Floor Statements

I want to thank my colleague and good friend from Texas, the chairman, who knows the border, perhaps, better than any other Member in this body.

We are all here, Mr. Speaker, to try and work through our differences over government funding. I hope that no one in this Chamber truly believes that we should play politics with the security of our borders, our last line of defense.

Yet right now, as we debate this important funding bill, our agents at the Department of Homeland Security--the Border Patrol, CBP, and ICE--are not fully funded, which diminishes their ability to secure our Nation's borders and puts American security and lives at risk.

What kind of message would it send to our constituents all over this great country if we threw up our hands and said that providing for the common defense under the Constitution is no longer a priority? Yet that is exactly the debate we are having today.

As the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, I will not stand by and let politics get the best of us. Our brave men and women on the border in my home State risk their lives daily. Just a few weeks ago, I visited with Border Patrol agents, border sheriffs, and ranchers in the Rio Grande sector in south Texas, which has seen a 55 percent increase in illegal border crossings. This is not just an immigration issue, Mr. Speaker; it is a national security issue. Our border agents on the front line must be fully funded.

I urge my colleagues to support the Border Safety and Security Act.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Continuing Resolution to delay the individual mandate for a year and undue the ObamaCare exemption for Members of Congress. This is about fairness to the American people, who are sick and tired of the hypocrisy of the political class.

We are a nation of laws and when the ruling elite are given a free pass while millions of our constituents are forced into a new health care

regime that drives up premiums, erodes the quality of care and puts the government between them and their doctors, we lose the trust of the American people.

As Teddy Roosevelt once said, ``No man is above the law and no man is below it.'' Yet, through administrative ruling the Obama Administration has exempted Members of Congress and their staff from the very health care law that bears the President's name. Meanwhile, the President, Vice President and their political employees are not even required to be part of the new health exchanges. If this law is so great, Mr. President, then why won't you and your political appointees be subject to it?

The answer is simple: ObamaCare is not working and the doctor doesn't want a taste of his own medicine.

Karen, from Cypress, Texas in my district wrote to me this week that ``as a benefits department employee of an independent oil and gas exploration and production company, I have major issues with ObamaCare. I abhor the waste of my department's time and expense in documenting our policies just to show Congress that we already comply with the mandates, despite the lack of guidance we get. Seems to me Congress is punishing employers who offer good coverage. How is this going to help anyone? And don't even get me started on the administration exempting themselves all from it. That rankles more than almost anything else.''

Another one of my constituents, an insurance agent who also happens to be the Mayor of Tomball, Texas, called my office this week and told me that her clients--which include businesses in and around my district--have no idea what is required of them under the law. The Obama Administration has given thousands of waivers to businesses, delayed implementation of dozens of provisions of the law and no one know what to expect next.

What we do know if that ObamaCare is not ready for prime time. We must give our constituents the certainty of a full year delay of the individual mandate. Anything short will only result in more chaos and confusion, not to mention skyrocketing premiums, billions in new taxes and the erosion of the doctor-patient relationship.

Most importantly, elected officials must be treated the same as the people they represent. No exemption for Members of Congress!

I thank the gentleman from California, my fellow chairman.

I rise in opposition to this amendment. As the terrorist attacks in Benghazi and Boston demonstrate, our fight against those who mean us harm and those they inspire is far from over.

This amendment is of questionable constitutional standing as it seeks to deprive any President of lawful options that he needs to protect America; it hinders our ability to gather information; and it actually provides an incentive for terrorists to come here to attack us. It prohibits the President from ever detaining anyone in the United States, including a foreign terrorist, under the authority of the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force.

This amendment requires that foreign terrorists could only be prosecuted in civilian courts. But what if they could not be successfully prosecuted? Currently, there are detainees in Guantanamo who are too dangerous to release but who are not prosecutable. Under this amendment, if similarly situated terrorists were captured here at home, they would have to be released. Our experience in trying to deport illegal aliens whose native lands refuse to accept their return demonstrates the untenable position this amendment would leave us in.

If we can't use the AUMF to hold detainees and if we can't successfully prosecute them in a civilian court, then what can we do? The amendment ignores the reality of the threats that we face every day.

Consistent with the laws of war, we have long recognized the authority to detain enemy combatants for the duration of hostilities. In the 2004 Hamdi decision, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the authority to detain a U.S. citizen captured fighting with the Taliban and who was later detained in the United States, and that such detainees have the right to challenge their detentions. Then the 2012 NDAA reaffirmed the detention authority provided by the 2001 AUMF as well as the right to habeas corpus determinations.

The amendment overturns established legal precedent as well as undermines the statutory support for the AUMF. It does not make us safer, and it increases our peril. I urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. Chairman, let me thank my dear friend and colleague

from Texas, the great State, Judge Carter, and commend him for a fine job on this legislation.

The recent Boston attacks serve as a stark reminder that the terrorist threat to America remains constant. Despite the President's dangerous narrative downplaying the radical jihadist threat to America, al Qaeda and its affiliates and those they inspire have not given up their quest to attack us.

In today's challenging fiscal climate, it is more important than ever that every dollar spent on national security be linked to results. Our safety depends on the strategic funding of programs and technologies that provide us with valuable defenses and measurable outcomes. This bill demands that those criteria be met.

As chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, I'm pleased to see that this bill provides appropriate funding for our frontline efforts, reins in wasteful spending, and ensures that tax dollars are accounted for by enacting important reporting requirements for the Department.

I will soon introduce a cybersecurity bill defining the Department's role in ensuring the real-time flow of information to protect our Nation's critical infrastructure, data, intelligence, and financial systems. This bill provides the necessary funding needed for DHS to fulfill its important cybersecurity mission.

I recently introduced H.R. 1417, the Border Security Results Act, requiring DHS to implement a strategy to gain operational control of our borders. The appropriations bill presented here today supports a strong commitment to secure our borders by providing over $350 million to the Border Technology account and supports the refinement and adaptation of proven technology needed to monitor the border and support our boots on the ground.

The bill provides for an additional 800 CBP officers, $387 million for ICE operations, and funding for ICE's 34,000 detention beds, despite the administration's plan to reduce that number and release hundreds of dangerous criminals into our communities.

It also restores cuts to our Coast Guard, which will strengthen our interdiction efforts in the Western Hemisphere.

And, finally, the bill applies lessons learned from the recent Boston attacks. For example, the bill rejects the President's proposed 39 percent cut to Bombing Prevention programs, and increases funding for visa security and overstay enforcement programs by $10 million.

This bill reflects the right priorities and insists on accountability from DHS. It will help to ensure that America is safe, secure, and protected; and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I support passage of H.R. 258, the Stolen Valor Act of 2013 and H.R. 1073, the Nuclear Terrorism Conventions Implementation and Safety of Maritime Navigation Act of 2013. I was not present during votes in the House of Representatives on May 20, 2013 at the time these two bills came to the floor for a vote but would have voted in favor of their passage.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I want to first thank Mr. Rogers, Mr. Ruppersberger, Mr. Thompson, and all the staff for their real-time collaboration over the last several days, very late night hours, to get this amendment to perfection, and let me just say thanks again for that.

Mr. Chairman, I strongly encourage support of this amendment. Cyber threats that the United States faces are real and immediate, and the key to addressing these cracks in our cyber defenses lies with bridging the gap between government and industry. My amendment helps do just that.

This amendment would direct the Federal Government to conduct cybersecurity activities in a real-time, coordinated, and integrated way so that there is shared situational awareness across agencies to protect the Nation from cyber attack. This amendment would designate an entity within the Department of Homeland Security as the civilian Federal entity interface to receive cyber threat information from the private sector. This is an important improvement and provides an additional layer of review for information sharing procedures by a robust civilian privacy office in order to ensure Americans' civil liberties are protected.

Additionally, another important improvement to the underlying bill by way of this amendment is designating an entity within the Department of Justice as the civilian Federal entity to receive cyber threat information from the private sector related to cyber crime.

This bipartisan amendment improves the underlying bill and addresses concerns raised by privacy groups. These changes ensure that DHS and DOJ will serve as points of entry for those seeking to share cyber threat information with the Federal Government.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers), the chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

We have no more speakers. I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Let me just say this: when it comes to this issue, particularly, which we know is one of the greatest threats that the United States faces right now, and that's the threat of cyber attacks, this is not a Republican-Democrat issue. It's really an American issue.

And with all due respect, this does provide, I think, the balance between security and civil liberties; and it provides the civilian interface to the private sector to protect our critical infrastructures that are already under attack by countries like Iran, China, and Russia.

So I think that, if anything, the recent events in Boston demonstrate that we have to come together as Republicans and Democrats to get this done in the name of national security. In the case in Boston, they were real bombs, explosive devices. In this case, they're digital bombs, and these digital bombs are on their way.

That's why this legislation is so important. That's why it's so urgent that we pass this today. For if we don't, and those digital bombs land and attack the United States of America, and Congress fails to act, then Congress has that on its hands.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank my fellow Texan and friend, Chairman Smith, for his support, Ranking Member Johnson, and Dan Lipinski, my cohort on this bill. We passed this in two prior Congresses, and this is our third attempt. Let's hope the third time will be a charm.

For most of us around the country, it is hard to think of anything else other than the terrorist attack in Boston yesterday. It is a solemn reminder of the threats that we face. While the attention of the American people is focused on the physical attack that occurred during the Boston Marathon, I think it is important that we as leader in this Chamber be frank with the American people about the virtual threat of a cyber attack against our national and economic security interests. We must be vigilant against both.

The United States faces several daunting challenges at this moment in history, including emerging threats that we must as a Nation be prepared to face head on. Congress is often blamed for not rising to the occasion by being too reactive to events or failing to act at all. I'm determined, as my colleagues are, that this Congress tackle head on the problem of our vulnerable cyber defenses and bolster our security in cyberspace.

Last month our country's top intelligence officials told Congress that the U.S. is vulnerable to cyber espionage, cyber crime, and outright destruction of computer networks, both from sophisticated government-sponsored assaults from countries like China and Iran, as well as criminal hacker groups and cyber terrorists. We know that foreign nations are conducting reconnaissance on our critical infrastructures and utilities, including our gas lines and water systems and energy grids. If the ability to send a silent attack through our digital networks falls into our enemies' hands, this country could be the victim of a devastating attack. Last December, Iran attacked the state-owned Saudi Aramco with the goal of stopping Saudi Arabia's oil production. Additionally, this year Iran conducted multiple denial of service attacks on major U.S. banks. And just last year, an al Qaeda operative issued a call for electronic jihad against the United States, comparing our technological vulnerabilities to that of our security before 9/11.

Yet while these threats are imminent, no major cybersecurity legislation that would help protect us has been enacted since 2002. Quite simply, we are not prepared to meet the threats of the 21st century.

This act improves coordination in government, providing for a strategic plan to assess the cybersecurity risk and guide the overall direction of Federal cyber R&D. It updates the National Institutes of Standards and Technology's responsibilities to develop security standards for Federal computer systems to ensure computer hygiene and processes for agencies to follow.

Our bill also establishes a Federal-university-private-sector task force to

coordinate research and development, improves training of cyber professionals, and continues the much-needed cybersecurity research and development programs at the National Science Foundation and NIST.

This bill has been endorsed, as the chairman stated, by leading industry groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Tech America. Most importantly, this bill is fiscally responsible. It is not being paid for with any new money since it is intended to work within the boundaries of funds authorized and appropriated to NSF and NIST. I'm confident that this legislation will advance the work these agencies are doing to bolster our domestic cybersecurity, as much as I'm confident that this Congress will finally address in a meaningful way the urgent need to pass this bipartisan cybersecurity legislation at that time. So I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to commemorate the 34th anniversary of the enactment of the Taiwan Relations Act.

Since the end of World War II, the United States and Taiwan have fostered a close relationship that has been of enormous strategic and economic benefit to both countries. When the United States shifted diplomatic relations from Taiwan to the People's Republic of China in January 1979, Congress moved quickly to pass the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) to ensure that the United States would continue its robust engagement with Taiwan in the areas of commerce, culture, and security cooperation. With President Carter's signature on April 10, 1979, this important and lasting piece of legislation became the law of the land and served as the statutory basis for U.S.-Taiwan relations going forward.

After 34 years, the TRA still stands as a model of congressional leadership in the history of our foreign relations, and, together with the 1982 ``Six Assurances,'' it remains the cornerstone of a very mutually beneficial relationship between the United States and Taiwan. Through three decades marked by momentous social, economic, and political transformations, Taiwan has remained a trusted ally of the United States that now shares with us the ideals of freedom, democracy and self-determination. The foresight of the TRA's drafters in providing that ``the United States will make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services . . . to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability,'' and affirming ``the preservation and enhancement of the human rights of all the people on Taiwan'' as explicit objectives of the United States, has contributed in large measure to make Taiwan what it is today--a vibrant, open society governed by democratic institutions.

Though the people of Taiwan now enjoy fundamental human rights and civil liberties, they continue to live day after day under the ominous shadow cast by over 1400 short- and medium-range ballistic missiles that the People's Republic of China (PRC) has aimed at them. The PRC persists in claiming Taiwan as a `renegade province,' refusing to renounce the use of force to prevent formal de jure independence, even codifying its right to military action via passage of the so-called ``Anti-Secession Law'' on March 14, 2005. The United States Congress strongly condemned the ``Anti-Secession Law'' in House Concurrent Resolution 98, passed on March 16, 2005.

The TRA affirmed that the United States' decision to establish diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China was based on the expectation that the future of Taiwan would be determined by peaceful means. Furthermore, it stipulates that it is the policy of the United States ``to consider any effort to determine the future of Taiwan by other than peaceful means . . . a threat to the peace and security of the Western Pacific area and of grave concern to the United States.'' The unambiguous and principled stance contained in these provisions has been instrumental to the maintenance of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait for more than thirty years, in spite of the growing military threat posed by the PRC.

I therefore invite my colleagues to join me in commemorating the 34th anniversary of the TRA, to further underline our unwavering commitment to the TRA and our support for the strong and deepening relationship between the U.S. and Taiwan.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a dear friend and great leader in this body: Science Committee Chairman Ralph Hall, who just became the oldest known House member to cast a recorded floor vote. I am honored to serve on the Science Committee with the Chairman, and I have seen first hand his dedication not only to America's scientific endeavors, but also to our country and the great state of Texas.

Chairman Hall was born in Rockwall County, Texas, a place he has represented in Congress since he was elected in 1980. He was an aircraft carrier pilot in the Navy from 1942-1945 and received his law degree from Southern Methodist University in 1951. In the 1950s, he served as Rockwall County judge and in the 1960s he served in the Texas state senate. During this time he was also a successful business leader in Rockwall County.

He brought his strong sense of leadership and service to the U.S. House of Representatives, where he has faithfully served since Ronald Reagan was elected president. As House Science Committee chairman, he has been a leader promoting science, technology, engineering, and math education. He has worked to ensure that sound scientific principles are the bedrock of any related public policy decisions being made. He has put a priority on research and development to ensure that America remains competitive. And he has been a leading proponent of America's space exploration program.

In addition to all of his professional achievements, Chairman Hall has a great sense of humor. Congress can be a place of intense political maneuvering and infighting, and he always brings levity to tense situations with his wit and charm. He endears his colleagues to him on both sides of the aisle.

It is with great pride today that I congratulate my friend and colleague, Ralph Hall, on his distinguished career; his service to our country; and his leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives. This body is better because of his service, and I wish him many more years of success and happiness.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5913) to create an independent advisory panel to comprehensively assess the management structure and capabilities related to the Department of Homeland Security and make recommendations to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the management of the Department, as amended.

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

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

I rise today in support of the DHS Accountability Act of 2012.

Congress has an important opportunity to make the Department of Homeland Security a more effective and efficient organization. The purpose of this bipartisan legislation is to create an independent advisory panel to conduct a top-to-bottom examination of deficiencies in the Department's management structure and capabilities. It follows six subcommittee oversight hearings examining corruption, low morale, inefficiency, and waste of taxpayer dollars, and comes almost 10 years since the inception of DHS.

I appreciate the strong support of the ranking member of the Homeland Security Oversight Subcommittee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Keating), as an original cosponsor of this bill.

As the third largest Federal Department, DHS has more than 240,000 employees and an annual budget of $60 billion. It's transformation, according to the GAO, is critical to achieving its Homeland Security mission; however, excessive bureaucracy, waste, ineffectiveness, and lack of transparency have hindered its operations and wasted taxpayer dollars. Mismanagement at the Department is a threat to the security of our homeland.

Since 2003, GAO has designated the transformation of DHS has high risk because the Department had to transform 22 agencies, several with major management challenges, into one Department. Failure to effectively address the Department's management risks could have serious consequences. DHS remains on GAO's high-risk list. While GAO has conducted numerous audits of specific DHS programs, a comprehensive management assessment of the Department has yet to be conducted.

Our hearings and GAO findings conclude that DHS has made some progress but is still dysfunctional in several areas. The Department continues to face challenges in acquisition management, human capital, integration of financial data, and IT. In August, my subcommittee released a report outlining how the Department's management failures, related to a variety of acquisition programs, have wasted taxpayer dollars and had a serious impact on our ability to protect the homeland. The report's findings show why such a panel is needed to help fix the Department's shortcomings.

GAO's recent work also identified areas of duplicative effort. For instance, GAO found agencies are paying for risk assessments that are not being completed while simultaneously conducting their own assessments. Employee morale also remains one of the lowest in the Federal Government. Additionally, there are examples of Border Patrol agents accepting bribes, theft by airport screeners, and immigration officers complicit in fraud. These deficiencies cannot continue.

Based on the findings of these hearings and GAO reviews, I have doubts that the Department can carry out its core mission of protecting the homeland if the problems persist. These issues of corruption, waste, duplication, and abuse of power are all symptomatic of deeply rooted flaws in the Department's management. I believe it will take a dedicated team of independent investigators to identify the root causes and recommend concrete changes. A top-to-bottom management review is necessary because the current management team is not getting the job done.

The DHS Accountability Act of 2012, as amended, will create an independent eight-member advisory panel appointed by the legislative and executive branches to comprehensively assess DHS management structure and capabilities. It will require the panel to make recommendations to improve DHS's efficiency and effectiveness, and it will require an interim report sent to Congress 1 year after the panel's selection, with the final report due 2 years after its inception.

The panel will possess subpoena power, the authority to conduct hearings, and receive expert witness testimony. The panel's recommendations will help make DHS a leaner, smarter, and more effective organization and ferret out duplicative programs and offices.

Fellow Members, this legislation is our opportunity to take action, and I urge you to support the DHS Accountability Act of 2012.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to support this bill, and as I have no further speakers, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and concur in the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 915) to establish a Border Enforcement Security Task Force program to enhance border security by fostering coordinated efforts among Federal, State, and local border and law enforcement officials to protect United States border cities and communities from transnational crime, including violence associated with drug trafficking, arms smuggling, illegal alien trafficking and smuggling, violence, and kidnapping along and across the international borders of the United States, and for other purposes.

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

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

I rise today in support of H.R. 915, the Jaime Zapata Border Enforcement Security Task Force Act. This bill, which will codify Border Enforcement

Security Task Force units, was named to honor the memory of slain Immigration and Customs Enforcement Special Agent Jaime Zapata.

In 2011, Special Agent Zapata and his associate, Special Agent Victor Avila, were ambushed on a dangerous stretch of highway in Mexico by the ruthless Zeta drug cartel. The vehicle that the two special agents were traveling in was forced off the road by the heavily armed thugs. Once the vehicle had come to a stop, the cartel members forced the doors open, fired their weapons at point blank range, and tried to drag away Special Agent Zapata, who fought back and was able to re-lock the doors. Special Agent Zapata tried to explain to the men that he and Special Agent Avila were U.S. diplomats. The gunman responded to his plea with bullets. Special Agent Zapata then heroically drove himself and Special Agent Avila away from the scene and to safety.

Investigators later found more than 80 individual bullet casings at the scene of the crime. By nothing short of a miracle, Special Agent Avila survived the ordeal. However, Jaime Zapata did not.

Border Enforcement Security Task Force units are comprised of DHS and other Federal, State, and local law enforcement personnel. They coordinate efforts to enhance border security and they mitigate threats posed by transnational crime, drug trafficking, arms smuggling, illegal alien traffic, violence, and kidnappings. These units will leverage the experience of personnel from the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the United States Customs and Border Protection, the United States Coast Guard, and other DHS components, as well as other Federal agencies, State, local, and tribal and, when appropriate, foreign law enforcement partners. With the increasing violence in Mexico and with the growing resourcefulness of vast criminal networks operating along the border, this type of interagency response is critical.

The men and women who have selflessly dedicated themselves to protecting our borders deserve this protection. Jaime Zapata paid the ultimate price, and I've made it a personal mission, along with my colleague from Texas (Mr. Cuellar), to help ensure that no more brave men and women are lost to the violence along our southwest border. In addition to drug cartels freely moving across the border with drugs, cash, and weapons, the growing presence of Iran and Hezbollah in Latin America are also a threat. We do not have the luxury of sitting idly by while those looking to do us harm continue to enter the United States illegally.

I would like to thank my friend and colleague Representative Cuellar for introducing this vitally important piece of bipartisan legislation. I would also like to thank Senators Lieberman and Collins for taking action on this bill.

H.R. 915 honors Special Agent Jaime Zapata by making sure that those who serve as he did have the tools they need to secure the border.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have no more speakers and I'm prepared close, so I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, just on a point of personal privilege, Mr. Cuellar and I will be embarking at the end of this week to head down to Mexico City to the President of Mexico's inauguration. I agree with my colleague that our relationship with Mexico is vitally important and the idea that the BEST teams, Border Enforcement Security Teams, have provided an invaluable service on the border. In terms of confiscating cash and weapons going south into Mexico, they have been extremely successful; and if anything merits additional resources, it's this program. I can't think of a better program to name after Jaime Zapata.

I will also say that on the several occasions that I have met with Agent Avila and his family, it has been very emotional to see someone who has come back almost from an operation of war, if you will, who has been shot at by the Los Zeta cartel members, almost going through a PTSD-type situation, a very, very emotional experience; and I wish Agent Avila and his family the best in their recovery. He is a very brave, brave man and soldier. And also to the family of Jaime Zapata, we honor you today with this bill and please know that you are always in our thoughts and in our prayers.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a good and decent man, a man of God and a man of faith, a man who has devoted his entire life to the service of his fellow man. Father Bud Roland, whom we affectionately call Father Bud, is our guest chaplain today and is the pastor of St. John Neumann Catholic Church in Austin, Texas.

A native of Amarillo, Father Bud was ordained a Roman Catholic priest in January 1999. He was inspired to convert to Catholicism by a loving and generous man in Amarillo named Jordan Grooms who also inspired scores of others to go into the priesthood.

I am thankful that this man impacted Father Bud, who has gone on to shepherd so many with great love and great leadership. Father Bud is revered, admired, and loved by all whose lives he has touched. It has been a great privilege to call him my pastor, and everyone who knows him experiences the true message of Christ. In his words, in his deeds and, above all, in his heart, his example is a beacon of light which draws us all closer to the Creator.

I am reminded of Romans 8:28, which says:

We know that for those who love God all things work

together for good, for those who are called according to His

purpose.

We are blessed, and the world is a better place because Father Bud was called according to His purpose.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Captain William Andrew Lott of Leesburg, Florida, my uncle, who passed away earlier this month. A native of Dallas, Texas, Captain Lott flew combat missions in Korea and Vietnam, serving 34 years in the United States Navy in both hot and cold wars. He flew three different types of carrier-based aircraft including the A-1 Skyraider, the F-8 Crusader and the F-4 Phantom. He spent the equivalent of six years of his life at sea, amassing thousands of hours of flight time in three different combat aircraft, serving four tours of duty in Vietnam, and surviving ejections from crippled aircraft three times. He served proudly as not only a fighter pilot, but also as the Commanding Officer of both Fighter Squadron Forty One and the Naval Air Facility in El Centro, California. During his illustrious career, Captain Lott was the recipient of many awards and commendations including the Meritorious Service Medal, Air Medal, and Navy Commendation Medal.

He was also an outstanding mentor to both the junior enlisted and officers under his command, with one former subordinate commenting, ``He was a great leader and mentor, just like a Navy fighter pilot his timing was always on target; he knew when a junior officer needed direction and was always compassionate when doing so. He was not afraid to do what was right even in the face of adversity.''

His Public Works Officer at El Centro noted, ``the leadership style he passed on to me stayed with me. It was his guidance that pushed me on to be Operations Officer in Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 62 and to later become Commanding Officer of Naval Mobile Construction Battalion 7. In fact, when the civilian construction world called me, it was because of Captain Lott I chose to stay in longer as I wanted to command just like him.''

Captain Lott leaves behind two sons, Randall and David, and a nation grateful for his distinguished service.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate two important anniversaries that are coming up this July 14th in relation to our close friend and ally: the country of Taiwan.

Since the end of World War II, the United States and Taiwan have fostered a close relationship that has been of enormous strategic and economic benefit to both countries. When the United States shifted diplomatic relations from Taiwan to the People's Republic of China in January 1979, Congress moved quickly to pass the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) to ensure that the United States would continue its robust engagement with Taiwan in the areas of commerce, culture, and security cooperation. On April 10, 1979, this important and lasting piece of legislation became the ``Law of the Land'' and has since served as the statutory basis for U.S.-Taiwan relations going forward.

After 33 years, the TRA still stands as a model of Congressional leadership in the history of our foreign relations, and, together with the 1982 ``Six Assurances,'' it remains the cornerstone of a very mutually beneficial relationship between the United States and Taiwan.

These ``Six Assurances'' were designed by President Reagan to further clarify U.S. policy toward Taiwan (in particular to the sale of arms to Taiwan,) to reiterate our commitment to Taiwan's security under the TRA and to reaffirm our position on Taiwan's sovereignty. It also stipulated that we would not pressure Taiwan to enter into negotiations with the PRC.

This coming July 14 marks the 30th anniversary of President Reagan issuing said Six Assurances in 1982. It also marks the 25th anniversary of the lifting of martial law in Taiwan in 1987.

Martial law was promulgated in Taiwan on May 19, 1949 by Chiang Kai- shek's Chinese Nationalist government. Its end 38 years later marked the longest imposition of martial law by a regime anywhere in the world. Even after the end of martial law, tight restrictions on the people of Taiwan's freedom of assembly, speech and the press remained in place. Nevertheless, July 14, 1987 set the stage for a momentous process of democratization in Taiwan that continues to this day.

Over the past three decades, Taiwan has remained a trusted ally of the United States that shares with us the ideals of freedom and democracy. However, the people of Taiwan continue to live day after day under the ominous shadow cast by over 1400 short and medium-range ballistic missiles that the People's Republic of China (PRC) has aimed at them. The PRC persists in claiming Taiwan as a ``renegade province,'' refusing to renounce the use of force to prevent Taiwan's formal de jure independence.

Mr. Speaker, I invite my colleagues to join me in commemorating this July 14 the 30th anniversary of the Six Assurances and the 25th anniversary of the lifting of martial law in Taiwan, to further underline our unwavering commitment to the people of Taiwan and to affirm our support for the strong and deepening relationship between the U.S. and Taiwan.

Mr. Speaker, as a former Federal prosecutor at the Department of Justice, I do not take these proceedings lightly. Above all, those at the Department cherish their integrity. Mr. Speaker, that integrity has now been impugned.

This is not about politics. It's about pursuit of the truth and justice. The definition of contempt is the willful disobedience to or open disrespect for the rules or orders of a court or legislative body. This definition falls squarely within the facts here.

When insiders revealed the government's role in Operation Fast and Furious, the Department of Justice falsely told Congress that whistleblowers weren't telling the truth. As Congress fulfilled its oversight obligations and tried to get to the bottom of how guns were put in the hands of Mexican drug cartels, ultimately killing Border Patrol Brian Terry, this administration refused to turn over crucial documents that would shed light on this. Instead, they asserted executive privilege at the eleventh hour, calling into question the validity of the privilege itself and at the same time demonstrating that communications were held at the highest levels in the government. In fact, the wiretaps, we all know, are approved at Main Justice.

Mr. Speaker, this Attorney General needs to be held accountable. The Terry family, the families of the Mexican people who have been slain, and the American people deserve no less.