Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, February 24, 2005, in the city of Tyler, Texas, gun fire erupted outside the Smith County courthouse. An estranged and enraged ex-husband, irate over a domestic hearing, lay in wait outside the courthouse for his ex-wife and one of his sons who was 23. The courthouse was well secured inside while also having a metal detector inside its entrance. Such security measures probably prevented the soon-to-be murderer from carrying his rifle inside the courthouse and shooting not only his ex-wife and son, but also the many witnesses, jurors, parties and personnel who would have been inside, as had occurred in another courthouse some years ago and miles away.

As the ex-wife left the courthouse, the murderer opened fire hitting her and also her own son. Mark Wilson, a nearby Good Samaritan and hero, immediately without hesitation and without thought for his own safety went into action. He pulled his concealed weapon that he was lawfully carrying and accurately shot the murderer more than once. He could tell he was hitting the murderer, but what he did not know was that that murderer was wearing extensive body armor. That fact allowed the murderer to turn and fire fatal shots at our selfless hero Mark Wilson.

In the process of Mark's firing such accurate shots, he not only hurt the murderer, he also distracted him from the many innocent bystanders in the area.

When hearing the shorts being fired outside the courthouse, two deputies and a Tyler police detective responded by running to the source. Parenthetically, the Army teaches us that the only way to have a chance of surviving an ambush is to turn and run into the source of the ambush. As a trainee, sometimes we wondered if we would actually have the courage to do that when there were real bullets flying.

We do not have to wonder about what Mark and our courageous law enforcement officers at the Smith County courthouse would do when faced with a life-threatening attack. They respond and they respond with courage and clear thinking for the safety of others.

Mark Wilson's heroic actions disrupted the murderer's pattern and provided time for the protective law enforcement officers to respond. As Deputy Sherman Dollison attempted to intervene, he was also hit by the murderer and left for dead and he remains in critical condition at a local hospital.

Smith County and other friends thought mighty highly of Deputy Marlin Suel and Tyler police detective Clay Perrett. They are personal friends and they were both wounded in the ensuing exchange that sent the murderer into his car and fleeing the scene. He was chased by extremely responsive law enforcement as he continued to shoot during the chase. However, the murderer was killed before he could yet kill again.

There was an evil act of anger last Thursday, but there were heroes watching out, ready to act for the salvation of others. It is quite possible that Mark's actions prevented those in the area from becoming a trail of lifeless bodies in addition to saving the life of the murderer's own downed son.

According to the investigation, the rifle the murderer used was not automatic so he had to consciously pull the trigger over and over again to inflict the death and violence that he did.

Mark Wilson himself was able to apply for and receive his concealed handgun permit because the law allowing such was passed in Texas after a callous killer went into a cafeteria years ago and began firing randomly, hitting so many. Back at that time no civilians were there who were legally allowed to have a gun so the killer caused prolonged devastation. To receive a permit for carrying a concealed weapon in Texas, a person has to prove himself consummately law abiding. That described Mark. He was trained and he trained others in self-defensive weaponry. He was 52 years old. He had been a patriot who served all of us in the United States Navy. He was a community volunteer. He loved life to the maximum which included a deep abiding appreciation for Monty Python, all while he worked to make others' lives better in the process.

Yes, he knew how to make friends laugh. He had overcome tough times. He had been entrepreneurial, and he had worked to create good times for himself and others. He had many friends because of his community involvement and his very can-do attitude.

As a tribute to Mark and his courageous heroism, hundreds of people filled the downtown square in Smith County to commemorate his life, his times, and his goodness on Sunday, February 27.

As a member of the United States Navy, he had sworn to defend the Nation against all enemies foreign and domestic. Last Thursday he gave his life while once again defending against an enemy, this time domestic.

For many of us reflecting on Mark's death the words of Jesus of Nazareth capture Mark's spirit: ``Greater love hath no man than this; that a man lay down his life for his friend.''

Those words came from someone who knew and Mark Wilson's love is what was praised. He stepped up that love a notch by going and laying down his life for people he did not even know. This country, this institution need a memorializing of such a courageous hero as Mark Wilson. His loving parents and dear friends deserve to hear his praises sung once more for the record, and may the retelling of Mark's bravery bring them comfort, bring them hope, and to the hopeless who think there is no one out there who cares. Mark cared and I would be willing to bet his caring will be perpetuated into posterity for others that he has touched.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee. Talking about being well spoken, she certainly is, and I appreciate the way that she is addressing the great things that are beginning to or continuing to happen in the economy.

The economy is growing. One of the things that is not, of course, is Social Security. It continues, as we have been told, to limp along about 1.5 percent, 1.6 percent. But the rest of the economy, where a free market is being allowed to thrive and grow, is helping to create jobs.

Now, there are problems. We have not conquered them all. But what a great time of hope. And I have seen it, and you have expressed it, and you feel it in east Texas. There is an industry that is looking at reopening a plant in Lufkin, Texas. That is exciting, maybe bringing 4 or 500 jobs, plus maybe several hundred more potentially once that occurs.

There is excitement as people think about the potential for helping with tort reform. We were having hearings a couple of weeks ago and finding that one of the drains on the medical economy is the fact that 70 percent of all the massive number of physicians who are sued are dropped without any finding of fault and without paying anything in settlement. Well, that is an area we are working on to help reform, to help eliminate; 70 percent of the physicians that are sued having to be sued and providing a carrot and a stick to correct that form where abuse has occurred.

You know, 9/11 should have sent this economy into depression. Students of history, and I was talking with some students and teachers from Grace High School in Tyler, Texas, and they have been studying a number of aspects of this.

But we should have gone into a full scale depression. But we had a President with courage and with vision. And despite what the naysayers were coming out with, he stood firm. We had tax cuts. And as we found, as President Kennedy knew, as President Reagan established, every time there has been a tax cut, it has helped the economy. Thank God for President Bush and his standing there firm for tax cuts. And we have seen the economy continue to grow.

As the students I talked with earlier from Grace High School had studied, the free market system works. You know the Pilgrims, as you probably know, Congresswoman, they tried a communist form of government. And what they found was that it did not work. They nearly starved to death. So they had to institute free market forces and just, if you do not work you do not eat. And the next thing you know, they are thriving, crops are growing, things are going well again.

And I tell you, we have put way too much trust in government. And I am excited about the potential this government has and to be a part of this Congress with you because I think we have more potential to get this country on the right road than any Congress since the 1930 New Deal Congress.

We can establish free market. We can fix Social Security so young people today can have the benefits of the free market economy instead of struggling in poverty with what little bit Social Security pays. This President, this House, this Senate have such potential and I consider it an honor to be part of it.

As it says above the Speaker's head, ``In God We Trust.'' And we need to make use of the trust that God has given us. And I thank you for the trust with some of your time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from North Carolina for yielding to me. She is a dear friend, and I am glad to count her as a friend. I appreciate this opportunity.

As we know, there are many areas in which there is plenty of waste, fraud and abuse. We can look around and see it for ourselves. One of the things I have felt more and more strongly about that I would not mind seeing is a moratorium on Federal building and leasing here in Washington. Because the more that gets built in Washington, the more that gets leased in Washington, the more bureaucrats it means back in our States, the more bureaucrats back in our State capitals, and then more bureaucrats have to be in our local districts. That is something I would sure like to work on.

Now, having been a district judge and a chief justice of the court of appeals, I am also quite familiar with other types of waste. I do think it is a waste and an abuse when we have three separate branches of government and one branch decides to take the obligations of the other two branches and begins to legislate as well as usurping some executive functions.

We have had courts that took on the management of different things. We have heard testimony about a court that is trying to manage, and it has been going on for, I guess 9 years, with regard to the Native Americans' money, and it is in litigation right now. Courts have an obligation to get cases to trial, to come to judicial conclusions. They do not have the right nor the obligation, for sure, to begin legislating or taking on the executive function of managing. We have seen far too much of that.

Now, we have passed today in the House class action reform. Hopefully that will make a difference in some of the abuse that has occurred in some types of class actions. There has to be a remedy for people who are wronged. There has to be the availability of the class action in order to remedy some wrongs. But for those cases in which it has gotten out of hand, I am proud we have been able to pass some legislation to move toward curbing that abuse.

Another thought has occurred to me. I know personally that we have courts that need help. They are overworked. We have had the President renominate 12 candidates for the judicial bench in the Federal system. One of my friends and classmates from Baylor Law School, Priscilla Owen, was nominated May 9 of 2001. She was abused to the extent that she is going on 4 years now without having an up-or-down vote, as the law requires.

There were a number of other judges who were nominated in 2001. It is an abuse and a failure to comply with the oaths that were taken to vote up or down on these people. Give them a vote. Their life is in limbo. It is a pure abuse. And it has left courts unmanned. They need the help.

So one of the thoughts I had, and I do not know that I have ever really talked to my colleague about this, but one of my thoughts is, where we find that there are courts, say for example the Ninth Circuit, who begin legislating from the bench, obviously they have got too much time on their hands. We have courts that just cannot get to their backlogs. They need help.

My thought is that it would help the system, help curb the waste and abuse, if those areas where they have too much time on their hands, that we take some of their funding, take some of their personnel, take some of their benches and put them over in area where they do not have time to legislate; where they are strictly a judicial body. Because they need all the help they can to take care of their caseload. Let us move some of those people that had the free time to start legislating and started managing functions of other groups and let us get their benches, their assets, over in areas where they need the help. I think that would curb things greatly.

I am also cosponsoring a bill. We have heard where some Federal funds, Medicare, may be used to buy Viagra for folks. Well, that has gotten a rise out of people here in Washington. That is something we need to address. Federal funds should not be for pleasure purposes. It is to help people that really need help. So I am looking forward to us curbing that bit of waste and abuse.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address a couple of these issues, and I appreciate the gentlewoman's yielding some of her time. I think that some of the judicial waste and abuse that has occurred should be curbed because there are some really, really, fine Federal judges. They need help. We need to get them help and we need to cut out the waste in those courts that have abused their situations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do rise to address support for the rule and the underlying legislation and, specifically, a few of the allegations that have been made about this legislation. First of all, there has been an allegation made that this violates States' rights. Many of us are firm believers and supporters of States' rights, and the fact is, the States have the right to give a driver's license to whomever they wish. That is their State's right.

However, this legislation says, if you are going to use that identification card to get on transportation that is in interstate commerce or otherwise, then it is going to have to meet certain minimum standards. So you have the States' rights. However, this Federal Government has the obligation to protect its citizens, and it is something that should not and will not be taken lightly.

As regards another aspect, asylum, we have a situation in which a legislative body, as it has come to be, that is also known as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, has enacted legislation that overcomes and overwhelms a judge's right and ability to judge credibility as it should. That has to be overcome by this legislative body, trumping that legislative body called the Ninth Circuit. That is what we are trying to do.

I have heard friends across the aisle say that Americans have journeyed freely in the past and that this goes against the very freedoms which this Nation was founded on. But the truth is, try getting on an airplane. We do not have freedom anymore. And the more liberties that we forgo withdrawing at the border, and restricting and making sure people who are coming in do not mean us harm, then the more liberties we are going to lose in this country.

So it is important that we make sure we have that water metaphorically flowing into this lake to give it life, but it is even more important that we restrict those who would harm us from coming in, as they would.

Mr. Speaker, what a pleasure and privilege it is to share this time with Chairman Shaw, and the enlightening presentation he made previously.

I came across some information that had been talked about in a local newspaper, The Examiner, a new paper, and did some digging. And it is indeed my pleasure in a bipartisan spirit to call attention to statements made or endorsed by certain Senators, including some prominent Democratic Senators who, in 2001, found that Social Security simply was not as efficient as a system that allowed workers to invest their own retirement funds in a personalized retirement account.

Privatization is not a good idea; we are not for that. However, allowing young workers to personalize their retirement by taking a part of their retirement funds and placing them in a personal Social Security savings account that the individual actually owns is a good idea. And we are open to discussion on that. I am proud to be a part of looking at that. Such accounts currently are in place for State and local retirees, and they are performing at least 200 to 300 percent higher than Social Security.

What a great thing, to provide individuals with a decent retirement while preserving Social Security for those that are on it and for those that are over 55 years of age. Such an account could actually be owned by the worker and not by the government. The State and local governments manage the accounts and see that they are safely invested, all a vast benefit for their employees. I was under such a system in Texas as a judge and chief justice. Our retirement account was through the Texas Employee Retirement System.

There are those who say, Mr. Speaker, There is no crisis. You have heard it; we have all heard it. But that is akin to somebody falling off a very tall building and all the way down at each window he is heard to say, ``I am doing all right so far.'' Eventually there is going to be a time of reckoning, and that is exactly what we are looking at with Social Security. We want to avoid that now, while it can still be avoided.

Most agree that in 2018 there will be more money going out of Social Security than there is coming in. Some say that is still no big deal, because Social Security has so much money in the lockbox.

Well, since 1935, when Social Security was created and FDR's Congress immediately began spending that Social Security money, what they put in the lockbox was Federal bonds, which is basically a government IOU.

Mr. Speaker, I heard the gentleman from Florida (Chairman Shaw) talking about that a moment ago. When the outgo gets higher than the income, then what they are going to rely on is not cash in the lockbox, it is IOUs that have been getting stuck in there ever since 1935. That is serious. It creates a major problem looking at us right now, here in the face, and we need to deal with it.

Some say that even though the proposal will not affect seniors, will not affect those the way it is proposed, it would not even affect those over 55 at all, but it would just allow some young people to put some of their own money in their own retirement account, that that would dry up capital and hurt the economy.

But, Mr. Speaker, that argument flies in the face of the facts. If young people start investing some of their money in a personalized Social Security savings account, and that is not happening right now, then what it does is it creates capital to help the economy. There will be savings that are there as capital that will help the economy and drive it, as the President's tax cut has been doing the last couple of years.

Young people overall are not saving right now. But if they begin now, by their very act of saving, they will create capital and help the economy.

There are some very important principles. First of all, Social Security is in trouble. Second, every day we delay, the naysayers are denying young people the compound interest on a conservative investment that they could be making if the opposing Democrats would get out of the way, would come together with us, let us reason together, come up with a good plan, save Social Security and yet plan for future generations.

Do you think that conservative investment could do much better? Well, there are a bunch of folks that did. In 2001, they signed a letter to that effect, sent out a press release to that effect.

Some real live examples we checked on, got input from these systems. Galveston, Texas, has its own retirement system. If you work until age 65 with an average income of approximately $35,000, then you will receive over $2,600 per month. If you did the same thing under the Texas Employee's Retirement System that I was under as a judge, you would be getting nearly $2,700 a month. Using that same scenario, but under Social Security, you receive less than $1,300 per month. Mr. Speaker, it is not hard for folks to figure out what would be a good system to plan for the future.

There is apparently a letter, a press release regarding that letter that was signed by a host of Senators regarding Social Security back in 2001. At that time, there were some people that wanted to make those workers that had State and local retirement systems pay into Social Security. These Senators signed this letter in December of 2001, and they were adamant that such personalized accounts outside of Social Security were a far better deal for those workers.

Senators, and you may recognize some of the names, Mr. Speaker, like John Kerry, Harry Reid, Edward Kennedy, Chris Dodd, Joe Lieberman, they indicated, according to the copy of the release we obtained, ``Millions of our constituents will receive higher retirement benefits from their current public pensions than they would under

Social Security.'' Those Senators call those retirement funds outside Social Security ``well-managed'' and ``well-funded.''

Additional evidence that such personalized accounts are a good idea is that AARP has its own mutual fund and encourages its members to join the fund, even though its investments are outside Social Security. Apparently they do not consider such a fund to be too risky. It would certainly seem that either such a fund is a good thing to invest in, as AARP is telling some of its members, or AARP is misleading its members and encouraging them to invest in something outside Social Security. If it is a good thing for AARP members, how much better would such a personalized retirement fund be for young people with plenty of time to build a future?

For years I have gotten e-mails saying Congress must be forced to live on Social Security, and we needed to do that. Well, I got elected and guess what I found out when I got here? We are on Social Security. We pay into Social Security. We are going to be part of the Social Security system when we retire.

So we are in it. The only addition is, we are allowed to invest some of our income in retirement accounts, and some of us believe that others besides Congressmen and certain State and local employees ought to have that same right. That is what we are talking about.

I campaigned that we should fix Social Security, but do so without reducing benefits or adding taxes. Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell you how pleased I was to come to Washington and find that the President and so many others, Republicans here, all agree.

I also personally believe we really ought to eliminate that terribly abusive tax that was added on to Social Security benefits that President Clinton and the Democrat-controlled Congress piled on to the poor Social Security receivers back in 1993. In fact, the Republicans, and even some Democrats back then, were so opposed to taxing that income on Social Security that the Vice President of the United States at that time, Al Gore, had to come to Capitol Hill, cast the tie- breaking vote, just to hammer our good seniors with that brutal tax.

There have been so many inequities in Social Security. One woman reported that though she and her husband both worked their entire lives, that when her husband died, she was getting exactly the same thing that another woman was getting who had never worked or put into Social Security in her whole life. It is easy to understand her frustration at paying into Social Security her whole life, for no benefit whatsoever to her. If she and her husband had been allowed to own their own personalized Social Security savings account, she would have received the benefit of both her and her husband's hard work and investment.

We can do this. We can save Social Security for those that are on it and for those that are paying into it, those over 55, as the President is talking about, and for future generations and, at the same time, create these great personalized Social Security savings accounts for young people so they cannot only survive during their senior years; they can thrive. It would be good for everyone except those wanting the government to keep people enslaved to the Big Brother in Washington.

I applaud those Senators, including Senator Kerry, Senator Kennedy, and Senator Reid, among others, that signed it for their courage and their vision as it was back in December of 2001, when they knew and believed in a retirement system like the President is proposing, that that would be the best thing for folks to invest in.

Now, if their view has apparently flip-flopped since 2001, then, hopefully, we will not have to wait until the year 2020 before their vision returns to being 20/20.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate so much the efforts of the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Shaw) on behalf of all of us, for senior citizens, to save Social Security, not just for everybody on it now, but for future generations.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the right honorable gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingery). I consider it a privilege to call him a friend and colleague; and I appreciate the time, Mr. Speaker, to address a couple of issues here together.

First of all, we know 2 days ago the cradle of civilization took initial steps towards becoming a democracy. Citizens of Iraq, which today includes parts of the former Mesopotamia and Babylon, cast ballots as free people to elect their own leaders. We must join the rest of the world and salute the extraordinary courage it took for these people to cast their votes.

Each of them had to endure adverse conditions and the threats of death to go to the polls, stand in line and let their voices be heard. The people of America and the free world should be inspired. As with the words paraphrased from Les Miserables, ``We should hear their spirits sing as it is the music of a people who will not be slaves again.''

They have joined in the fight that secures them the right to be free. These brave souls have ventured out in sheer defiance of terrorists and insurgents who want to harm them and keep them enslaved. I join the rest of the world as we salute them, the brave voters of Iraq.

In sharp contrast, right here in this democratic Republic, where hundreds of thousands have sacrificed their lives and millions more have sacrificed so much to secure our right to be a free people, we have a group of Democratic Senators who know the sacrifice it took to secure that right and obligation. They know the words they spoke in an oath sworn to God, with history and citizens watching, to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. They know the Constitution mandates they vote on the nominations to Federal courts, those nominations made by the President. Yet they fail and refuse to do their sworn obligations, and it is as if they never intended to keep their oaths when they were sworn.

Not only has this group intentionally failed to follow their sworn oaths, they have taken the job of questioning good, honorable and decent people and turned it into abusive inquisitions. These Senators would never tolerate these unfair inquisitions if they were treated in the same manner. Many of these nominees have pulled themselves up by the bootstraps and have worked hard to become the top in their field. There are nominees who have lived ethical, moral, honorable lives; yet they are brutalized and had their lives publicly smeared and demeaned in the most vile and disgusting manner.

In the ancient Roman Empire, Christians were thrown to the lions, but many were at least allowed to fight back. When a conservative or a moderate Christian Hispanic or African American nominee is dragged before the Democratic Senators' inquisition, they are not allowed to fight back. These are nominees who have never been accused of cheating in college or plagiarizing speeches or surgically changing their appearance or being involved in the death of fellow party-goers. These are decent people who are who they are and who they appear to be, and they deserve better treatment.

These folks have not lied under oath by completely refusing to do their sworn duty. These nominees have simply agreed to subject themselves to the torture chamber of the certain Democratic Senators in order to try to help this Nation. The judicial nominees only wish to help the Nation without legislating from the bench, and they believe in the true intentions of our Founders.

Having been a district judge and a chief justice, I know some of the nominees that the President has made over the years. They have been attacked and stymied, and I believe what has been done to them is simply unconscionable. Were the attacks made out in the civilian sector, those nominees, some of them, would certainly be entitled to huge verdicts by juries who would understand the malice.

Some nominees have had their lives put on hold for years while some Democratic Senators not only refuse to follow their oath but do all they can to block others from keeping their oaths. When one Democratic Senator was chairman of the Judiciary Committee in 1992, the average length of time to get a vote before the Senate after being nominated was basically very short months. This same Senator wrote to nominees saying basically he would not play politics with their nominations. Then he turned right around and played politics, dragged out such hearings and votes for nearly a year, at which time the nominations died when the President was defeated in November 1992.

Now those certain Democrats have effectively prevented votes on qualified nominees such as that of Priscilla Owen, Carolyn Kuhl, Charles Pickering, Miguel Estrada, Henry Saad, David McKeague and Terrance Boyle, not for months but for years. Those were all nominated, and I mentioned, in 2001. Miguel Estrada could wait no longer and finally had to withdraw. In fact, my law school classmate, Justice Priscilla Owen, was one of those who was nominated for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. That was on May 9, 2001, and then she was coldly and callously left without the constitutionally required vote for over 3\1/ 2\ years.

I have some Democratic friends back home who understand truth and fairness, and right and wrong; and that is why these actions of certain people have hurt not only this country; they have hurt their party.

Please understand, when an attorney is nominated for the bench, clients are normally reluctant to send new cases their way. When judges are nominated, there is a reluctance by colleagues to send involved cases to them because they may not be around to finish them. The nominees are normally reluctant to make major purchases or make decisions about schools for their children because of all of the uncertainty. These qualified individuals who are ready and willing to serve their country have theirs and their families' lives put on indefinite hold.

When the average length from nomination to vote was just a matter of months, that was not a major problem. It is now a critical problem. Nominees' lives are incarcerated in an unfair and unnecessary purgatory. Some Senators have complained about how long we held brutal and threatening terrorists, yet these same Senators uphold the honorable judicial nominees' lives as a matter of routine.

These handful of Senators often act out as brutal lions hiding behind the safety of their perches where they cannot be attacked by their victims. Then they maul and brutalize their victims and leave them and their families in a suspended animation for years. It is high time they were held accountable for such outrageous conduct. I believe we have begun seeing recently in this country in the last election some Senators pay for their abusiveness.

It is my intention to begin a judicial observance at least once a month from the floor of this House until all the previous nominees from the President's last term who are renominated are all voted on.

May God grant peace and certainty to those to whom these Senators are persecuting or made to suffer some for their religious beliefs.

In conclusion, some may want to fire shots across my bow. That is fine. So long as they quit attacking good decent nominees and give them their vote.

May the still small voice of fairness and conscience that has been stifled for far too long finally be heard in the soul of the prosecuting Senators. May those who are too afraid to vote take inspiration and courage from the brave Iraqis who ventured out to vote despite the threats on their own lives.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, it is worthy of note when someone lights up the world with his or her own sunshine and gives us a glimpse of such a beautiful soul that it is more understandable why our Creator would endow us with the blessings He has. Such a person was a young man named Judson Daniel Davis, known to his friends as JD. He was 23 years old, after having experienced life fully every single year he was alive.

He was born in Tyler, Texas, on September 17, 1981, and he left for heaven on January 19, 2005. He was active in high school and in his church, which was Green Acres Baptist. He was constantly looking for ways to help others and to improve himself. Even at his young age, he had found that helping others somehow made him a more complete person. My own daughters knew him well, and even my wife and I felt quite comfortable when we knew one of our daughters would be with JD.

He graduated from Whitehouse High School in Smith County, Texas, after which he attended Tyler Junior College, earning an associate's degree in business, and then proceeded to Texas A&M University, obtaining a degree in finance. After Texas A&M, this unusual individual studied kinesiology and earned a degree at the University of Texas. It does take a rather unique individual to be both a Texas Aggie and a Texas Longhorn, and that is what JD was.

While at Texas University, he did not merely study, he also utilized his talent for playing musical instruments. He played the trombone in the Longhorns' basketball band in addition to performing with the Big Bertha crew. He began studying sports management in the UT program in Austin, and, during the Christmas break, he had talked about the potential for substitute teaching, because he loved to help others. His mother, Linda Davis, said, ``He always had a smile, a kind word for everyone, and was always sensitive to the needs of others.''

The Longhorn band was excited about coming to play for the President's inauguration this month, and none was more excited than JD. He had run a fever the week before the trip, but he told the university health personnel he did not want to miss the President's inauguration. He was coming. He did feel ill on the plane ride and did not get off the bus when the other students did here in Washington. They got off physically, but he had proceeded ahead of them in spirit. He was pronounced dead shortly thereafter.

He was looking forward to being an intern at Lake Hills Church in Austin, a position of which he had just learned about before he came to Washington. He was to start rehearsals when he returned from Washington for a leading part in the play, ``The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.'' Just as he had been active in his work at Green Acres Baptist Church, he was determined to try to make as big an impact as he could, wherever he could. As if to subconsciously follow the admonition of David to number our days aright, JD numbered and filled every one. As a sign in his room said, ``Life is short, so fish hard.'' His mother Linda said the picture and sign that most exemplified JD's life says, ``The value of life lies not in the length of our days, but in the use we make of them.''

JD brought life and hope and good news to so many. He truly lifted spirits by his presence and leaves us much in his physical absence. He loved his neighbors, he loved his President, he loved his country. He loved the visible and auditory beauty given us by the Creator. May others be inspired by the life, living, and giving of Judson Daniel Davis, and may his loved ones be comforted in that knowledge.

Mr. Speaker, there has been wide political discussion recently on the imperative nature of support for our troops. Yesterday, unexpectedly, Senators from the Democrat Party used strong rhetoric in discussing the needed support for both our military and our veterans. These are wonderful comments of support, but they must not stop as mere comments. This should be a matter of bipartisan support.

I was in the United States Army on active duty from 1978 to 1982. I personally believe President Carter was one of the most honest, caring, and decent Presidents we have ever had; but his administration was exceedingly weak in its support for the military and for its veterans. Terrorists were sent a clear message when his administration failed to respond in any meaningful way after U.S. soil was attacked and terrorists took U.S. hostages who were held for over a year. The U.S. appeared to be a toothless, hapless, spineless paper tiger.

At Fort Benning, Georgia, we in the United States Army saw the dawn of a new day with the Reagan administration. We began to see supply requests met, improved conditions, and, yes, much better morale. We had a President who meant what he said and he

said he supported the military. President Reagan kept his promises. However, under the President in office during the 1990s, the military budget was again severely cut.

Once again my friends who remained in the military could feel the renewed respect and help for the military when President George W. Bush took office. Not only has the military been much better equipped and supplied, but also the Republican-controlled Congress has been increasing veterans' benefits. In fact, since Republicans took control of Congress there has been a 58 percent increase in veterans funding.

Just as the vast cuts during the Carter administration depleted and drained the strength of the U.S. military, during the 1990s the White House bragged of vast cuts in government when, in fact, the only true cuts were in military personnel. As a result of those cuts during the 1990s, George W. Bush's administration found itself, just as President Reagan had, battling to rebuild military strength.

We in this Republican-controlled Congress have done that and continue to do that along with some other friends. If yesterday's speeches were heartfelt, and there truly is a desire among Senators across the aisle to strengthen the military, to protect those who are protecting us and to keep and help our courageous veterans, I say, with arms open wide, Welcome to the Republican agenda.