to the fellow carrying the watermelon and asked him, can you tell me how to get to the town square?

The Georgian said, ``Will you hold my watermelon?''

The tourist said, ``Sure.''

He gave the watermelon to the tourist and said, ``I do not know.'' He takes his watermelon and goes on. They like to use their hands. They have a great sense of humor. We have given them $90 million at least in aid. They have done a little better. They voted with us 36.7 percent of the time. Under this bill if it is passed, they will have to do a little better. If they want to keep having us contribute, because it is what it is. It is a contribution to a country that has nothing but disdain for us.

I am not talking about the people. I admire the people in the former Soviet Union, but you cannot admire or feed a government that does not believe in freedom and only believes in taking the freedoms of its people. Now Georgia has made great strides, but there is more to be done. We do not have to contribute to a government that can not stand us.

Zambia, we have given them huge amounts of aid, and 12.7 percent of the time they vote with us.

Nigeria, $80 million, and they vote with us 14.9 percent of the time.

Armenia, $79 million, nearly $80 million just in direct foreign aid, 26.9 percent of the time they vote with us.

Mozambique, right at $80 million, and 10 percent of the time they vote with us.

Tanzania, $77 million, 11.9 percent of the time they vote with us.

Eritrea, $72 million, 10.6 percent of the time is all they vote with us.

Here is a shocker. Here is a real shocker. We hear so much talk about our friends, our neighbors, that we should be supporting each other and helping each other and I agree with that, we should be good neighbors; but that neighbor thing is a two-sided thing when it comes to national policy. I believe in the teachings of Jesus, the golden rule is critical. We should be loving our neighbor, but I love my children. I love my three daughters, Katy, Caroline and Sarah with all my heart. But when they acted up, I was not going to reward that, I was not going to give positive reinforcement to negative activity. That is just ridiculous. Simply loving and caring about your neighbor does not necessarily mean you contribute to their delinquency.

Here the shocker: We give in direct financial aid alone, no telling how much else, Mexico, $76.8 million and they vote with us 23 percent of the time in the United Nations. Unbelievable.

According to the most recent report from the U.N., 23 percent of the time is all that Mexico sees fit to support our positions for freedom, for liberty, to avoiding suppression, supporting human rights, 23 percent of the time. It is incredible, just amazing. And the thing is many of us know many Mexican citizens. These are good people. They love families.

I was recently near where a Hispanic family reunion was taking place and it was under a big park pavilion, and I thought this is the way America used to be, families came together for family reunions. I see great hope for America with Hispanics in America with strong religious convictions. These things bode well for America, but it does not matter when you are looking at a country that votes against us so much. That is not a very friendly thing to do.

The Congo, $71 million, they vote against us 27 percent of the time.

Here with Bosnia we have done so much. So many of our American soldiers under the Clinton administration went over there to help out. We are still giving them millions of dollars in financial aid. Bosnia, they see fit to vote with us 42 percent of the time.

For the record, I have my laptop sitting here and I have not used it for the entire time I have been speaking.

Ghana, $59 million and they voted with us 14.5 percent of the time.

Ecuador, $55 million, they voted with us 15.7 percent of the time.

Cambodia, $53 million, 11.8 percent of the time they vote with us.

Honduras, $50 million, they voted with us 23.9 percent of the time.

Turkey, we did such a favor for Turkey of eliminating such a threat on their southern border, they would not allow us to utilize their facilities to come in from the north. Our friends in Turkey, we still give them millions of dollars in direct financial assistance, they vote with us 34.8 percent of the time.

Guatemala, $50 million plus, they vote with us 23.9 percent of the time.

Rwanda, $50 million plus, and they vote with us 11.3 percent of the time.

Macedonia, $49.67 million, and they vote with us 42.4 percent of the time.

Azerbaijan, $49 million plus, they vote with us 11.5 percent of the time.

Here is an amazing statistic. With all of the sacrifices that we have made, DPR of Korea, $45.7 million we are still giving in direct financial aid, they vote with us 3.3 percent of the time. And we are still giving them $45.7 million. This is DPR of Korea, but still, we are giving them $45 million to vote with us 3 percent of the time.

Nepal, $45.31 million, they vote with us 12.7 percent of the time.

Nicaragua, $45 million and they vote with us 26 percent of the time.

El Salvador, $44 million, they vote with us 24.3 percent of the time.

Let me see. We have Mali, $43 million, and 14 percent of the time they vote with us.

We do a little better with Bulgaria and Romania. We give them each over $42 million, and they vote with us 44.1 percent of the time. They can step that up if they want to continue, if we can get this bill passed.

Kazakhstan, nearly $42 million, and they vote with us 10.9 percent of the time.

Cyprus, we give them millions, and 40 percent of the time they vote with us.

Uzbekistan, $38-plus million, and 12.5 percent of the time they vote with us.

Lebanon, $36.7 million, and they vote with us 8.7 percent of the time.

Madagascar, nearly $36 million, they vote with us 12.7 percent of the time.

Poland, we have had such camaraderie with Poland. We were so proud of their efforts, once again going back to what the foreign cab driver said, never an ounce of jealousy. We were so proud of what they accomplished, the way they threw off the shackles that bound them and grabbed onto freedom. Poland, we are still contributing direct financial aid, $35 million, basically, and 45.7 percent of the time they vote with us.

Senegal, $44.3 million, and they vote with us 13.3 percent of the time.

The Dominican Republic, we give them $34 million in direct aid, and they vote with us 23.5 percent of the time.

Yemen, $33 million, and they vote with us 8.6 percent of the time.

Brazil, $28 million, they vote with us 14.9 percent of the time.

Republic of Moldova, $27.65 million, they vote with us 36.7 percent of the time.

Namibia, right at $27 million, 15.1 percent of the time they vote with us.

Burundi, $26 million, 9.8 percent of the time they vote with us.

Oman, $26 million we give them, and they vote with us 9.9 percent of the time.

Sri Lanka, $26 million, they vote with us 12.9 percent of the time.

Croatia, $25.7 million in direct financial aid, they vote with us 42.6 percent of the time.

Skipping down, Jamaica, $24 million we give them in direct aid, 12.5 percent.

Some people go that is not that much, $24 million, $25 million, we are talking about taxpayer after taxpayer, hard working hours, factory workers, people working outside and earning a living by the sweat of their brow. We are talking about so many of those type people having their entire taxation going to a nation that cannot stand us and what we stand for.

Vietnam, we are still giving them $22 million, and they vote with us 6 percent of the time.

Ireland. This was surprising to me, good friend, but they only vote with us 42.1 percent of the time.

Cuba, apparently we are somehow giving $21.37 million to Cuba. They vote with us 7.4 percent of the time.

Chad, $21 million, and they vote with us 22.7 percent of the time.

Morocco, right at $21 million, and they vote with us 11.4 percent of the time.

Panama, $18 million, and they vote with us 23 percent of the time.

Zimbabwe, $15 million, and they vote with us 7.2 percent of the time.

Down to Mongolia, $14 million, they vote with us 14.5 percent of the time.

The old Burma, we give $13 million and they vote with us 11.8 percent of the time.

Paraguay, $12 million, they vote with us 24.7 percent of the time.

Tunisia, $12 million, and they vote with us 10 percent of the time.

Botswana, $11.66 million, and they vote with us 12.5 percent of the time.

You know, I hold in my heart nothing but hope that these countries will support the same ideals and the same abstract notions of love and freedom and liberty and help for others that the United States does, but I am telling Members, we do not need to pay them to be a thorn in our side and disrupt the things that we hold so dear. It has been such a great privilege to serve in this Chamber and to learn a little more about this Capitol Building as I have been here. So many people come up from back home, whether it is Marshall or Hallsville or Gilmer or Jefferson or Center, Carthage, Hemphill, we have had them come from all over my district. St. Augustine, Henderson, and from all of the towns around those, Nacogdoches, folks have been up here in numbers. It has been great and it has been wonderful taking them around this great Capitol of ours.

But I have learned a lot of things, Madam Speaker. I have learned just a little more about how wonderfully God has blessed this country, this Nation from its beginning. Going through the Capitol, I was reading this in National Geographic and some other sources.

I knew about the War of 1812, learned about it from great teachers I had back in Mount Pleasant, Texas. And I just assumed that at some point our forces rallied together and drove the British troops out back in 1814 after they had taken the Capitol.

As it turned out, in the War of 1812, when British troops came in here, there is one story about troops coming up the spiral staircase and coming into the House Chamber and the commander coming to the Speaker's chair. Obviously, Madam Speaker, it was not this chair, but it was back in Statuary Hall, what we call Statuary Hall now. Back at that time it was not Statuary Hall. It was the House of Representatives Chamber.

Legend had it he got up there and said, What shall we do with this den of Yankee democracy? And the British soldiers screamed, Burn it. So they pulled the chairs and the desks into the middle of the floor. They set them on fire. They did so at the other end of the Capitol in the Senate Chamber, and they burned. But as the information that I had gleaned indicated, all of the public buildings, virtually all of them, had been burned except for one, and that later became the temporary House of Congress while they were rebuilding.

But the only reason that what is now Statuary Hall and the other side of the rotunda where the Senate met did not burn and collapse like most of the buildings had was because a rainstorm came up that night and it put out the fire.

Like I said, I assumed that American forces eventually regathered their strength, came through Washington, and drove out the British troops. But according to the history that I could find since I have been here, indication was that the day after the rain, a huge windstorm came like nobody there had experienced before. It was blowing British cannon off their mounts. It was given credit for killing as many as 30 British soldiers. There was an explosion of the British gunpowder stored. The British fled Washington, D.C. of their own.

Insurance companies these days have a provision in their policies that would say these types of things were probably acts of God, and I would have to agree. It was by these acts of God that the British troops were driven from Washington, D.C. It was because of these acts of God that we secured this Capitol, we rebuilt it and made it even better.

I love the Capitol dome. That was not the original design. The dome designed before, I think, was not nearly as beautiful. It was lower. It was not nearly as artful as this one. It is a design that now has really become the symbol of

freedom and democracy around the world, and I am proud to be part of that.

It is interesting that in the center, in the rotunda, that area was originally wood, as I understood it; and the wood part had burned. Apparently, fortunately for me and fortunately for my colleagues if they like the new dome, the wooden part burned and they had to reconstruct that. And when they did that after that fire in 1814, there were those who wanted to do like some of the European buildings and have a great icon of grace and dignity for that country buried in the middle, have their remains in the middle. They wanted to do that with George Washington's remains. He had been buried at Mt. Vernon. That was in his will. They wanted to finish with a hole in the floor out there in the middle of the Capitol so people could file by and look down below and see where the remains of George Washington were. But as it turned out, they eventually supposedly convinced Martha Washington to let them move his remains but she passed away before his remains were moved, and so a great nephew that took over as administrator said, George Washington said in his will he wanted to be buried in Mt. Vernon; you are not moving him. They eventually filled in the floor, and so George Washington's remains are not buried there. We have a solid floor across the center of the Capitol.

George Washington, what a man he was. I heard a speaker recently, a college professor, say so many of the third world countries really are right where we were in the early days of this Nation. And I asked him to show me their George Washingtons, to show me the men who had power that were willing to walk away from it for the sake of liberty of the whole Nation. Some, like South Africa, had such leaders. Most have not. That is what has separated this Nation and made it great.

George Washington did not really want to leave the Army. He really did not want to preside over the Constitutional Convention. Each time he was convinced to do that because he was the man for such a time as that. And had he not been there and not served and not sacrificed, then we would not have had this Nation.

He really did not want to be President, but his fellow citizens pled with him. He served as President. But there is a picture in the rotunda of him giving up his commission, giving up the power. That just did not happen back in the 1700s. A man who led the military and won a great military battle turns in his saber, turns in the power, and walks away and goes back to being a farmer. It is extraordinary when we think about it for the time. Too many have come to accept such grace.

When we think about the selflessness during those times of other people like Governor Thomas Nelson, Governor of the great State of Virginia, he had a beautiful estate, a mansion there in Yorktown. The war took its toll on his health and his estate. In the final battle there at Yorktown, high-ranking enemy officers were staying in his mansion, and he noticed that his soldiers were firing at Yorktown, but they were avoiding his mansion. And he asked them, Why are you avoiding firing at the mansion? You know there are enemy troops there in my home.

They said, Sir, it is out of respect for you basically. It is your home. We did not want to do that.

He said, There are enemy troops in there. Fire on my home.

They did. They killed many of the enemy. It helped them win the battle. But that is the kind of selflessness that has allowed us to win our independence and gain the Nation that we all have come to know and love.

As I go through some of the people in my life that taught me, like B.J. McDowell, who was a high school teacher, I built a pole barn with him one summer. A great American who had been a Marine in the Pacific. At one point he had shrapnel that ripped off his entire calf, and I saw the scar where they later sewed it back on. But he is a brilliant man, tough as a bulldog. He went out and the hospital ship was out in the water, and they were taking boatloads of people. But when he saw how terribly wounded others were, he could not take a position, he said, on those boats to go to the hospital ship. Even though he was in the horrible pain, he just waded out in the water so the flies would stay off. He had the rest of his calf in his hand, and he waited until all of the more serious people had been taken. The guy loved his fellow man. He loved America. He was a great American.

There was a guy from Winedale, Texas, who was telling me about landing at Sicily in the early morning hours. The lights were bright; he could have read a book if he had one in his landing craft. And as they got closer to the shore, bullets started bouncing back and forth across the front of the landing craft ramp. And all the men looked at each other because they figured, when the ramp goes down, we all die. They had been trained to come out, run abreast toward the beach as quickly as possible. The guy in the front of the landing craft said, Look guys, it sounds like from the way those bullets are going across here, if we run out abreast, we are all dead men. So why do we not try something different. Every man line up behind the man in front of him, grab the belt of the man in front of him, let us try going out single file, and I will go out first.

He went first. He was killed. But most of the men in his landing craft made it. That is the kind of selflessness that people exhibited to make this country great.

One of my classmates, Eddie Johnson, a singing cadet there at Texas A&M, a great guy, he was flying a jet down in the panhandle of Florida. His plane malfunctioned. He was told to eject, to punch out, save himself. He said, If I do, this plane is going to kill a lot of civilians down below me. I am going to try to get this plane to the beach.

He did. He saved a lot of lives but lost his own. That kind of selflessness, again, is what made America great.

On September 11, Madam Speaker, there was an act of mean hatred by people possessed with evil intentions. But I am telling my colleagues there is one thing that is stronger than that evil hatred for so many innocent people, and that is love. That is love. And Americans have had it. We have had love for our fellow man. We want to help those who need help, and it is an honor and a privilege to have built on that.

Madam Speaker, it has been an honor and privilege to be here and to speak about these things.

Mr. Speaker, my sister says of our four siblings, I may be the only true optimist. I am like the kid who got the horse manure for Christmas, and all he could do is run around asking, Where is the pony?

In this body on this issue when we look through and sift through the piles and piles of rhetoric, and we look at just the rules, the rules were fair. They are not perfect, but they are better than what was there. I was not familiar with the process they went through, but the right to know you are being investigated, you would want to know that. The right to due process, the concept of a speedy trial and speedy disposition. Members want to talk about partisanship, if it a 5-5 split, that is partisan. The only way we can get bipartisan is if we make it a 6 vote to go forward with an investigation. That is bipartisan. I thought they were good rules when I voted for them the first time. I hope we can move on. I am going to vote for them again. I think they are more fair.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. I am very honored to be here in the same body with him. He is a well-respected and well- thought-of jurist sitting in Georgetown, Texas, from Round Rock, Texas, home of the yellow doughnut. But it is an honor to serve with you and with somebody that understands the triparteid system of government and the checks and balances. I know when I was at Texas A&M in undergrad, and it looked like I would not be going to Vietnam, it was ending before I graduated, I was looking at going to law school and my dad was concerned about that. And I used to get clippings every weekend, talked about there are too many lawyers in the country, and what is wrong with America are the lawyers, and lawyers are crooks and that kind of thing. And I really had to do a lot of soul searching about whether law school was something I wanted to do.

And what I came to the conclusion of was that, really, the law is a tool. It is like a hammer. You can use it constructively to build great things, or you can use it to tear down the greatest things. And that was all in whose hand that tool resided. And I ended up endeavoring to do just that, to use the tool and try to use it constructively.

But then, as the gentleman has pointed out, we have seen around the country so many abuses. I was just in Spokane, Washington, and talking to people in eastern Washington Friday and Saturday and was hearing how desperate they were for some certain physicians and specialists in the eastern part of Washington, that many of them were having to travel over to Idaho, some parts of Texas that has become a real problem.

And it is a shame it arises out of some of the abuses that have occurred. You and I know that there are excellent defense lawyers. There are excellent plaintiffs' attorneys and the courts are a very necessary part of our triparteid system where we can come, no matter what is going on outside the courthouse, we can come sit down and each side gets a turn, each side puts on their case, puts on evidence, each side has a chance for mutual arguments and then have a determination in a fair civil manner from objective people, and that is a great system. It is not a perfect system, because unfortunately it deals with people. But it is the best system that has ever been generated for resolving disputes.

But because of some of the abuses, I have been looking for solutions. We know, I have seen for example, many doctors brought in to a lawsuit and maybe there was one person at fault, but then all these other people got brought in, and then person after person who is a defendant gets dropped from the lawsuit.

I had one doctor standing in my courtroom when I announced that the plaintiffs had dismissed her and she said, That is it? I am dismissed? What about my pain and suffering? What about a year's loss I have had? What about my attorneys fees? What about my liability insurance going through the roof? All of these things have happened and there is no recourse.

So one of the things that I thought that would help level the playing field, and I am open to any ideas, and we hear talk about caps, this, that and the other, but it seems like a system where there was a provision for a loser to pay, if there is no finding of fault or no agreement among the parties, that that could go a long way toward leveling the playing field.

Now, I have heard people from the other side who said, but you do not understand the games that get played on the defense side. I have seen the games that get played on the defense side. I had one lawsuit that involved thousands of plaintiffs, and originally there were hundreds of defendants in it. After I had come into the suit, within a matter of months I dismissed a whole slew of defendants. A couple of defense attorneys told me, wow, Judge, this has been going on 11 years. You just came in here and all of the sudden dismissed a bunch of defendants. We are proud of you. It is good for our clients but we do not know what we will do. One of them said, I put my kids through college and law school on this case as a defense attorney. I kind of hate to see it go away for my clients because I was making money.

There are abuses on both sides. One of the thoughts I had was to answer the cry if you had a strict loser-pay situation that it would make people reluctant to bring all the parties in to a suit initially. And if they did not do that, then you get past the statute of limitations period and then all the defendants turn and point to somebody who is outside the lawsuit, saying he is responsible, and it is too late to go get him.

We know also there have been abuses where parties are brought in just so discovery can be done, depositions be taken free of charge and then drop them. That is a form of abuse as well. My thought was perhaps have a loser-pay type situation, and if it gets beyond the limitations and parties in the lawsuit, point to somebody outside the lawsuit, then extend the limitations for 30 days to bring in a party that they are now all pointing to so that that would take care of that situation.

I am looking for solutions because there are a lot of people that are getting hurt, a lot of people that have been abused; but at the same time we need to protect the system so that real legitimate claims can have a resolution.

If the gentleman would allow me to mention one other aspect of this that he has been talking on so eloquently, of course I love the way a fellow Texan talks such as the gentleman, but I have noticed an effect in the schools.

My mother passed away in 1991 but she was a teacher, eighth grade English teacher most of her adult life, and my sister had been a school teacher for nearly 30 years. My wife had been a school teacher until we got to needing her so desperately full time in our campaign in Congress. But what I was seeing more and more of was this fear of being abused by a lawsuit by educators, by teachers and sometimes teachers have enough. They have a problem student. They take him to an administrator and an administrator says, I realize this person is completely disrupting your class but their parents keep threatening a lawsuit and we cannot afford that. So if you just get by and do the best we can and we will get past the lawsuit and probably somebody else's. And it seems like it has been a complete disruption to orderly discipline in our schools.

One of the thoughts, here again, I am trying to think outside of the box and think creatively, but as judges we had something called judicial immunity. You may not like the way a judge rules, but if he is not committing a crime and he is acting within the purview of his job, trying to do what is right, trying to make the right decision, you are not going to file a lawsuit against him. And if you do, it will be thrown out and probably sanctioned because the judge has judicial immunity.

I thought it might be fair to help education by extending that doctrine to the area of education. You may be making a decision that is not very wise as an administrator and an educational facility, you may be a teacher that does not make wise decisions, and that is the basis for going to the school board and getting you fired. That is a reason to go to the school board and have a principal or someone else fired, but it is not a basis to run and file a lawsuit and go to court. So that educators can feel more comfortable in doing a job.

Yes, they are accountable through the legislative branch, but let us do not make it a habit to run down and file lawsuits. I think we could set the schools back on track and a long way toward proper discipline if we extended that type of educational immunity to teachers and administrators. As long as you are not committing a crime, you are acting within the purview of your job, let us give you a break.

The gentleman has discussed so eloquently this mindset, this America, everything is someone else's fault. And once we can help people get beyond that notion and force them to try to resolve things among themselves, mediation, arbitration, these type of things have been very helpful in the alternative dispute resolution, trying to avoid the lengthy attorney fees and court costs.

We were in Spokane hearing testimony about environmental laws. We had boxes stacked up over my head. As I understood it, it was over a little more than 2-mile stretch of road, and the appeals and things that have just gone on and on have been crazy, the trees that have been cut down just to allow that kind of abuse of the system. By the same token, I was shown a graph that showed that since 1970, the bar graph year by year, that lawsuits have continued to escalate, and with each year as the lawsuits escalated the board-feet of lumber we had produced had gone the other way, directly proportional the other way.

So we see the destructive tendency. That is a renewable resource. We ought to be able to do better than that. But the courts have been used, as the gentleman said, to batter others. As Shakespeare said, The problem may not be in our stars but in ourselves.

Some people blame the lawyers but the fact is no lawyer can file a lawsuit without a client. No lawyer can defend a lawsuit without a client. The problem may be bigger than just lawyers. It may be not in our stars, not in our lawyers, but all part of the same problem.

I appreciate the gentleman addressing this so well tonight.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of complaints about rules changes by Democrats. As a freshman, as a former judge and chief justice, I am still in the process of making assessments. When I hear allegations for or against either side, I am looking to figure out, is there evidence to support or dispel the allegations.

In this case, the allegations about the rules changes, you have to take a look at. In the first place, there have been ethical allegations made about the majority leader, Mr. DeLay, and the complaint about the rules changes.

Well, we look at the rules. First of all, allowing someone to know what they are charged with in advance seems pretty reasonable. Allowing someone to hire their own attorney sounds pretty reasonable. Going from 90 days to 45 days seemed a little short, and then we hear Chairman Hastings say, We will go and I will give you an automatic extension back to 90.

You look at the evidence, the fact that there was a RICO lawsuit filed against the majority leader that was dismissed with prejudice because there was nothing there, you have a DA that has been trying to indict him for years unsuccessfully.

There is an old saying, Mr. Speaker, justice delayed is justice denied. It appears now that this is all about denying justice to DeLay.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 114 I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me time.

Many of you have heard the story about the fellow that was sitting on his porch and water came trickling through his yard. A fellow drove by in his Jeep and said, Jump on, the dam is giving way; this place is going to be flooded. And he said, I've got faith in God; God is going to save me.

The guy drives off.

Here comes more water. Here comes a boat. The guy in the boat says, Jump in, there is more water coming. The guy, No, I have faith in God; God is going to save me. And he climbs up on the rooftop as the water gets higher and higher.

Here comes a helicopter. He drops a ladder and with a megaphone says, Grab hold of the ladder. The man says, No, I have got faith in God; God is going to save me.

The water gets higher. The man drowns. He goes to heaven. He says, God I had faith in you. Why did you not save me? God said, I sent you a Jeep and a boat and helicopter, why did you not make use of it?

When we hear people crying today, We need oil, we need gasoline with prices that are down, we need natural gas prices to come down, I cannot help but hear this small voice saying, Use what I gave you.

This Nation has been so richly blessed with so much in the way of resources. It is time to end the excuses. We can always find excuses, things we do not like about any bill. They sure do that down the hall.

It is time to end the excuses. It is time down the hall to finally do the right thing and use the resources with which this Nation has been so richly blessed.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee for yielding to me. I very much appreciate it because this is such an important issue for all of our country, but especially for our district in East Texas. The eastern side of my district is Louisiana, and it is actually quite a help for Louisiana as well. But the things we are talking about, the resources that we have in our district include oil, gas, coal, lignite, biomass material. That could be made from things like corn maize or soy, but also from forestry material that is left over when lumber is made.

There are so many jobs that will be assisted and created. It is estimated that there could be half a million jobs created as a result of the energy bill that we are discussing here.

Some people worry about the environmental effects of an energy bill and encouraging energy production, but I want to tell the Members I am familiar with oil wells, I am familiar with gas wells, I am familiar with lignite. I was just in a couple of lignite mines in my district in the last 2 weeks, and we worry about the destruction of property, but when we see what has been done and the way the land is reclaimed and reestablished, it ends being a work of art. The hardwoods are put back. The streams are back better than ever. The hillsides, it is just beautiful what has been done. Plus the renewable resources like pine trees are there. It is a good thing for East Texas.

Of course we have heard in ANWR previously that it would destroy the caribou population. When the pipeline was going to be laid, many of us remember back in the 1970s they said it was just going to decimate the caribou. As it turned out, there were about 3,000 caribou back then. Now there are around 32,000, as it turns out, because that oil is warmed as it goes through the pipeline to keep it flowing. When caribou want to ask each other for dates, they go to the pipeline and it makes them really romantic-thinking. So it has actually increased the population there.

When people complained we should not have oil and gas wells out in the coast because it is going to destroy the fish and the teeming life in the Gulf of Mexico, it turns out after they put offshore rigs out there, that is where commercial fishermen went because that was an artificial reef and it ended up helping fishing as well.

There is so much technology that has been developed over the last 30 and 40 years that has been good for everybody.

We also have the Eastman plant, actually more in Harrison County but there by Longview, and they use natural gas to make plastic products, all kinds of products there. This will help them. It will create cheaper natural gas. If we have cheaper natural gas, the papermill that had to close down in Lufkin because they could not get cheap enough gas; they are planning on reopening if that can happen. That just does not help Lufkin. It helps St. Augustine and Hemphill. They worked there at the paper mill. Clear up in Longview there is a man who lost 7 percent of his business when the paper mill closed all because of energy costs. These things can come back.

But not only that, we do a lot of drilling. These small business companies in East Texas, we have got the drillers themselves that go back to work. We have got land men going to work getting leases on the land. We have got the owners that are getting that lease money. We have got people that retain mineral interests getting royalties back. We have got people that are going back during the production, the service companies rehiring folks.

We have got the steel producers, companies that are renting equipment to those facilities. We have got independent drillers that are doing well. There are workers of all kinds and their families that are all having their lives made better. We have got clean coal technologies that are going to assist us and keep the air clean and make the environment just as good or better after the production of coal. There are so many good things that result for the Nation and especially for my district.

And let me just say on a personal note, with all of the things that a good energy bill will do for the Nation and do for our district, I feel good about what we are doing and I appreciate the gentlewoman's yielding to me because it does mean a lot. To take it to a very personal note, I have got three daughters. Two are away in college now, and our youngest is a junior in high school. Sarah's birthday is tomorrow, and I do not remember not being there on the morning of one of my kids' birthdays. She will be 17 tomorrow. And I hate like heck missing her birthday tomorrow, but we are going to pass us an energy bill tomorrow. And if I did not believe with all my heart that I was helping to make this country better for my children, then I would not miss Sarah's birthday tomorrow. But I think we are doing a good thing. And when I quit believing we are doing good for this country and making it better for my girls, then the voters will not have to send me home. I will go home as fast as I can.

But we are doing good, and I am proud to be a part of a majority that is working to make America better. And I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee very much for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of rhetoric here today, and some of it a bit disingenuous. I think it is a bit disingenuous to say in a loud tone, demanding an answer to some rhetorical question, and then demand, well, I hear none, when all of us here are observing the rules and not interrupting. It is a bit interesting to hear people talk about red herrings, and I like hearing from people across the aisle that they want to talk about real facts. So let me talk about real facts.

This, my friends, is a music box. It plays Amazing Grace. I would wind it up and play it now if the rules allowed that.

It belonged to my Great Aunt Lillie. She was land rich. Over a hundred years their family accumulated land, farm and ranch. I bought this music box at an IRS auction where the IRS forced the sale of everything she owned. They accumulated about 2,500 acres of farm and ranch land. She died in July of 1986, and shortly thereafter land was dumped on the market. Times were rough, and the value of the land that was around $2,000 an acre when she died went to $600 or $700 an acre.

The IRS was actually very gracious. They gave a couple of extensions or so. They allowed another appraisal, but it was around $2,000 an acre when she died.

The IRS required the sale of every acre of land that they owned. They sold every item out of her home. If anybody in the family wanted anything, we had to show up at the auction and buy it. I bought this keepsake to remember my Great Aunt Lillie, who had been so gracious and kind and a great farm woman and a great gentlewoman.

So if you want to talk about the death tax in real facts, here it is. The death tax provides no grace, amazing or otherwise. It is a socialist notion, and it needs to go away.

Mr. Speaker, there have been times in this Nation's history when the United States Supreme Court was composed of distinguished jurists who were extremely cautious to avoid inserting the justices' will or desires in place of legitimate decisions and legitimate legislation. That, sadly, is no longer the case.

One of the cornerstones of an effective judicial system is fair and impartial judges and juries. At the top of that system, we have come to the point in our history when a majority of the court has come to think of themselves as error free. However, even considering oneself faultless is an inexcusable fault for a court, any court, but most especially the U.S. Supreme Court.

One does not have to be a judge or a chief justice, as I was, to know that a fundamental principle of the United States common law has been that prior court decisions have priority and control the same situation. It is called following precedent. A huge problem for all of us is that this Supreme Court cannot follow precedent.

For example, this very court ruled only 15 years ago that the sentencing guidelines were constitutional and must be followed. Now they have completely disregarded their very own precedent, even though it was their own.

Additionally, these judges, who consider themselves jurists, act in some ways like the worst form of renegades. They have disregarded the Constitution and its precedents and instead follow the fleeting whims of a daydreaming child. They cite changing opinions and evolving opinions; not about law that they have researched, oh, no; about various feelings of the general public in America that they have somehow vicariously perceived.

But even that is not all. No. Certain judges of this highest human court in the land have been reciting opinion polls, not based on legally or factually based or scientifically recognized computer protocols or data or scientifically derived information. No, these are based on their feelings of what is going on.

Here the U.S. Supreme Court sets itself up as the final arbiter of what is or is not accurate polling. The trouble with this is, no court, especially an appellate court, is ever supposed to have been a witness in the case it is trying. Apparently, however, the Supreme Court is the expert pollster for all who come near. Every other expert is required to be cross-examined. It is called being allowed to confront the witnesses against a party. This Court, however, places itself above such fundamental notions, even when the polling the Supreme Court has done consists figuratively of wetting its finger and sticking it into the air to try to discern which way the wind is blowing.

Though the Court has become a witness, an investigator, a pollster, a wind gauge, the Supreme Court denies the fundamental right of the parties to have due process and question the witnesses against it. The Supreme Court allows itself to go out and poll and investigate or report behind the scenes without anyone knowing. It hides behind the Constitution at the very time it is depriving the parties of their rights under the same document.

As Congressmen, we are out in our districts constantly talking, questioning, never forgetting that a constant campaign is ongoing. A good Congressman knows what his district thinks. So how dare you, Supreme Court, try to sit in Washington and lecture us on what is or is not the will of the American people. We listen to the people. We go home, and we live with the people. We get e-mails and calls and letters and visits from the people, and we do not hide in an ivory tower.

How dare you tell us about the changing will of the people. You are the last to have any idea of what the real people's attitudes are. You go try running to get elected back to the Supreme Court, and then you can come talk to us about the changing opinions in America. If you ever had to run for office, you would find out ever so quickly just what the opinion and will of the American people are.

At a recent session of the Supreme Court in which the parties argued their respective positions, one Justice, in a bit of high-brow effort to sound both intellectual and computer literate said, as I understood him, that he had been on the Internet looking for more facts about the case or about the 17 monuments involved in that case. He is so far removed from the legal profession that he does not even realize how morally wrong he is acting, or he has such great contempt for the need of a fair and partial judiciary that he is killing it and its former credibility.

Such a judge should remove himself and allow only those who are not self-made witnesses to rule. If any juror in a local case or a judge in a local case were to go out and investigate the facts of the case, the case would be thrown out. There would be a mistrial. It is one thing for a judge to investigate the law of precedent or legislative history; it is quite another for him to be a fact witness. Shame on you.

In the Supreme Court's decision regarding juvenile eligibility for the death penalty, the Court showed not only that it could not follow precedent, it could not even follow its own precedent of the same Court. The majority of judges have caused the system to be so out of whack that it flips its own rulings to and fro in a whimsical sort of destruction of civilized and constitutional jurisprudence. People must have stability through court decisions, yet we are forced to have one whose constant reversals of itself remind one more of the policy shifts of a nation that has a coup every year or so than a nation of laws. This particular Nation deserves much better for its educated people.

It should also be noted by any jurist worth his or her salt that when a court continuously cites changing opinions of the populous or a national consensus, or an evolving national standard, it is saying that the issue at hand is clearly one for the legislature. It is the legislature that has to decide issues that are based on the will or the consensus of the people, and not the judiciary.

So here is a rule of thumb: if you find yourself as a court sometime trying to discern the will of the people internationally or nationally, then leave it alone. It is not your business. It is the business of the legislature.

If part of the problem is that our Justices attend too many national conferences, then perhaps we should legislate against them attending any conferences outside the country whose Constitution they are sworn to follow. After all, when they cite international opinion that was not in existence at the time the Constitution was written, they are going beyond the legislative history. They are legislating themselves. If they want to do that, they should do as some of us who were judges have done in Congress: we left the bench and we ran for the legislature to have that opportunity.

You want to deal with the Ten Commandments? Well, you took an oath to defend the Constitution. Try the commandment that says ``thou shalt not lie.''

When our highest Court seeks international opinion on what is right or wrong, it should ask itself where international opinion was when the Nazis were killing millions of people. It should ask itself where was the international opinion when Saddam Hussein was killing thousands of his own people. Some of the sources of this international opinion they rely on were selling equipment and supplies to Saddam Hussein as he murdered people.

Friends, I have not mentioned the propriety or impropriety of the actual outcomes of these recent Supreme Court decisions, but I call to account the disgustingly subjective and arbitrary process that has been guiding this Supreme Court. The majority on the Supreme Court has figuratively been a bunch of emperors with no clothes. The few judges left on the court with judgment must find it difficult working with a bunch of naked self-crowned autocrats.

In England, devoted patriots are fond of saying, ``God save the Queen.'' In America, it is time for devoted Americans to say and to pray in earnest, ``God save us from this Supreme Court,'' and then remove those who have ceased being judges and have become the worst nightmares of our Founding Fathers.