Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, just one short year ago, the ban was lifted for drilling for oil on the Outer Continental Shelf. We call that the OCS. And that was a good thing. We should be one year closer to all those high-paying jobs. We should be one year closer to that shot in the arm for the American economy. We should be one year closer to American energy independence. But we're not.

Not by a long shot, because, you see, Mr. Speaker, the government still stonewalls offshore drilling. And that's unfortunate for America. Between the OCS and oil shale resources, America could replace all of the oil Saudi Arabia sends us for the next 20 years. And that's a lot of oil.

During that time, we could explore and develop other alternative energies to power our economy in the future. Also, by providing for our own energy with natural gas, solar, oil and nuclear, all of those issues are national security issues, so we won't depend on foreign countries for our energy in the future.

Drilling off of our shore means jobs for Americans right now, real jobs, high-paying jobs, the kind of jobs that support whole families and pay to get kids into college. And it's not jobs on just oil platforms in the gulf. Think about all the other support industries, transportation, food, equipment, parts, insurers, construction and so. These real, high-dollar jobs would give a boost to our economy. These jobs are vital to America's families and to our economy, and it would keep American money in America. There's a real solution right in front of us for job and energy development.

But the government continues to move in the opposite direction. The cap-and-trade national energy tax, now called the climate change bill, will destroy the U.S. energy industry. Millions of jobs that go along with it will also be lost.

It is a national tax on energy consumption. Plus, it won't really help the climate. Instead of taxing energy, we should find more energy and encourage American energy development.

But we cannot drill off of our shores because I guess it will upset the blood pressure of the environmental elites. So, no new drilling.

However, Mr. Speaker, I do have breaking news. The administration does support offshore drilling. According to the Wall Street Journal, the government is loaning over $2 billion in taxpayer money to a Brazilian company called Petrobras. Now, where did the United States, first of all, get that $2 billion to loan to a foreign company? I thought we were broke. How come taxpayer money is going to a Brazilian oil company anyway? Why isn't that money staying here in America?

This Brazilian oil company is drilling off the shore of, not the United States, but Brazil. And are we getting that oil? Well, no, because China has a contract to purchase the hundreds of millions of barrels of oil those Brazilian oil fields will produce with taxpayer money. Isn't that lovely?

Let me explain it this way. Here is a chart. Right here this represents the United States. Of course we have these signs, no offshore drilling off the United States coast. We can't do that. But we are sending $2 billion of American money down to a Brazilian oil company so they can, of course, drill off their shores. And is that money or oil coming back to us? I don't think so. That bag of money is going to China.

Now, this seems a bit strange to me. Why are American taxpayers footing the bill in Brazil without getting the oil or getting the money? Why aren't we expanding our own offshore drilling instead of sending American money to Brazil? Does anybody have the answer to that question? It seems like we should drill off our own coast, keep American money in America and take care of our own energy needs. We have millions of jobs just sitting there waiting to be created off our shores. Drilling on the Outer Continental Shelf and extracting oil shale would provide the much-needed boost to the American economy. And we should stop funding oil-producing countries that support terrorism and the Middle East.

So what are we waiting for? If we would have started a year ago when the ban was lifted, our economy would be better than it is today. We would have had more jobs, jobs, jobs. It is way past the time for us to get started taking care of America. Don't drill in Brazil with American money. Don't take care of China. Drill American and take care of America.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, if a poll is conducted but no one hears about it, does that poll really exist? Sacred Heart University recently found out that five out of six Americans see the national news media as ``very or somewhat biased.'' But you aren't likely to hear about the Sacred Heart poll from the establishment media.

A search of The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and USA Today yielded zero articles about the poll. Network news programs have also intentionally ignored it.

It seems the establishment media believe that if they simply ignore the poll, it does not exist. It's no wonder that almost half of Americans have stopped watching a news outlet because of the media bias. By ignoring a poll that shows their bias, the establishment media has confirmed the poll's results that most Americans believe the national media is biased.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, Iran's rogue regime is getting closer and closer to going nuclear. And if we want to get their attention, we have to do something real: sanction Iran's gasoline imports. That's where Ahmadinejad is vulnerable. The tiny tyrant doesn't have enough oil refineries, and Iran imports 40 percent of its gasoline. We must make it pretty painful to be Iran's gasoline supplier. If we're waiting on the United Nations, that's not going to happen. Russia and Iran are just too cozy, and Russia will probably veto any sanctions. Also, Ahmadinejad's twin terrorist tyrant Moammar Qaddafi and the Libyans have a temporary seat on the Security Council. Libya will never vote to sanction their terrorist buddies. U.N. sanctions are a hapless illusion.

While the world talks, Iran test-fires missiles that could hit Israel, and they soon will have missiles that could hit Europe and the United States. Iran is the number one supplier of terrorism worldwide. A nuclear Iran is not an option. Peace-loving nations should sanction Iran's gasoline imports and encourage the Iranian people to change their reckless regime.

And that's just the way it is.

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

I rise in support of S. 1289, the Foreign Evidence Request Efficiency Act of 2009. I would like to commend Congressman Schiff and Congressman Lungren for sponsoring the companion bill in the House, H.R. 3133.

S. 1289 improves the ability of the United States to assist foreign governments with criminal investigations. Drug trafficking, organized crime and international child pornography rings

utilize a complex web of bank accounts, Internet sites and other techniques to hide their illegal, criminal acts.

These foreign conspiracies often use financial institutions and Internet providers across the globe, including in the United States. Foreign governments enlist the assistance of Federal prosecutors to gather evidence from U.S. companies. These foreign governments routinely do the same for us in their countries.

Unfortunately, this process is not as easy as it may seem. Under current American law, foreign evidence requests must be processed in the district where the evidence resides. So an international fraud scheme that funneled money through a dozen banks across the United States would require assistance from a dozen U.S. Attorney's Offices and Federal courts. This imposes an unnecessary and costly burden on our criminal justice system.

The Foreign Evidence Request Efficiency Act simplifies this process by allowing foreign evidence requests to be streamlined through one single U.S. Attorney's office or perhaps a few offices if necessary. The act amends the Federal criminal code to allow evidence requests to be processed through a court with jurisdiction over the evidence, including where a bank or a communication provider is located. Under current law, only courts with jurisdiction over the offense may grant an order for disclosure of records.

S. 1289 does not change the types of evidence that may be requested by foreign governments nor weaken the procedures for obtaining the evidence. The act reduces paperwork, red tape and bureaucracy for obtaining the evidence. The bill also allows prosecutors to process foreign evidence requests more quickly. Delays in evidence collection can mean the difference between shutting down a criminal enterprise or watching it fade into the shadows.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

We have one, Mr. Lungren, if he gets here, but other than that, he is the only other speaker.

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding. As a former judge, sometimes the bureaucracy gets in the way of justice because of the fact that there are so many entities involved. Streamlining the process in this legislation will allow foreign governments to help us on international organized crime rings, yet protect the dignity of the Constitution as well.

I do not expect that Mr. Lungren will be here, so I would yield back to the gentleman.

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

I rise in support of H.R. 1727, the Managing Arson Through Criminal History Act of 2009, referred to as the MATCH Act. I commend my colleagues from California, Congresswoman Bono Mack and Congressman Schiff, for their hard work on this legislation. My colleagues from California know better than anyone the devastation that arson causes.

The California Station fire has now burned over 160,000 acres, or 251 square miles. The cost for fighting this fire alone stands at $82 million. The price tag is expected to go over $100 million. Eighty-nine homes have been burned and, sadly, two firefighters have been killed. Investigators now believe this fire was intentionally set based upon evidence found near the fire's origin.

Many arsonists begin by starting small fires and then escalate to larger and larger fires to satisfy their excitement. Yet only 17.1 percent of arson offenses result in convictions nationwide. Unfortunately, the evidence needed to convict these arsonists is often destroyed by the fire itself. And as arsonists become more sophisticated in their techniques, identifying and prosecuting them becomes more challenging. Each year, an estimated 267,000 fires are caused by arson. That's right, 267,000. In recent years, arson has been used to burn churches and used by violent activists to protest urban sprawl.

But the ongoing threat remains those who set fires to get a rush and to feed a compulsion. We call those folks ``arsonists.'' Fires have not only caused recent property damage throughout the country and the taking of human lives, not only in California, but this year, two Houston firefighters have been killed fighting fires.

We may never be able to prevent wildfires, but we can implement tools to help prevent arsonists, particularly serial arsonists, from eluding law enforcement and escaping punishment. This will help in capturing them and sending them to prison when convicted.

The MATCH Act creates a national arson registry and requires criminal arsonists to report where they live, where they work and, yes, even where they go to school. In addition, the act requires the national database to include finger and palm print and an up-to-date photograph. The act limits access to information contained in the registry to only law enforcement and fire officials. It exempts juveniles who are adjudicated delinquent from the registry.

The MATCH Act will assist law enforcement officials with identifying and apprehending arsonists, particularly serial arsonists, and ecoterrorists.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield as much time as she wishes to my colleague from California (Mrs. Bono Mack).

We have no other speakers, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 757 honors a National Day of Remembrance for Homicide Victims. Sadly, thousands of lives are lost due to homicide every year in our Nation. Surviving parents, spouses, family, and friends courageously rebuild their lives while searching for answers and closure for the tragic death of someone they cared about.

I want to commend my friend, the gentlelady from Maryland, Donna Edwards, for introducing this resolution. She has a long-time history of working with victims and victims' families, even before she came to our institution, the House of Representatives.

This National Day of Remembrance for Homicide Victims honors the lives of those who are lost to murder. It also commits communities, agencies, and other groups towards the goal of rebuilding the survivors' lives and preventing these tragedies in the future.

Since 2000, more than 114,000 Americans have been murdered in our Nation. It is important we remind survivors, family survivors, that we have not forgotten their loved ones and that they are not alone.

The broad bipartisan support for this day of remembrance demonstrates that we are united in our commitment to comfort sufferers and prevent the violence that leads to these tragedies.

This resolution also brings attention to the disturbing issue of spousal or partner abuse in homicides. On average, three women per day are murdered by their current or former husbands. From 1976 to 2005, more than 64 percent of female homicide victims in the United States were murdered by an intimate partner.

According to the National Institute of Justice, intimate partner homicide has declined significantly in the past 25 years. The NIJ cautions, however, that although these declines are truly significant, the statistics may mask the

important fact that women are substantially more likely than men to be murdered by intimate partners.

Supporting the goals and ideals of a National Day of Remembrance strengthens the resolve of agencies, communities, and families and people in our country against homicides in our Nation.

I urge all my colleagues to support this resolution.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am prepared to close. There are no other speakers.

I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is, Mr. Speaker, a very important recognition that we do, as an organization, as a body, to recognize the fact that throughout this country there are families that have suffered the loss of someone they love and they care about, and it's all because of violence.

As my friend and colleague from Maryland, Ms. Edwards, has pointed out, many times that violence occurs in the home. It starts with verbal abuse, then physical abuse, and then sometimes results in a homicide. And of all places where a person should be safe in our country, it's in their home, whether it's a spouse or whether it's a child. And because of the epidemic, in my opinion, of violence in the home, more and more Americans and spouses especially, suffer those consequences and those consequences lead to their death by the hands of someone that claims they love them.

And it's important that we remember those people who are victims of crime. It's been said that when a murder occurs, the killer steals from the victim everything they were and everything they will be. That's the tragedy. And families of homicide victims never get over it. I know Mr. Schiff, in his experience in the U.S. Attorney's office, and my experience as a criminal court judge and prosecutor, families of homicide victims think about the death of their loved one every day. Not a day goes by that they don't think about it. And they think about it every day forever. That's the tragedy they live with.

So we, as a Nation, need to raise the awareness and the importance of these families and recognize that those people who have lost family members are Americans that need special recognition, special comfort from us.

So I commend my friend, Ms. Edwards from Maryland, for sponsoring this resolution. I am proud to be a coauthor of this resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1333 makes a simple technical correction to Federal law regulating the transportation and shipment of explosives to provide federally recognized Indian tribes the same exemption as Federal, State and local governments. Under current law the Federal, State, and local governments are exempt from permitting requirements for the purchase or shipment of explosive materials, including commercial fireworks.

Indian tribes, however, are not afforded the same exemption under our law. Fireworks have been a part of the practices of the Pascua Yaqui Tribe and the Colorado River Indian Tribes of Arizona for many years. Some of these practices involve cultural and religious beliefs that are very important to the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, for example.

However, these practices in recent years have been inhibited by the requirements of the Safe Explosive Act of 2002, called the SEA Act. The Safe Explosives Act significantly expanded the Federal explosive laws to include requirements that a license or permit be obtained in order to receive explosives. The SEA Act established background checks and expanded the categories of persons prohibited from possessing explosives. H.R. 1333 ensures that Indian tribes across the country will be able to carry on their same cultural and religious practices that they enjoyed with fireworks celebrations prior to the enactment of the permitting requirements.

It's important to protect the rituals of Native Americans and afford Indians tribes the same treatment under the law as Federal, State, and local governments currently enjoy.

So I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, the United States Constitution starts out with the words ``We the People.'' It's right there at the beginning, written large so folks don't miss it. It means that we are a self-governing people. It means that the Constitution is an agreement between the people and the government. It's not an outline of what the government will give people. It's designed to keep government in a box, to keep it under control. Its purpose is to limit what government can do to the people, not the other way around. The Constitution does not live. It does not breathe. It's not an evolving document with constant change of its true meaning. It says the things it says in plain, simple language.

A current Supreme Court Justice told me recently that the Constitution means what five of the nine Justices says it means. Well, that elitist statement may be true as a practical matter, but the writers of the Constitution never wanted five Justices in a dark, damp, secret room to make the Constitution mean what the Judges wanted it to mean. It seems many of the Supreme Court opinions are so twisted with outcome-based decisions that they are the result of the ebb and flow of political and social opinion. The Constitution is not some elusive ideal that changes with time but was written to prevent government, or Judges, from making it mean different things at different times or different things depending on who is in charge, whether it be Judges, Congress, or even Presidents.

There are simple rules for adding to or taking away from the Constitution. There is a high threshold on that process for good reason. The people have to agree to change the Constitution by the complicated amendment process. The Constitution is a self-governing people's agreement with our government, an agreement that says to government that government must stay within these limits or the government violates its contract with the people by disregarding its duty to stay within those bounds of the Constitution.

Now the question to be asked is: Is our government out of control?

As the Constitution is the framework, the Declaration of Independence is our Nation's heart. The Declaration of Independence gave us the justification for establishing this new Nation. The Constitution is the foundation of this new Nation. The Declaration proclaims that our rights come from the Almighty God. They are inalienable. That means our rights cannot be stolen from us by government. We must make sure government recognizes our individual rights. Government can't change what our God-given rights are, and government doesn't give people rights. Government has no rights. Government has power, power that comes from the people because we give our government that power.

Even though it's seldom taught in our Nation's Ivy League law schools, rights are from the Almighty, not from government. If rights are from government, then government can take them away at its whim. Millions of Americans over the centuries have shed blood and even died to put government power in its box, in its place. We are to control government. Government was not established in this country to run roughshod over the people.

There seems to me, now, to be an attack on individual rights by our own government. America's founding as a Nation put an end to the centuries-long notion of ``might and power make right.'' Today, some in this country want to forget about that. Our Founding Fathers called these elites princelings--elite power-grabbers who want to be able to tell us how to live and run our own lives. Some are at the levers of government right now. Might and power does not make right.

Some want government to have the power to control every aspect of our lives. Those that urge a government takeover of health care are a prime example. Government should not have the power over our health, who our doctors are, or what medical procedures are allowed. Government should

not have abusive power over our individual lives. It's really not about health or health care. It's about power, and it's about control, government dictating how we live.

In the name of ``saving the planet,'' government wants to tell us what kind of light bulbs we use or how much water is in our toilets or what type of energy we may or may not use. It doesn't matter if those intentions are good; government does not have that authority or right. It's abusing the power we granted to it.

Our government, in my opinion, is out of control, borrowing and spending and taxing and taxing, doing things it has no business doing for us that it has turned into doing things to us. The American people know that their freedom and liberty are being crushed. Has government broken free of its constitutional restraints?

In town hall meeting after town hall meeting across the country, Americans have made it clear: Leave us alone to live our lives. Liberty over tyranny. Stop spending money we don't have. Government is taking our money in the name of government power. The people have had enough. They do not want to be treated like subjects of government control.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, we have 44 czars in America and the dance card keeps growing. The new czar for the day is the safe schools czar.

Add that to the Afghanistan-Pakistan czar, the AIDS czar, auto recovery czar, behavioral science czar, bailout czar, border czar, car czar, climate change czar, copyright czar, counterterrorism czar, cybersecurity czar, diversity czar, disinformation czar, two economic czars, an education czar, energy czar, food czar, government performance czar, Great Lakes czar, Gitmo closure czar, health care czar, info tech czar, intelligence czar, Latin American czar, Mideast peace czar, Mideast policy czar, pay czar, regulatory czar, religion or God czar, science czar, stimulus czar, Sudan czar, TARP czar, technology czar, trade czar, urban affairs czar, war czar, water czar, weapons czar. And now we have a safe schools czar.

Who are these people, and what do they do? Is this a shadow government?

Since we continue to dance with the czars, it would be nice to know who brought us to the dance.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, there are still terrorists plotting to attack this Nation of ours. Just last week the FBI arrested a terrorist in Dallas, Texas. He drove up to the 60-story Fountain Place glass office building in downtown Dallas. He thought he had made a car bomb and had it all rigged up to blow up the building with the people inside. Media reports say that this Jordanian that was in the United States was illegally in this country.

Law enforcement was on the job, however. The FBI had undercover agents posing as members of an al Qaeda sleeper cell, and they secretly supplied the terrorist with a dud bomb. But he didn't know that. The terrorist parked his dud bomb car in the parking garage, walked a few blocks away, dialed the cell phone number he thought would set the explosion off. It didn't work, and he was immediately arrested. That's good news for the people that were in that 60-story building in Dallas, Texas.

Over the past 2 weeks, terrorists have been arrested in Dallas, Illinois, New York, and Denver. The threats to the United States from jihadists have not stopped.

One way people who want to harm us get here is simply crossing our porous borders, especially the southern border. Now Border Patrol reports that nearly 1,300 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border is not under effective control. The Department of Justice admits that vast stretches of the border are just easily breached. The Government Accountability Office says that three terrorists have been caught at the border; 530 aliens from terrorist countries were stopped at Border Patrol checkpoints just last year. And that's at a checkpoint. What about the hundreds who get through our borders between the checkpoints?

Our government's response to all of this is to decrease the number of Border Patrol agents at our southern border. Beginning in 3 days, they're pulling hundreds of agents off the Southern border. Does this make sense to anyone?

Each year the Border Patrol sets a goal for ``border miles under effective control.'' ``Effective control'' means, in their jargon, when the Border Patrol detects somebody crossing, they expect to catch them.

Homeland Security says the Border Patrol's goal last year was to have only 815 miles of the 8,600 miles of border under ``effective control.'' That's on both the southern and the northern border. Next year the goal is exactly the same: 815 miles under ``effective control.'' That means Homeland Security is not planning to secure one additional mile of either border next year, not one. And, of course, that's good news to people who want to cross illegally into the United States and do us harm.

The southern border is nearly 2,000 miles long. Yet less than 700 miles are what Homeland Security calls secured. Over 1,200 miles are not effectively under control, they say. And their media border guy, Lloyd Easterling, said the Border Patrol could protect the Mexican border with fewer agents. He may be the only person in America that feels that way. He said local police and sheriffs departments were on the job, and they are. But they're overworked, and they're overwhelmed with crime crossing into the United States. They don't have nearly enough officers, and they don't have the money to hire more personnel.

It's the job of the Federal Government to protect our borders. I've been down to the Texas-Mexico border numerous times, and it's no longer a friendly, safe place to be. There are parts of the South Texas border that are so remote that people just walk across every day. We do not know who these people are. We don't know their intentions. And we don't know what they're bringing over into the United States. Not everyone coming into the United States illegally is looking for work.

Instead of decreasing the number of Border Patrol agents, it needs to be increased, and we need to send the National Guard to the border as well. We should also move our military training exercises and operations to the southern border.

Border security is a national security issue, and it's the number one duty of government: national security.

The American people are asking, Why don't we expect and make the government secure our borders? That is a good question. This question has been asked for years, but yet we still have the same results: porous borders. The greatest Nation on Earth secures the borders of other nations but refuses to secure our own border, and the question is why.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, this day, we honor the memory of those whose lives are suddenly violently taken by homicide. Everything a person was or ever will be--stolen by the assassin's hands.

Most of us will never lose a loved one to a violent crime. Most of us never even think about murder. Victims don't wake up in the morning knowing they'll be murdered that day, and for their families, it's the most painful and traumatic thing they can ever imagine. Suddenly, their loved one is gone. What takes their place are images of that violent death and of things left unsaid.

Then comes the police investigation--learning more than any layman wants to know about murder--then the trial if the police capture someone, then crime scene photographs; sitting in the courtroom day by day with the one who stole their loved one's life; the uncertainty, the strain, the verdict. It's not just the one killed who is the victim of murder.

Today, we honor the families who live through the horror of homicide. Families never get over the murder of a loved one. They think about it every day--forever.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 739. I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, Libya is about to get $2.5 million in aid from the American taxpayers. And $200,000 each is marked for foundations run by Omar Qaddafi's two kids.

Omar Qaddafi is an international terrorist. He gave the order for the bombing of the Pan Am jet over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988. And then he led the cheers for the killer when he was returned to Libya. Men, women and children boarded that airplane headed for New York's JFK Airport. A Libyan official checked a suitcase with a bomb in it. The airplane exploded, killing 243 passengers and 16 crew members, mostly Americans. Eleven people on the ground in Scotland were killed when large chunks of the plane fell out of the sky and hit their town.

What are we doing giving this man and his family U.S. taxpayer dollars? Has America lost its way?

The United Nations is starting to look like the bar scene in the Star Wars movies. Murderers, thugs, and terrorists freely roam the halls, and they are asked to speak before the General Assembly. There was a time when the United Nations was a threat to tyrants, but now it seems like it is their home.

Omar Qaddafi said at the U.N. that Lee Harvey Oswald, the person who killed President Kennedy, was an Israeli spy. He called for a civil war in Iraq. He condemned the war on terror in Afghanistan, and he said the swine flu is a biological weapon created in laboratories. Can't tell who he blames that on, however.

Omar also said in his 100-minute rambling rant that we should call the United Nations Security Council the terrorist council, made up of the United States and other nations.

Omar's twin terrorist tyrant, Ahmadinejad, also had some choice things to say at the United Nations this week. The little fella from the desert of Iran said that Israel is committing genocide. He said that capitalism has caused all of the misery in the world. The tiny tyrant also praised himself for his glorious election this year. You know, Mr. Speaker, that is the election where he and his government beat and killed unarmed peaceful protesters that opposed him.

He says the Holocaust is a myth. He wants the destruction of Israel and the United States, and he is building nuclear weapons. Who do you think those weapons are for? And what is the United States' reaction? Well, we canceled our missile defense system in Poland, a defense system that was to protect the United States from intercontinental ballistic missiles from Iran. And our Polish allies think we betrayed our commitment to them and Eastern Europe.

Mr. Speaker, has America lost its way?

And let's not forget Hugo Chavez, the tyrant of Venezuela who railed against the United States. He spoke also at the U.N. He is good buddies with the desert rat of Iran. And a New York district attorney recently said that there is evidence that Venezuela is setting up a Venezuelan missile crisis for the United States. Now isn't that lovely. Why do we send U.S. taxpayer money to the U.N. at all? Twenty percent of U.N. funds come from the United States, and the American public is asking: Why? Why do we finance the U.N. that embraces thugs, dictators, terrorists and everyone who hates America and Israel.

Mr. Speaker, since nobody else over at the U.N. has said it, I will, and I will say this without apology: The United States is the greatest country in the history of the world. We have more freedom and liberty than any people in the history of the planet. We have done more than any other nation to help some of the most ungrateful people around the planet in history.

We should not abandon our missile defense system in Poland. We should reevaluate our financial commitment to the United Nations, and we should never give American money to tyrants of nations in the hope of a blissful illusion of buying peace.

Mr. Speaker, has America lost its way? We shall see.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, September 25th is the National Day of Remembrance for Homicide Victims. On this day, it is important for all of us to reflect on the terrible toll that violence takes on our communities, and for us to reflect on ways to reduce this violence. One type of homicide that is particularly disturbing is when the perpetrator is a partner of the victim. According to the Centers for Disease Control, on average, three women a day are murdered by their current or former husbands. That is three women a day who are killed by the very same man who took an oath to honor and protect them.

This number should be disturbing to all of us. We are not doing enough to keep women safe in their own homes, the very place where we should all find safety and comfort. Too many American women are finding danger, violence, and even death in their own homes.

One-third--yes, that's right--one-third, of all murdered females are killed by somebody they were in a relationship with. That is a staggering statistic. These women are not being killed by a stranger in a dark alley, they are being killed by people they trust, often in their own homes.

To bring attention to this issue, Congresswoman Edwards and I have introduced H. Res. 757, to support the goals and ideals of the National Day of Remembrance for Homicide Victims. It is my hope that this resolution

can help raise awareness about this epidemic of violence, and encourage all of us to realize just how prevalent this is in our communities. The time has come for us all to work together to end this violence.

Mr. Speaker, the circus parade hit the United Nations yesterday. Libya's Omar Qaddafi treated everyone to a 100- minute rambling rant. It seems he thinks President Kennedy's assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, was a spy and working for Israel. He says capitalism is the cause of all the world's problems and the U.N. was founded by terrorist nations like the United States.

The little fella from the desert of Iran, Ahmadinejad, gave a speech that cleared the room. The United States and other diplomats walked out. The tiny tyrant accused Israel of genocide and denies the Holocaust. The dictator praised his own glorious election this summer. You know, that's the one when his government murdered Iranian protestors.

These twin tyrants rant about death, destruction and doom to America and Israel. They preach hate and murder in the name of religion. These two twin threats to world peace cannot be brushed aside as laughable clowns.

The United States must take their hate speech and intimidation seriously. Our Nation must be prepared to defend America from their arrogant, aggressive threats.

And that's just the way it is.