Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, earlier today the California Supreme Court threw aside the voice and the express will of millions of California voters by overturning California's State law that banned same-sex marriage.

Effectively this ruling allows same-sex couples in our Nation's most populous State the right to marry and affords them all the privileges that go along with this sacred union. And I say that rulings like this are one of the reasons why the institution of marriage is crumbling before our very eyes. And I, for one, am very sad to see this happen.

The main issue is whether the status of marriage will be determined by judges or by the American people. I'm extremely concerned about how activists use the courts to legislate on something that has been settled in American law for more than 200 years. Furthermore, the people of California made it abundantly clear back in 2000 that they reject same-sex marriage.

Then comes along four judges who apparently believe that they're wiser than over 4\1/2\ million voters in their State. Proposition 22 got over 61 percent of the vote; yet it was dismissed by four lone dictators.

I condemn this ruling in the strongest possible way. I condemn it because the court is legislating from the bench. I condemn it because it is a reprehensible action that is not consistent with history or with common sense.

This lunacy is precisely the reason why a Federal constitutional amendment is needed to protect traditional marriage. This decision will undoubtedly become the platform for spreading this unfounded ruling across the Nation.

On the Federal stage, there's a constitutional remedy for Federal judges

that are involved in this type of activist behavior and legislating from the bench. Every single Federal judge takes an oath to uphold the Constitution. When they fail to do so and let their own whims and ideological positions interfere with applying the Constitution, not interpreting but applying, these judges have failed to fulfill their term of good behavior, and they should be fired by impeachment.

Likewise Californians that are outraged, like I am, should be up in arms and should take action to initiate a referendum to pass a State constitutional amendment to enforce their will and overturn these judges' despicable opinions, and these judges deserve to be censured or sent home for bad behavior.

``Whereas, whenever kings, instead of protecting the lives and property of their subjects, as is their bounden duty, do endeavor to perpetrate the destruction of either, they thereby cease to be kings, become tyrants, and dissolve all ties of allegiance between themselves and their people . . . '' This was stated by Benjamin Franklin in his preamble to a congressional resolution.

Mr. Speaker, legislation should never attempt to seize land from the public and restrict its use. Property rights are a central institution of western civilization, and they're an essential ingredient in freedom. The Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 is a violation of the basic principles that our Founding Fathers set out to prevent. Congress continues to ignore, neglect, disparage, and not understand its importance.

The Federal Government already owns nearly 650 million acres of land, half of which experience severe maintenance problems and backlogs. This legislation threatens recreation, user access, grazing, mining, oil and gas exploration, and many other public uses. By restricting access to land for exploration, this legislation is limiting the potential of the economy and directly interfering with America's entrepreneurial drive.

Do we know for certain that fossil fuels are not contained in these lands? At a time when gas is nearly $4 a gallon, the very last thing we should be doing is permanently restricting access to this land.

Government abuse is increasing on all levels, and a vote for S. 2739 is a vote for an increase in the size and scope of government. We must protect America's right to utilize and to prosper from the land.

John Dickinson, a signer of the Constitution, declared: ``Let these truths be indelibly impressed on our minds: that we cannot be happy without being free; that we cannot be free without being secure in our property; that we cannot be secure in our property if, without our consent, others may as by right take it away.''

God's Word, the Holy Bible, says: ``In the multitude of words, sin is not lacking.'' Mr. Speaker, there's a lot of sin in this bill.

Stop increasing government control and regulation of American property owners and vote ``no'' on S. 2739.

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

Madam Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk that has been made in order by the rule.

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

I am offering this amendment because I am concerned about the intent and the function of title X and title XI. I would like to seek some clarification from the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, my friend from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), if he would join me in a discussion.

Mr. Oberstar, with respect to title X, I'm concerned that if we transfer 80 percent of the funding for the Coast Guard Administrative Law Judge functions to the National Transportation Safety Board, the Coast Guard will not be able to manage the appeals process of any of the truck, rail, and port workers who might be denied the Transportation Worker Identification Credential, or TWIC, card. My concern is that we will create a bottleneck in the appeals process, effectively slowing TWIC appeals and preventing American workers from gainful employment while appeals are adjudicated.

Can you assure us that when this bill emerges from conference that you will make sure that the Coast Guard retains sufficient resources to address the expected TWIC appeal workload resulting from the million workers that are applying?

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

I thank you for that assurance. It's certainly a huge issue, as far as I'm concerned, as we deal with Homeland Security and TWIC cards. So I greatly appreciate the chairman's assurance of that, and I'm looking forward to that bipartisan effort. We, unfortunately, don't have enough bipartisanship and bipartisan effort here; so I thank the chairman for that.

Reclaiming my time, Madam Chairman, with respect to title XI, I'm concerned that the current language might give the appearance of elevating the Coast Guard's marine safety mission above its other critical missions, such as search and rescue, national defense, and port security.

Can you confirm for me, Mr. Chairman, that it is not your intent to elevate this one mission above other missions that are critical for the Coast Guard?

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Certainly that's important.

And reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his assurances, and I appreciate his willingness to engage in this dialogue to clarify the intent of these two titles and his commitment to work with me in conference to ensure that the Coast Guard has the authorities and resources it needs to secure our homeland.

I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

Will the gentleman yield?

My concern was that the GAO is going to investigate any improprieties within the current Administrative Law Judge System, and that GAO report hasn't been completed. This just seems premature. That is what drew my concern, and I appreciate the chairman's assurances.

With that, I have got one more statement.

Madam Chairman, I submit for the Record two letters, a statement from the Commandant of the Coast Guard, as well as the letter from TSA stating their concern on these titles.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, United States Coast

Guard,

Washington, DC, April 23, 2008.

Hon. James L. Oberstar,

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Oberstar: On April 18, the Committee filed

with the Rules Committee an amendment in the nature of a

substitute to H.R. 2830, that would be retitled the ``Coast

Guard Authorization Act of 2008.'' During numerous meetings

and staff-level discussions over several months, we have

described how a number of provisions that appear in this

amendment would compromise organizational efficiency and

operational effectiveness, diminish my command and control,

and ultimately reduce the Coast Guard's effectiveness in

carrying out its safety, security, and stewardship missions.

We have expressed these and other concerns in Department of

Homeland Security views letters concerning earlier bill

language. The amendment also contains provisions neither

previously shared nor discussed with the Coast Guard.

One provision requiring that the Coast Guard provide

security around liquefied natural gas terminals and tankers

is contrary to the existing assistance framework, at odds

with accepted risk management practices, and would divert

finite Coast Guard assets from other high-priority missions.

I recommend a broader discussion of security measures for all

extremely hazardous cargoes. In the Statement of

Administration Policy on H.R. 2830, the Administration has

stated that, if the bill is presented to the President with

this provision, his senior advisors would recommend that he

veto the bill.

Among the others is one that, while similar to the

Administration's proposal, fails to authorize the President

to appoint officers to positions of importance and

responsibility to accommodate organizational change in the

future (Admirals and Vice Admirals). Others, primarily

involving our important marine safety mission, would

statutorily fix the designation and duties of other senior

Coast Guard officials and officials at all levels of command,

and prescribe inflexible personnel qualification

requirements. Still other provisions would diminish the Coast

Guard's capacity to adjudicate merchant mariner licensing

matters efficiently and effectively and support other vital

security adjudications of the Department of Homeland Security

(Appeals to National Transportation Safety Board). Still more

provisions would prescribe contracting and acquisition

practices for the Deepwater program, thereby increasing the

cost of, and adding delay to, the Deepwater acquisition

process, as well as circumventing the review and approval

authority of Coast Guard technical authorities (Coast Guard

Integrated Deepwater Program).

Among the new provisions is one that dramatically alters

admission procedures for the U.S. Coast Guard Academy. While

I have discussed Academy admissions several times with

Chairman Cummings and we agree that our process should yield

successful cadets and reflect our diverse society, the

proposed Congressional nomination process deserves full

discussion and deliberate consideration. Other new provisions

that affect how we execute our missions deserve similar

scrutiny. Conversely, the bill omits the Administration

proposal for much needed enhanced authority to prosecute

those who would smuggle undocumented aliens into the United

States by sea (Maritime Alien Smuggling Law Enforcement Act)

and the Administration's proposal to protect seafarers who

participate in investigations and adjudication of

environmental crimes or who have been abandoned in the United

States (Protection of and fair treatment of seafarers).

Over the last year in the course of hearings, personal

meetings with you, and regional forums with industry, as well

as in my public statements, I have assured you and the public

that we share a common objective: a robust marine safety

program suited to meet the evolving demands of industry and

the marine public. I am already taking aggressive steps to

right the balance between our marine safety mission and our

other vital responsibilities, and improve the effectiveness,

consistency, and responsiveness of our marine safety program,

consistent with the framework I presented to you last

September. Legislation such as the provisions I describe

above was unnecessary to start this process. As I have stated

on several occasions, I am the Commandant and am accountable

to you to produce the changes needed to improve program

performance.

Including these provisions and others in an Authorization

Act that would otherwise be welcome compels me to strongly

oppose the bill.

Sincerely,

T.W. Allen,

Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commandant.

Madam Speaker, is America giving visas and diplomatic immunity to terrorist sponsors who wish to destroy our country?

The United States has designated North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Syria, and Sudan as state sponsors of terrorism. These terrorist-sponsoring states are actively engaged in espionage against America.

Two months ago reports surfaced that Cuba is placing top intelligence operatives known as ``ambassador spies'' in key embassies worldwide to gather information and provide intelligence to America's enemies. In July of last year, Germany expelled an Iranian diplomatic for attempting to acquire nuclear components for the Islamic Republic's nuclear program. In December of 2006, South Korea indicted five people on charges of spying for North Korea for allegedly passing on ``national secrets'' such as U.S. troop movements, among other things.

Let me give you another example. Three years in a row, in 2002, 2003 and 2004, personnel from the Iranian Mission to the United Nations were actually caught, they were actually caught, photographing and videotaping the New York subway and other popular landmarks in New York City. Who knows what other things they were involved in that we do not know about?

These are not our friends, and yet we allow them to use the United Nations as a cover for their activities. Over 6,600 visas have been issued to diplomats, representatives, and other individuals from state sponsors of terrorism for the past 5 years. Some of these individuals with diplomatic immunity have already been expelled for spying, or in diplomatic terms, ``engaging in activities inconsistent with their duties.'' Most of these individuals would not be otherwise allowed into our country.

U.S. Public Law 357, enacted in 1947, clarified the United Nations Headquarters Agreement of November 21, 1947. In section 6, this law states that ``nothing in the agreement shall be construed as in any way diminishing, abridging or weakening the right of the United States to safeguard its own security,'' and in particular, ``completely to control the entrance of aliens into any territory of the United States other than the U.N. headquarters district and its immediate vicinity.''

The bill I am introducing with my colleagues today, the LIMITS Act, Limiting the Intrusive Miles of International Terrorist Sponsors Act of 2008, would limit the vicinity for state sponsors of terrorism to a half-mile radius of the U.N. complex. Half of a mile is more than enough space for personnel to obtain lodging, food and other necessities, even medical care, and it will be easier and more cost effective for the U.S. intelligence community and law enforcement to monitor suspected individuals when necessary.

Current mileage restrictions are far too lax to be effective. Some individuals from countries designated as state sponsors of terrorism are permitted to travel within a 25-mile radius of Columbus Circle in New York City. That is 50 miles from end to end which is a horrendously large area to effectively monitor hundreds of terrorist sponsors. And yet some countries designated as state sponsors of terrorism have no mileage restrictions at all.

This is a vulnerability that we have ignored for way too long. Foreign espionage against the United States has increased in recent years. In the case of the United Nations, there is no trade-off or reciprocity. All of the risk is borne by the United States. Why are we continuing to ignore this problem?

It is time to level the playing field by providing a consistent, strict standard for personnel from state sponsors of terrorism, while simultaneously easing the burden on the U.S. intelligence community and the law enforcement community responsible for ensuring our safety.

I urge all of my colleagues that have not done so already to cosponsor this bill, the LIMITS Act of 2008. I encourage the leadership of the House of Representatives to bring this bill to the floor for a vote as soon as possible. Our security depends upon it.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to ask for us Americans to consider what is going to be best for the people of this country and stop pandering to the environmental wackos.

We have to develop alternative sources of fuel. We have to tap into our own energy sources. We have to make nuclear energy easier to put in place, to build reactors, and to make it less costly to do so. We need to tap into our own oil sources. If we're going to lower the cost of gasoline, we have to build more refineries. If we're going to lower the cost of diesel fuel, we're going to have to tap into ANWR and off the gulf coast. It's absolutely critical for our economy to do this.

We need to look for alternative sources of energy but we have energy sources here today. Let's go get them.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 204, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Personal Explanation

Mr. Speaker, America is not as secure today as it was just several weeks ago.

The leadership in the House has not allowed the Protect America Act to come to the floor, and, thus, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act has expired.

We cannot monitor what Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan or Pakistan are talking about or his phone calls to Iran or any other place in this world. FISA only monitors phone calls from one foreign entity to another.

The leadership seems more bent on protecting lawsuits than they are in protecting America. I call upon the leadership to let us vote on the Protect America Act so that we can make America secure again.

Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago a beautiful young lady by the name of Julia Smith and her family came to my office. Julia lives in Augusta, Georgia and is a constituent of mine.

This 9-year-old young lady, when she was first born, was covered with bruises. Her parents, of course, were, needless to say, very concerned and they asked the doctor about these bruises. The parents were told that this was just from a result of a difficult delivery.

A short time thereafter, Julia had a little scratch on her face that resulted in bleeding that covered her whole face and, of course, her mom was frantic. The blood tests were normal.

The family took Julia to the Medical College of Georgia, my alma mater. I'm a medical doctor, and so I'm proud of the Medical College of Georgia of doing the testing that was required to bring about the diagnosis of Glanzmann's Thrombasthenia in Julia.

Her mom, Helen, was, of course, very distraught and so she started researching, trying to find out about this very rare disease. The more she searched, the more she realized that there's very little information anywhere. And she started meeting other families all around the country, whose family members also suffered from GT.

With the help of a small grant from a private individual, Helen Smith founded the Glanzmann's Thrombasthenia Research Foundation. And what she's doing is trying to find, certainly, the cure of this disease, but also searching to try to find ways of informing people who have this disease about the disease and help to comfort them. And so it's a research foundation that is extremely needed to try to prevent the disease symptoms which are uncontrollable bleeding, as well as very painful bruising. It's a life-threatening disease.

But Ms. Smith talked to me about this disease. And as a physician, as a Member of Congress, I realized that we really need to bring this disease to the forefront so that she can have some help. She's seeking for recognition. She's seeking for private grants and private funding of her foundation which is very much needed. And hopefully, this young lady, Julia Smith, can live a long and fruitful life, and we can find a cure to this disease. In fact, the researchers say that there's a possibility of finding a cure within a matter of just the next few years.

But without bringing public attention to the disease, Ms. Smith's going to continue to struggle to try to get the recognition that she so richly deserves for this very rare blood disorder.

So that's what this bill is all about. It's to promote the awareness of Glanzmann's Thrombasthenia. March 1 has been chosen as the day to establish the National Glanzmann's Thrombasthenia Awareness Day. This day was chosen to coincide with the date of the fundraiser for the research foundation.

I want to thank Natalie Stroud of my office and my staff for her excellent work on this resolution.

And I urge my colleagues to vote with me on passage of H. Res. 994.

Madam Speaker, I love America, and I cherish the values and principles that America represents. Those values are increasingly threatened today by an erosion of one of the primary bonds that keeps us together, a common language.

Large scale legal and illegal immigration threatens our societal cohesion and America's shared values when arrivals are unwilling to learn English. The current policies of our Federal Government actually enable this erosion when it provides official documents in multiple languages. This eliminates any incentive to learn English. America's genius as a melting-pot Nation has always been promoted by assimilation to a common language, and that language is English.

Today, I am introducing legislation that declares English to be the official language of the United States Government. Under the English As the Official Language Act of 2008, no person has an entitlement to receive Federal documents and services in languages other than English unless required by law. If the U.S. government is generous enough to make an exception, the exception does not create a legal entitlement or precedent to additional services in any other language other than English. This essential legislation will significantly reduce costs to our Federal Government and will encourage new legal immigrants to quickly adopt America's native tongue.

Learning English has always been and will continue to be a key step in achieving the American Dream. I applaud my fellow colleague in the other House, Senator Jim Inhofe, for introducing identical legislation in the Senate, and for his continued leadership on this critically important issue.

Making English the official language of our great land is not just about preserving our culture and heritage. Learning English is an essential step for our Nation's newest potential citizens that they must take if they want to achieve the American Dream. I plead with my colleagues to strengthen America by supporting English As the Official Language Act of 2008.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor and pay tribute to an exceptional athlete and distinguished American, Ben Crenshaw.

Architect, historian, gentleman, all of these words correctly portray Ben Daniel Crenshaw. But perhaps the most fitting description for this great golfer is champion.

The people of Augusta, Georgia, who I represent, and golf fans around the world recognize Ben Crenshaw as one of the finest, most talented golfers on the PGA circuit.

Crenshaw has been a phenomenon on the golf course since childhood, winning his first tournament, the Casis Elementary Open, in the fourth grade. He continued to play through middle school and high school, claiming several championship titles. It was clear then that Ben Crenshaw was on his way to greatness.

He made school history during the 1970-71 academic year at the University of Texas when Crenshaw became the first freshman to capture the individual title during the NCAA tournament at the Tuscan National Golf Club. His outstanding accomplishments and victories that year earned Crenshaw the privilege to be named to the 1971 All American collegiate golf team.

Crenshaw's early achievement set the stage for an extraordinary career. His most notable achievements include being a 19-time winner on the PGA tour, captain of the 1999 U.S. Ryder Cup team whose stunning comeback is remembered as one of the most exciting competitions in that match's history.

And he's also a two-time Masters champion. Many will never forget the emotional scene that played out on the 18th green when, in 1995, Crenshaw clinched his second Masters victory and earned yet another green jacket.

In addition to these accomplishments, he has been a tremendous ambassador for the game of golf, as well as a consummate gentleman and human being.

I had the privilege of being in Augusta on April 7, 2008 before the 72nd Master's Tournament as Mayor Deke Copenhaver awarded Crenshaw a crystal ``key to the city.'' It is an honor for me to pay tribute to a great American golf legend, Ben Crenshaw.

Madam Speaker, today I rise to honor and pay tribute to an exceptional athletic team in my Congressional District of Georgia.

The men's basketball Jaguars achieved what no team had ever accomplished before them at Augusta State University. For the first time in school history, the basketball team advanced to the NCAA Division II Championship Game.

The basketball team played its most successful season with 27 wins in 2007-08. The players gave fans a dazzling performance on Thursday, March 27, as they beat Alaska-Anchorage 56-50 in the semifinals of the Elite Eight. They gave it their all on Saturday, March 29, as the Jaguars battled it out with Winona State University but came up just short of winning the National Championship.

The Tenth Ranked Jaguars have proven the team is among the best in the nation. Under

the leadership of Coach Dip Metress, the Blue Crew played an incredible season that bodes well for the future of the program. Their athleticism and determination put Augusta State in the national spotlight, establishing its team as a national contender. As Augusta State University's representative in Congress, I couldn't be more proud of what these young men have accomplished.

Madam Speaker, I rise today with great enthusiasm to congratulate Ms. Halley Page for receiving the 2008 Georgia Elementary Science Teacher of the Year Award from the Georgia Science Teachers Association. Ms. Page is a science teacher at Fowler Drive Elementary School in the Clarke County School District, which is located in the heart of the congressional district, which I am proud to serve.

Throughout her 23 years as an elementary school teacher, 20 of which have been at Fowler Drive Elementary, Halley Page has been a role model and inspiration to the literally thousands of children whose lives she has touched and influenced. A graduate of Georgia Southern University, Ms. Page holds advanced degrees from the University of Georgia. Her dedication to teaching and her love for science are clear and obvious not only to the students who have had the privilege of having her as a teacher but also to the teachers whom she has befriended and mentored.

Today, Ms. Page spends many hours outside her regular schoolday working with her fellow science and Spectrum teachers throughout the district in developing and implementing a science curriculum that flows and maximizes the potential of every one of her students. Ms. Page has been instrumental in strengthening a partnership between Fowler Drive Elementary and the Richard Russell Agricultural Research Center, United States Department of Agriculture, often hosting USDA scientists who have come into the classrooms to provide our children with real hands- on experience. She also brings in multiple guests throughout the school year which not only excite the students about learning but also gives them an opportunity to learn about the outside world.

Accolades such as this one are not new to Ms. Page. She is a three- time Fowler Drive Elementary School Teacher of the Year--1994-1995, 1995-1996, and 2003-2004--and she also received the 2002 Georgia Marine Educator of the Year awarded by the Georgia Association of Marine Educators. Halley Page is indeed worthy of all of these great recognitions and the congratulations of the House of Representatives.

Also worthy of recognition are the more than 12,000 students who attend over 20 schools that make up the Clarke County School District. With over 19 native languages spoken throughout the district, many students face constant difficulty as they work to achieve their greatest potential. With the help of their teachers, parents, and the support of the community, they are overcoming the challenges and

succeeding. Just this past year, the graduates of the district's high schools received over $2 million in academic scholarships--not including the HOPE Scholarship. They are all to be congratulated for a job well done.

Finally, Madam Speaker, I want to recognize the over 2,000 faculty and staff working tirelessly throughout the school district. Their hard work and devotion to the students of Clarke County are succeeding. I also acknowledge the commitment of Superintendent James Simms and School Board Members Charles Worthy, Chester Sosebee, Denise Mewborn, Vernon Payne, David Nunnally, Sr., Allison Wright, John Knight, Sidney Anne Waters, and Ovita Thornton.

All of these great individuals, most especially Ms. Halley Page, deserve our highest praise and the commendation of the House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Protecting the Second Amendment and Hunting Rights on Federal Lands Act of 2008. This legislation will protect the Second Amendment rights of American citizens and promote hunting activities on Federal lands.

Under current Federal law, land under control of the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been subject to a blanket gun ban, regardless of State law. So I was pleased with the Bush administration's recent announcement that the prohibition of firearms on National Park Service lands, in place since 1983, will soon end.

Currently the laws of 47 States recognize the rights of law-abiding adults to carry firearms for personal protection. The existence of different laws regarding the transportation and possession of firearms has presented a trap for law-abiding gun owners.

It is my hope that these new regulations, when finalized, will provide greater uniformity across our Nation's Federal laws and put an end to the patchwork of regulations that govern the different lands managed by the different Federal agencies. Under this proposal, Federal parks and wildlife refuges will now mirror State firearms laws.

In addition, my legislation would also require that hunting activities be considered as a land use in all management plans for all Federal land to the extent that such use is not clearly incompatible with the purposes for which the Federal land is managed.

I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting the Protecting the Second Amendment and Hunting Rights on Federal Lands Act of 2008.