Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, with a record deficit and national debt, now is the time for Congress to practice fiscal discipline, even where funding the war on terror is concerned.

While I have supported our troops and funding the rebuilding and reconstruction efforts along the gulf coast, I could not bring myself to support recent emergency funding legislation that left this House of Representatives at some $92 billion, including many elements that the President of the United States thought were unnecessary.

Well, if things were bad before, they just got worse. Madam Speaker, the Senate is working on the emergency supplemental bill, and it is now at $106.5 billion and rising, including such unrelated measures as $3 million for southern and eastern Kentucky tourism and $900,000 for Dartmouth College, to name two.

Let us support funding the war on terror and support the families and communities affected by the hurricanes that hit the gulf coast, but let us do it in a fiscally responsible way. This legislation has become a fruit basket of spending unrelated to our war efforts and Katrina; and I say plainly, Mr. President, veto this bill.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 736) expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that legal action in Afghanistan against citizens who have already converted or plan to convert to other religions is deplorable and unjust.

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

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

Madam Speaker, we come into this Chamber fresh back to work from a March recess period where Members of Congress, like millions of Americans, reeled from a story emerging from our new cherished ally, Afghanistan. It was a story that was deeply disturbing to average Americans, and even using that phrase himself, to the President of the United States of America. It was the story of a man who was facing the death penalty merely for the reason that he had converted from Islam to Christianity, and he was facing prosecution and possible execution in a nation that the American soldiers and the American people had liberated and continue to liberate in Operation Enduring Freedom.

It is about this case that, while it is resolved, still raises profound and important questions that we gather here today and bring this resolution before the Congress.

Madam Speaker, I am also very humbled today by the support of the distinguished chairman of the International Relations Committee, who gave me the privilege of managing the time today on this resolution. There has been no stronger voice for human rights and religious liberty in the world in this Congress throughout his career than Chairman Henry Hyde, and I am honored to stand in his stead today.

I am also deeply humbled by the active participation, both in this debate today and in the development of this resolution, of the ranking member of the House International Relations Committee, a man I have come to deeply admire for his passion for human rights, human dignity and religious freedom and all of the Bill of Rights liberties that we cherish being manifest around the globe, Mr. Lantos from California. The support of these two giants of this institution, along with the support of a number of our other cosponsors, highlights the importance of this debate that we undertake today. For while in the case of Abdul Rahman, this man has been freed under circumstances that still remain somewhat opaque to the American public at this hour, while Abdul Rahman has been freed, the freedom of religion is still behind bars in Afghanistan. And so today, Madam Speaker, in H. Res. 736, this Congress, through its Members, and the American people, will condemn in the strongest terms the enforcement of laws against apostasy.

We will request the President to continue to work with the Government of Afghanistan to establish better protections for religious minorities, including converts to minority religions, and to enhance human rights protections in Afghanistan. And we also will respectfully call on the Government of Afghanistan and especially President Hamid Karzai to continue to conform all Afghan laws at every level to Afghanistan's international human rights treaty obligations, thereby protecting Afghan citizens who have converted or may plan to convert to other religions from prosecution.

This is an important moment. It is an important dialogue, and I am grateful to have played some small role in it.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, Congressman Tom Lantos is a tough act to follow, and I am tempted sorely to say amen and yield back. But I will share a few brief observations on H. Res. 736.

I had the honor of traveling as an American Congressman to Afghanistan in December of 2004. Prior to my departure, I was eager to see this newly minted democracy, a democracy won by the bravery of the American soldier and coalition forces, and to meet the people of Afghanistan, to see the good work being done by their people in Kabul and beyond.

During that visit, I had the honor of meeting privately with President Hamid Karzai. He is an affable, approachable, and humble man whom I came to view, as many others have, as the indispensable man of this new, democratic Afghanistan. President Karzai proved his worth again when, as a direct result of his intervention, justice was brought to the case about which we gather today, when Abdul Rahman was released from prison. But while I am relieved that by virtue of President Karzai's personal engagement Abdul Rahman has been freed, religious freedom in Afghanistan is still behind bars.

The American people today have the luxury of looking upon recent events in Afghanistan through the eyes of people far removed from the volatile days of the beginning of our own Republic, and we must be careful what prism we look through when we seek to remove the speck from our neighbor's eye. We are far removed from the events unfolding over 3 years following ratification of the U.S. Constitution, the establishment of protections under our own Bill of Rights.

Unlike the American people today, President Karzai and the people of Afghanistan find themselves at the very beginning of a long and arduous journey of democracy, a democracy within

which I fear the value of religious freedom is still suspect by many and the protections of religious freedom are still vague. And I want to acknowledge that and acknowledge that about which we speak today; we speak with charity to a fledgling democracy that we are anxious to support.

But, Madam Speaker, when the Loya Jirga in Afghanistan approved the constitution, they were explicit in stating, as Mr. Lantos just observed, basic human rights protections. And as stated in this resolution, the constitution of Afghanistan ``affirms that the people of Afghanistan are `for creation of a civil society free of oppression, atrocity, discrimination, and violence and based on the rule of law, social justice, protection of human rights, and dignity, and ensuring the fundamental rights and freedoms of the people.' '' So reads the constitution of Afghanistan.

Article 7 of that same constitution of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan provides ``the state shall observe the United Nations Charter, interstate agreements, as well as international treaties to which Afghanistan has joined, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,'' which does, I might add, Madam Speaker, include the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion and even the freedom to change one's own religion or belief.

Like House Resolution 736 says, today the Congress will call upon the Government of Afghanistan, and especially President Karzai, to continue the good work of conforming Afghanistan's laws to Afghanistan's international human rights treaty obligations, thereby protecting their citizens who have made a decision of conscience, a decision of the heart as between one religion or another, to be free from prosecution.

Madam Speaker, I implore respectfully the people of Afghanistan to continue to work through this difficult issue. It is a process through which our Nation worked for 200 years before our Nation was founded; and our struggle toward a more perfect Union remains the ongoing American struggle. Vigorous debate is important within a democracy, but recognition of fundamental, inalienable rights, especially the right to freedom of conscience and freedom of thought, is the wellspring of every other liberty.

Like many Americans fearful of the dangerous chain of events a case like Abdul Rahman's could unfurl, I see religious freedom as a clear, inalienable right and a right that is key to their success and the successful relationship between our two countries.

Thomas Paine said it well, ``That which we obtain too easily we esteem too lightly.''

I do not believe that the people of Afghanistan attained democracy too easily, and I do not suggest in this resolution that they take it too lightly. I believe the Afghan people have fought long and hard and at extraordinary personal cost in decades of struggle for their own freedom and independence. This is why I strongly believe that they should fight even more fervently to protect the rights and freedoms that so many Afghanis have died before experiencing.

Madam Speaker, those who die in the cause of freedom never die in vain, for they light the flame of freedom and instill its care to generations that follow. This generation of the people of Afghanistan is a noble generation, a generation of opportunity, and they have a solemn duty of fanning the flame by protecting the fundamental rights of their country like the freedom to believe and practice a religion of one's own choosing.

Madam Speaker, in this resolution, it is my hope that we would not send a message of condemnation but a clear message that, despite the grave concerns the American people have raised, seeking protections for religious minorities, the American people still remain committed to working in partnership and solidarity with President Karzai and the people of Afghanistan as they bring about a more perfect union for their people, a union that reflects the fundamental liberties for which the American soldier and coalition forces fought in tandem with freedom-loving people in Afghanistan to win. And it is in that spirit that we bring this resolution today.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Neugebauer for, after a very short period of time in Congress, stepping forward in this case and in other cases with substantive legislation that reflects the conservative values that he came to Washington to represent, and does so with no small amount of courage and common sense.

As we look at this behemoth emergency supplemental, Mr. Chairman, I still want to express appreciation to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and the chairmen of the appropriate subcommittees. I do believe, as is evidenced by the courtliness demonstrated on the floor today, that we are not subject in this case, or any other case, to bad people but to a bad process. As this Congress undertakes to change the way we spend the people's money, this behemoth legislation is again an argument for budget process reform.

To the Neugebauer amendment, I must begin by saying Hurricane Katrina breaks my heart. I have grieved for the families who have lost loved ones and lost their precious resources and communities in the wake of this storm. I have supported Katrina funding in the past. And in working with colleagues to offset its cost, I will support Katrina funding in the future, but I cannot support adding Katrina relief to an emergency military bill.

The American people know that Hurricane Katrina funding and military spending are apples and oranges. As the author of this amendment suggests as well, the President of the United States knows this, having sent a bill to fund Katrina to the Hill separate from a bill to fund the war on terror. Rather than this legislation being focused on a disciplined measure to fund our military priorities, it has in a sense become a fruit basket, as supplemental bills often do. Spending that, while it may be worthwhile, belongs in the regular order of the legislative process in this Congress.

We need to get back to saying that emergency spending should just fund emergencies; and military emergency spending should fund military emergencies. Let us separate support for the war on terror and our support for the families and communities affected by Katrina. Let us support the Neugebauer amendment, and let this Congress work its will independently to the war on terror and our desire to be there for the families and communities affected by Hurricane Katrina.

Mr. Speaker, I especially thank the gentleman from Oklahoma for yielding time, inasmuch as I rise today with a heavy heart having to oppose the rule before the House.

It is a rare occasion indeed where I or any Member would stand to oppose a rule produced by our Rules Committee. I simply believe I cannot support a rule that asks Members to choose between supporting our troops and fiscal responsibility, and this is such a rule.

Mr. Speaker, we have an $8 trillion national debt, a debt that has grown by $3 trillion and debt ceiling which may be increased, even in the coming weeks, to nearly $9 trillion. Our record deficit in nominal terms set a 1-month record just a few short weeks ago. We have to put our fiscal house in order. And that means even as we go about the business of funding the war, and funding the ongoing critical reconstruction efforts in the gulf coast, we must do so in a manner that reflects a fundamental commitment to fiscal restraint.

House conservatives lobbied consistently over the last several weeks to allow for this bill to come in the form of two pieces, a vote for our troops and a vote for Katrina. And the legislation we will have before us, though there will be a stripping amendment, will very likely result in a unified bill not giving Members that choice.

But the reason I rise mostly in opposition of the rule is because there is no amendment that is being allowed under a waiver of the rules that will permit us to offset even the cost of a part of this bill through budget cuts. And I simply believe that in this day and age of record deficit and debts, it is absolutely vital that Members of Congress be able to register their commitment to fiscal discipline while we fund the Nation's priorities.

It is for that reason that I was hoping that the Rules Committee would see their way clear, as they have with other aspects of this bill, to waive the rules that prevent legislating in an appropriations bill. In fact, my understanding is that the LIHEAP funding in this bill, in and of itself, is the result of a waiver. We have waived the rules many times to increase spending in the Congress. It would be a welcome change if we waived the rules to cut spending and continue the process of putting our fiscal house in order.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling) who joins me in opposition to this rule.

Mr. Speaker, the Constitution of the United States reads in part that Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of the press. This freedom represents a bedrock of our democracy by ensuring the free flow of information to the public. But, sadly, this freedom is under attack.

Over the last few years, more than a dozen reporters have been issued subpoenas and questioned about confidential sources. In response to this alarming trend, last year I introduced the Free Flow of Information Act, a bill designed to protect reporters' rights to keep sources confidential.

I am particularly pleased today to rise to announce to the House that the

House Judiciary Committee, under the chairmanship of Jim Sensenbrenner, will be holding committee hearings on a Federal media shield law. I can't think of a more appropriate time to announce a hearing on this bill than during what is known as National Sunshine Week. This is a week where newspapers all across the land celebrate the importance of openness in government.

The Free Flow of Information Act strikes a proper balance between the public's interest in free dissemination of information and the needs of law enforcement. I urge my colleagues to cosponsor the Free Flow of Information Act. I commend the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee for this important step forward, and I close with Daniel Webster's missive that ``the entire and absolute freedom of the press is essential to the preservation of government on the basis of a free constitution.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton).

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House of Representatives passed the Child Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act of 2005, and I am a strong supporter of the legislation. I hail its passage. But title VI of this legislation is drawn from a bill that I introduced in the first session of the 109th Congress.

My legislation is known as the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 2005. And as the title states, the intent of my legislation is to prevent American children from becoming victims of pornography. Every one of us knows that the fuel that fires the wicked hearts of child predators is child pornography and it must be confronted in America.

Every day in this country, children are sadly exploited in pornographic enterprises, sometimes by those closest to them, believe it or not, in their homes; sometimes by commercial producers. In the home, children are forced to pose for pornographic pictures or act in pornographic videos, sometimes by family members and even friends and caretakers and other trusted individuals. Sadly, our resources in the law enforcement community inform us that these pictures and videos are posted on the Internet or surreptitiously spread to sexual predators. In the commercial arena and in Hollywood, as our cultures become more and more youth oriented and sex has become more and more prevalent, we must ensure that children are not being used in the production of prurient material and provide law enforcement with the tools to prosecute those who exploit children.

A main tenet of my legislation is the language that will fix a technicality known as home pornographers, to get at the first problem that I just described. Home pornographers have used this loophole to evade Federal prosecution in child pornography cases. These individuals will use digital cameras, Polaroid cameras, video cameras to make pornographic images of children, download them and distribute them on the Internet. My legislation first and foremost makes it clear that Federal prosecutions of home pornographers may proceed in Federal Court because their activities impact on interstate commerce.

Another element of my bill, which has become in many ways more controversial, is the addition of a new section of the criminal code, section 2257A, which adds a recordkeeping requirement that will force people in even in the entertainment industry to keep records of the names and ages of their subjects, along with proof of their identification, when they are engaged even in simulated sexual activity on screen. Anytime Hollywood uses a simulated sex act in a soap opera, a cable television show, a movie, or other production, a record must be kept to show that a child was not used even in the creation of a simulated sex act.

Heretofore, the law has only required that such records be kept in the cases of hard-core pornography, where actual sex was being performed and recorded for entertainment value. But if a child is used in a simulated sex act, the impact of such abuse on that child is, in many ways, Mr. Speaker, just as real as it would be had the production involved actual sexual contact. Therefore, my bill requires these records be kept for simulated sex. Because by doing so, certain bad actors in the entertainment industry will be deterred from using children.

Also, my bill goes a step further by requiring that records be kept even in the case of what is known as lascivious exhibition. Once again, no child should be used in either nude pictures or sexually explicit materials or even in activities that have a prurient interest. This is, again, the type of images that fuel the flames of the wicked hearts of child predators and should be stopped.

Finally, the legislation expands the ability of investigators and prosecutors to pursue the people who are used to distribute child pornography. These distributors also will be required to follow these new recordkeeping provisions, and this will provide law enforcement with a powerful tool against them as well.

Providing law enforcement with the tools to combat child pornography contained in my legislation is a much-needed and overdue step that must be taken to protect our children from those in society who have no decency and no shame.

I also commend those legitimate producers of entertainment products in the United States of America, with whom we have had dialogue and with whom we have worked in the development of this legislation. It is not my purpose in any way, Mr. Speaker, to suggest that those that are involved in the legitimate entertainment industry in this country have anything to do with the illegitimate industry that is pornography in America. Nevertheless, it is important that even in Main Street Hollywood America, that we ensure that children are not used even in the creation of entertainment materials that simulate sex acts, and our legislation will create the recordkeeping to prevent just that.

I hail the passage of the Child Pornography Prevention Act as a part of the Child Safety and Violent Crime Reduction Act. It is time to protect our kids, and yesterday this Congress took a great step toward that goal in entertainment in America.

Madam Speaker, with record deficits and a national debt at nearly $8 trillion, it is time to level with the American people: we are not living within our means here in Washington, D.C.

Today, House conservatives will unveil our budget proposal for 2007. We are calling it Contract With America Renewed. Contract With America Renewed is a balanced Federal budget based on the budget passed by the House of Representatives in 1995 and was part of the Contract With America.

Now, while not every Member of the Republican Study Committee endorses every proposal in this budget, House conservatives believe that this Republican Congress should return to our 1994 roots of fiscal discipline and reform.

By enacting the Contract With America Renewed, we will balance the Federal budget, cut wasteful government spending, end outdated programs, while we protect Social Security and the President's tax cuts and provide for the national defense. We will do all of this while we actually reform entitlements to meet those obligations for future generations.

The American people know that unbridled government spending threatens our future and our freedom. They long for leaders who tell it like it is and are honest about the choices we face. The men and women of the Republican Study Committee who will unveil the Contract With America Renewed today are such leaders and these are such choices.

Mr. Speaker, today the Congress will send to the President of the United States the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act. Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner and other members of the Judiciary Committee and the conference committee are to be commended for their effort in putting together a bill that balances the liberty and security interests of the American people.

This is an issue that is not just theoretical for me, Mr. Speaker. I not only

serve on the House Judiciary Committee, but I was here on September 11, and I served on the committee as we built the PATRIOT Act in the immediate days following that national tragedy. That is why making 14 of the 16 provisions of the PATRIOT Act permanent is a critical element of ensuring the security of the American people, and putting safeguards on the two remaining provisions is evidence of a careful balancing act that has been accomplished in a bipartisan way.

We must equip law enforcement and intelligence officials with the tools necessary to protect our Nation from terrorist attacks. We must also safeguard the civil liberties of the American people to fulfill the vision of freedom.

For that reason, I urge my colleagues, with gratitude to our leadership, to move this PATRIOT Act to the President today.

Madam Speaker, later this afternoon we will consider additional reauthorizing amendments to the PATRIOT Act. The PATRIOT Act Conference Report is a balance between liberty and security. Chairman Sensenbrenner and those of us serving on the House Judiciary Committee dedicated ourselves to achieving this end. The additional safeguards that we will agree to today will further enhance the safety and security of the American people, and I enthusiastically support that. It is time, after two extensions and a debate worthy of the high standards of American democracy, that we send the PATRIOT Act to the President for his signature.

We all lived through September 11th. I was here at the Capitol that day. I saw the evil of our enemies written in the smoke rising above the Pentagon. And we are reminded yet today that their desire to do such violence in our homeland and in the homeland of our allies is real.

Since September 11th, we have seen attacks on buses and subway cars in London, attacks on commuter trains in Madrid, hotel bombings in Amman, and nightclub bombings in Bali. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al- Zawahire have spoken recently in videotapes expressing their desire to bring further terrorist destruction upon America. There is no doubt that we are under an extreme threat each day. However, there also is no doubt about America's determination to protect itself.

Just recently the President recounted how a planned al Qaeda attack on an office tower in Los Angeles was thwarted, thanks in part to the tools provided under the PATRIOT Act. The information sharing provisions of the PATRIOT Act also have enabled investigators to break- up terror cells in Portland, Oregon and Lackawanna, New York. Thwarting terrorist attacks such as these at home is accomplished by the hard work of the men and women in the law enforcement and intelligence communities. But, it also is done by making sure that these brave men and women have available to them the powers necessary to do the job, such as those in the PATRIOT Act.

For that reason, making permanent 14 of the 16 expiring PATRIOT Act provisions is so important. The two remaining provisions, Section 206 which authorizes roving wiretaps used by law enforcement to perform surveillance on terrorists or spies who throwaway their cell phones and change locations frequently and Section 215 which authorizes the FBI to ask the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Courts to issue an order for business records of terrorists to be used by the FBI in its investigations, are extended for 4 years.

We must equip law enforcement and intelligence officials with the tools necessary for them to protect Americans from terrorist attacks. We also must safeguard the precious civil rights and liberties that make our lives so free and fulfilling. We are doing both today. Madam Speaker, our solemn duty is to protect Americans from terrorists and safeguard their civil liberties, and today we fulfill that duty by passing this bill and sending the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act to the President to sign.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to personally congratulate Dick Johnson and Fred Klipsch, two individuals inducted into the Central Indiana Business Hall of Fame last week. These business and civic leaders are being recognized with this high honor for achieving success and contributing to the Indiana business community.

Dick Johnson exemplifies the entrepreneurial spirit that has made Indiana great. He graduated from Indiana University and started a petroleum distribution company in 1957 with a $10,000 loan co-signed by his father. In the beginning, wife Ruth and children Rick and Jenny helped out by preparing all invoices for mailing. Johnson Oil Company grew to be one of the largest independent gas distributors in the country with 200 Bigfoot stores employing 1,500 people.

Dick went on to build multiple companies from scratch, starting with very little capital to build a significant enterprise. A generous philanthropist, he and Ruth have given over $1 million to his alma mater alone.

I am proud to say that Dick has roots in my own hometown of Columbus, where he has never stopped giving back to the community. He has received numerous awards, including Columbus Community Service Award, 1997; IU Annual Distinguished Entrepreneur Award, 1994; and Columbus Small Business Person of the Year, 1988.

Another hometown hero, Fred Klipsch is the model of the successful American businessman. From humble blue-collar beginnings to the blue suits of the boardroom, he made the transition without losing the ethics and values with which he was raised.

Along the way, Fred acquired and managed several companies. Perhaps the most well-known firm is the one that bears his name: loudspeaker manufacturer Klipsch and Associates.

Managing multi-million-dollar companies didn't keep Klipsch from volunteering his services. He has been very active at Purdue University and just retired from a term as president of the Educational Choice Charitable

Trust, an organization that gives scholarships to inner-city children to attend private schools.

Fred has also worked hard to reposition the state Republican Party and is still Republican National Committeeman for the State of Indiana.

Once again, my congratulations to 2006 Central Indiana Business Hall of Fame Laureates Dick Johnson and Fred Klipsch.

Madam Speaker, millions of Americans are troubled by recent revelations concerning privately funded travel, and Congress, in my judgment, should ban privately funded travel until a system of prior approval can be established within the framework of the House Ethics Committee.

While private travel permits Members of Congress to expand their knowledge of issues affecting the Nation and the world without burdening taxpayers, recent revelations have served to undermine public confidence about this practice, and I believe it should be suspended until new safeguards can be put in place to ensure accountability and transparency. Congress must take bold action to restore the confidence of the American people in the integrity of our national legislature.

I commend Speaker Hastert and Chairman David Dreier for offering a bold vision of ethics reform and urge my colleagues to join me in supporting their efforts today.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning on the last day of Black History Month to congratulate Chandler Boys, Brynden Danner and Tristen Horton. These three fine students from Anderson, Indiana were recently named winners in the Ike Weatherly Essay Contest.

Ike Weatherly was a school board member and respected community leader in East Central Indiana. The Essay Contest held in his honor is part of the curriculum to help students better understand the achievements of African-Americans in our Nation's rich history.

Chandler, Brynden and Tristen wrote carefully crafted and insightful essays detailing the accomplishments of three of American history's Black leaders. I had the pleasure of speaking with each of them when they appeared on the ``WHBU Morning Show with Leland Franklin and Bret Busby'' last week.

Chandler Boys of Eastside Elementary wrote about Medgar Evers, a 1950s civil rights leader and Army veteran who taught the importance of education, religion and hard work.

Brynden Danner of Liberty Christian School wrote about the struggles faced by Charles Cooper, the first Black athlete drafted by the Boston Celtics.

And Tristen Horton of Erskine Elementary wrote about Lonnie G. Johnson, an Air Force veteran and NASA scientist who is noted as the inventor of the super soaker water gun.

Mr. Speaker, I again congratulate Chandler, Brynden and Tristen for their fine work in honoring America's Black leaders and wish to submit their essays into the Congressional Record.

Medgar Evers

(By Chandler Boys)

Medgar Evers was born on July 2, 1925 in Decatur,

Mississippi. Medgar would grow up in the Depression of the

1930's. His father worked in a sawmill. His mother was a

laundress. He was the youngest of four children. In their

home they believed in education, religion, and hard work.

Medgar went to all black schools. Medgar and his siblings had

to walk a long way to school. They did not have many school

supplies. Their schools had few teachers, many students,

small classrooms, and old books.

In 1942, Medgar joined the United States Army. He joined

the Army to see the world. He was in World War II. He fought

in France and Great Britain with a segregated group. When he

returned home from the war he registered to vote. But angry

whites wouldn't let him.

Evers returned to school on the G.I. bill. He finished high

school and college. He met his wife, Myrlie Beasley, during

this time. During school he was elected into many student

offices and joined many sports teams.

In December 1954, he was elected to be the NAACP state

field secretary. His family moved to Jackson. Myrlie was made

the secretary. Evers faced many challenges. He investigated

racial murders and cases of abuse

of black victims. He tried to convince local youth to get

more involved. Statewide membership of the NAACP chapters

almost doubled from 1956 to 1959.

On June 12, 1963, Medgar Evers was shot in the back in his

driveway. He was coming home. He died later that night. On

June 22, 1963 Byron Beckwith was arrested for shooting Evers.

Beckwith had two trials with all-white juries. They ended

with a hung jury. In February 1994, Beckwith was found guilty

and sentenced to life in prison. Beckwith died there. Medgar

Evers was a hard working man. He was loved very much by his

family.

Mr. Speaker, it is said that Washington does two things well, nothing and overreact. And both have been in high relief in the last week in our Nation's Capital.

Americans learned just a few days ago of the approval by the Committee on Foreign Investment of the United States that a company owned by the United Arab Emirates had purchased the ability to operate ports in six major American cities.

Those on the do-nothing side argued very quickly that the contract had been vetted in the CFIUS program, a 30-day perfunctory review. They argued that no more review was necessary, despite the fact that the UAE had been the home to the banks that funneled money to the 19 hijackers on 9/11 and, in fact, had endorsed the Taliban government in Afghanistan before that attack.

On the overreact side, many in Congress, especially, it seems, Democrats in the Senate, called for a complete cancellation of the contract without regard to the fact that since 9/11 the United Arab Emirates has been a strong ally of the United States, providing a safe harbor for more than 500 of our ships to be refueled and readied.

For my part, I joined those in Congress who called for a thorough investigation of this contract in the next month and a half and in an agreement reached this weekend between the administration, Congress, and the companies involved of a 45-day review to go forward.

But in order for this contract to be moved forward, the American people must be absolutely certain that doing so will not compromise the methods and practices that the Coast Guard, Customs, and Homeland Security employ to protect our ports.

Mr. Speaker, the headlines announcing one scandal after another have grieved the heart of the American people and have eroded public confidence in our national government's commitment to governing of the highest moral caliber.

The Bible says that righteousness exalts a nation, so the converse must also be true. So Congress is preparing to fight for ethics reform, not because such scandals hurt our party but because they do hurt the Nation. But as we reform our rules of ethics we will do so with the understanding that these are but symptoms of the core problem. The real scandal in Washington, D.C., is runaway Federal spending.

Fiscal and moral integrity are inseparable issues. So it is not enough to change the way lobbyists spend their money, Mr. Speaker. We must change the way Congress spends the people's money. Only by marrying budget reform and ethics reform can we hope to restore the confidence of the American people in the fiscal and moral integrity of our national legislature.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

I rise in strong support of the rule and of the Deficit Reduction Act. It is an important first step toward restoring public confidence in the fiscal integrity of our national government.

2005 will be remembered as a year of good intentions, bad disasters and promises kept. Congress early last year adopted the toughest budget since the Reagan years and, under the leadership of the Appropriations Committee, reported one bill after another on time and on budget.

And then came Katrina, 90,000 square miles of our gulf coast destroyed and $60 billion appropriated in just 6 days. After the storm, many here in Congress thought that fiscal discipline was the last thing that Congress should be thinking about, preferring to raise taxes or increase the national debt instead of making tough choices, but not this majority.

Seeing that a catastrophe of nature could become a catastrophe of debt, dozens of House conservatives challenged our colleagues to offset the cost of Hurricane Katrina with budget cuts, and I will always believe that that effort sparked a national debate that led to this moment.

The American people wanted Washington to pay for Katrina with budget cuts, and Washington got the message. In direct response to the call for cuts, Speaker Dennis Hastert unveiled a bold plan which we consider today to find cuts from every area of the Federal Government, and the Hastert plan, with nearly $40 billion in entitlement savings, becomes a reality.

So, Mr. Speaker, for Americans troubled by a rising tide of red ink here in Washington, D.C., 2006 begins with reason for optimism, as this Congress demonstrates the ability to make touch choices in tough times to put our fiscal house in order.

I urge all my colleagues to support the Deficit Reduction Act.