Floor Statements

I want to thank the ranking member for yielding and thank the chairman for bringing this legislation to the floor, and also my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Lungren) who has been helping relentlessly to get some legislation passed to stop this criminal endeavor into the United States.

Mr. Speaker, the drug dealers find new ways to bring this cancer, cocaine, into the United States. And now what they're doing in the hills and jungles of Colombia is they build these fiberglass boats, submarines, that are about 100-foot long that can bring in several hundred million dollars worth of cocaine into the United States. They float them down the river into the Pacific Ocean. Here is one of these vessels here. It is about 100 feet long. It's fiberglass.

These vessels can go all the way from Colombia to the United States without refueling. They are built with stealth technology so they're very difficult to find by our Navy and our Coast Guard. They go very slowly so they can't create a wake. And they bring this stuff into the United States.

The problem is that when our Navy and our Coast Guard find one of these ships on the high seas, these ships have no flag, they're not under any flag of any nation, the crew members on the ship, usually five to six members, will scuttle the submarine. It will sink to the bottom of the ocean, taking with it the cocaine. Then the five or six crew members that are on this submarine have to be rescued by our Navy and then taken back where they came from, usually Colombia or Guatemala or whatever nation they came from. And they can't be prosecuted because there is no crime of the high seas to have one of these in your possession.

And what this legislation does is basically says ``no more.'' You cannot be a crew member of one of these submersible subs and if you are captured, whether the boat is captured or not, you have committed a criminal offense, and now a civil penalty can be imposed on you as well. The Coast Guard tells us that at any given time, Mr. Speaker, there are 100 of these on the high seas working their way to the United States. And it doesn't take much common sense to realize that these same vessels that use and bring in cocaine can bring in other material into this country, things that will do us harm, like explosive devices. And they're so shallow they can go up our ports and our seaways and cause damage. So this legislation is important for two reasons. It is a national security issue. And second, it's a way of keeping that cancer, cocaine, out of the United States. I applaud this legislation to make it a criminal offense and a civil offense to be in possession of one of these subs on the high seas.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding, the ranking member, and I also want to thank the chairman of this committee for bringing this legislation before the House, and, of course, my friend from California, the former Attorney General, Mr. Lungren, for his passion about this issue.

As a former judge and prosecutor down in Texas, I don't like drug dealers, and we see the effect of them throughout the United States.

This submersible vessel, this submarine we are talking about, Mr. Speaker, here is a photograph of it right here. It is 100 feet long. It is made out of fiberglass. It has stealth technology, so it is hard to be detected. It is built so it goes barely below the surface. It travels at a very low rate of speed so it cannot be detected by its wake. And they are made in the jungles of Colombia.

What they do, they float these down the rivers in flood season to the Pacific Ocean, and then this vessel is on its way. Mr. Speaker, it can go all the way to the United States without refueling. It takes several tons of cocaine with it, coming to the United States, bringing that cancer for the profit of the Colombian drug dealers.

What happens is our Navy and other navies, even the Mexican Navy, the Colombian Navy, they have seen these things on the high seas. They carry no flag. They claim no nation. What happens when they are encountered by the Navy or the Coast Guard, the five or six crew members, they jump out the hatch over here and scuttle the submarine so all the dope goes to the bottom of the ocean.

There have been two circumstances when the drug dealers that were on these submarines weren't quick enough. The Navy, the Coast Guard, got there quick enough to take some of the cocaine off, and they are being prosecuted in Florida as we speak. But most of the time they scuttle it, we capture, but really end up rescuing the crew, and then rather than put them in jail, we have got to take them home where they came from and let them go, because it is no crime to possess one of these subs on the high seas.

This legislation makes it a Federal offense to have one of these subs with no flag and sailing on the high seas. When the crew is captured, they could be prosecuted in our Federal courts and go to the penitentiary where they belong.

The U.S. Coast Guard tells us that at any given time, there are 100 of these things on the high seas, all coming to the United States bringing drugs.

As my good friend Mr. Lungren from California has pointed out, that is not just the problem, because they are so shallow, because they are hard to detect, these things can bring in weapons of mass destruction, explosives, and work their way up the riverways of our Nation, going to our ports, like the Port of Houston and some of these other ports, and cause tremendous damage. We want to capture these people on the high seas before they get that opportunity.

Some have said, why don't we just shoot them out of the water as soon as we see them? I guess we are too civilized for that. We want to prosecute them instead.

This is important legislation. It will help our law enforcement guys, the Navy and U.S. Coast Guard, who are doing a tremendous job already in tracking these people, with cooperation from other navies throughout the world. It is time that we make this legislation law.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Conyers for pushing this legislation and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Cohen) for sponsoring this legislation. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, there is a legal presumption in most countries, even Third World countries, that if you accuse somebody of something, you have to prove it, whether civil or criminal. The burden of proof is on the accuser. But that is not so in all countries when it comes to libel and slander.

Take Great Britain, for example. It goes back to when the King ruled the day. If you criticized the King, even if you were right, off with your head. One of the reasons that we formed our own country was the idea of freedom of speech and freedom of press and that is why we put those two fundamental principles first in our Constitution. I have a pocket Constitution that most Members of Congress carry with them, and the first amendment protects the right of a free press and freedom of speech.

What has occurred, though, throughout the courts in Great Britain in a libel case, in other words somebody writes something about somebody else, if the person that is the subject matter doesn't like it, they file a lawsuit in Great Britain, and the burden is on the person who wrote the document to prove it is true. The burden is not on the accuser like it would be in the United States. That applies not only in libel cases but slander cases. And it has taken place especially in books about Islamic terrorism throughout the world.

Writers critical of Islamic terrorists are being sued by wealthy sheiks and Saudi billionaires, specifically Khalid bin Manfouz, who was accused in ``Alms for Jihad'' of financing Islamic terrorists through Muslim charities. What he did, he got mad about the Cambridge University Press, and he threatened to sue Cambridge University Press. What happened in England, which I hope never happens with our press, they got so nervous about it that they started taking all of the books off the shelves, and they started destroying the books. In fact, they sent word throughout the world, if you have this book, ``Alms For Jihad,'' destroy the book. Kind of like the burning of books during World War II under the Nazis. So the Cambridge University Press gave in because the libel laws are different than they are in the United States.

It has also occurred here in the United States with a similar book called, ``Funding Evil,'' written by Rachel Ehrenfeld. What she did was write a book in the United States, published in the United States. But some books, 23, worked their way to England. Here we go again. This author was sued in the courts of England and had the burden of proof to prove that her statements were true. Well, she filed suit against the people who sued her, once again bin Manfouz, and that lawsuit is now pending in our courts.

So our courts are hearing this matter and it is all about the freedom of speech and the freedom of press.

That is a human right. That is a universal right in this world, whether the courts in Great Britain recognize it or not. And it is important that people be free to write the truth and not suffer the consequences from it and certainly not have to prove what they say is true just because somebody objects.

This legislation is good to protect the publishers and writers in the United States that if they are sued in foreign courts, that those judgments will not be upheld unless that law, that judgment would be upheld in courts in the United States.

This is important legislation. I would like to put into the Record an article from the San Francisco Chronicle talking about this entire concept of libel tourism.

[From the San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 29, 2008]

Libel Tourism: Where Terrorism and Censorship Meet

(By Cinnamon Stillwell)

It has become popular for those with competing political

agendas to allege threats to free speech, whether real or

imagined. Yet, there is a very real threat to free speech

that has received little attention in the public sphere. It's

called libel tourism and it has become a major component in

the ideological arm of the war on terrorism.

At question is the publication of books and other writings

that seek to shed light on the financing of Islamic

terrorism. Increasingly, American authors who dare enter this

territory are finding themselves at risk of being sued for

libel in the much more plaintiff-friendly British court

system in what amounts to an attempt to censor their work on

an international level.

The latest case of libel tourism to rear its ugly head

involves the book ``Alms for Jihad,'', which was published by

Cambridge University Press in 2006. Co-written by former

State Department analyst and USAID relief coordinator for

Sudan J. Millard Burr and UC Santa Barbara professor emeritus

of history Robert O. Collins, ``Alms for Jihad'' delves into

the tangled web of international terrorist financing and,

chiefly, the misuse of Muslim charities for such purposes.

Among those the book fingers for involvement is Saudi

billionaire Khalid bin Mahfouz, the former chairman of Saudi

Arabia's largest bank, National Commercial Bank. Bin Mahfouz

has come under similar scrutiny on previous occasions,

including being named a defendant in a lawsuit filed by

family members of victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

He even has a section of his Web site devoted to trying to

refute such charges.

With this in mind, Cambridge University Press lawyers

looked over the manuscript for ``Alms for Jihad'' carefully

before giving it the go-ahead. According to Collins, the

passages involving bin Mahfouz are, in fact, quite

``trivial'' compared to the wealth of information contained

in the book on how such funds are used to finance conflicts

around the globe.

Yet, it is bin Mahfouz's inclusion in ``Alms for Jihad''

that has proven to be the most problematic, for he soon

threatened Cambridge University Press with a libel lawsuit.

Before the suit could commence, Cambridge University Press

capitulated and announced in July that not only was it taking

the unprecedented step of pulping all unsold copies of ``Alms

for Jihad,'' but it was asking libraries all over the world

to remove the book from their shelves. Cambridge University

Press issued a formal apology to bin Mahfouz and posted a

public apology at its Web site. It also agreed to pay his

legal costs and unspecified damages, which, according to bin

Mahfouz, are to be donated to UNICEF.

Authors Burr and Collins, however, did not take part in the

apology, nor were they a party to the settlement, and they

continue to stand by their scholarship. As Collins put it,

``I'm not going to recant on something just from the threat

of a billionaire Saudi sheik . . . I think I'm a damn good

historian.'' The authors were aware that Cambridge University

Press's decision was based not so much on a lack of

confidence in the book as on a fear of incurring costly legal

expenses and getting involved in a lengthy trial. The British

court system is known as a welcoming environment for ``libel

tourists'' such as bin Mahfouz. The Weekly Standard

elaborates: ``Bin Mahfouz has a habit of using the English

tort regime to squelch any unwanted discussion of his record.

In America, the burden of proof in a libel suit lies with the

plaintiff. In Britain, it lies with the defendant, which can

make it terribly difficult and expensive to ward off a

defamation charge, even if the balance of evidence supports

the defendant.''

Bin Mahfouz has indeed availed himself of the British court

system on many occasions, having either sued or threatened

suit against Americans and others at least 36 times since

2002, according to Rachel Ehrenfeld, author and director of

the American Center for Democracy.

Ehrenfeld should know, as her own book, ``Funding Evil: How

Terrorism is Financed--And How to Stop It,'' was also

targeted by bin Mahfouz through the British court system. Bin

Mahfouz sued Ehrenfeld for libel in 2004, soon after her

book's publication in the United States, even though only 23

copies ever made it to the United Kingdom.

Ehrenfeld would not, as she put it in the New York Post,

``acknowledge a British court's jurisdiction over a book

published here'' and a trial was never held, but the court

ruled in favor of bin Mahfouz by default. It also awarded bin

Mahfouz $225,913 in damages and ordered Ehrenfeld to

apologize publicly and to destroy all unsold copies of the

book.

Instead, Ehrenfeld chose to fight back. No doubt aware of

the larger implications at work, she took her case to the

United States and, giving bin Mahfouz a taste of his own

medicine, sued him in a New York federal court on the basis

that ``his English default judgment is unenforceable in the

United States and repugnant to the First Amendment.''

Civil-liberties lawyer Harvey Silverglate has described her

case as ``one of the most important First Amendment cases in

the past 25 years'' and sure enough, in June of this year,

the Second Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that it deserved a

hearing. The court will begin hearing arguments this fall in

what could turn out to be a pivotal case involving the clash

between First Amendment rights and foreign libel rulings.

Ehrenfeld may indeed have a strong case. She maintains that

bin Mahfouz has a long history of involvement in terrorist

financing. The bulk of it, she wrote in 2005, revolves around

the now-defunct Muwafaq (Blessed Relief) Foundation, which

was founded by bin Mahfouz and ``identified by the U.S.

Treasury Department as providing logistical and financial

support to al Qaeda, HAMAS, and the Abu Sayyaf

organizations.'' Ehrenfeld recapped her concerns more

recently: ``The data in both Alms for Jihad and Funding

Evil is all well-documented by the media and the U.S.

Congress, courts, Treasury Department and other official

statements. Further corroboration comes from French

intelligence officials at the General Directorate of

External Security (DGSE), as reported in the French daily,

Le Monde. For example, the DGSE reported that, in 1998, it

knew bin Mahfouz to be an architect of the banking scheme

built to benefit Osama bin Laden, and that both U.S. and

British intelligence services knew it, too.''

For this reason, and also to create a precedent, Ehrenfeld

has been the only defendant so far not to settle with bin

Mahfouz. And she refuses to ``acknowledge the British Court

and its ruling'' to this day.

Ehrenfeld's success thus far countering bin Mahfouz mirrors

other indications that libel tourism may be backfiring. The

largely Internet-based furor over the attempt to squelch

``Alms for Jihad'' and what is widely seen as Cambridge

University Press' cave-in has caused the book's price to

skyrocket. A copy of the book sold on eBay this month for

$538. As noted at the blog Hot Air, ``By suing publisher

Cambridge University Press into submission, Khalid bin

Mahfouz has turned an obscure scholarly book on the financial

workings of terrorism into a prized, rare book.''

In addition, the American Library Association is rising to

the occasion. Rather than going along with the Cambridge

University Press settlement stipulation that American

libraries remove ``Alms for Jihad'' from their shelves, the

American Library Association's Office for Intellectual

Freedom issued the following statement earlier this month:

``Unless there is an order from a U.S. court, the British

settlement is unenforceable in the United States, and

libraries are under no legal obligation to return or destroy

the book. Libraries are considered to hold title to the

individual copy or copies, and it is the library's property

to do with as it pleases. Given the intense interest in the

book, and the desire of readers to learn about the

controversy first hand, we recommend that U.S. libraries keep

the book available for their users.''

Reportedly, Collins and Burr got the publishing rights to

the book back from Cambridge University Press and, according

to the Library Journal, have had ``several offers from U.S.

publishers.'' It appears the ``Alms for Jihad'' saga is far

from over and free speech may yet win the day.

In another victory for free speech, as well as an

instructive example of what such libel suits look like when

attempted in the United States, a recent case involving Yale

University Press proves useful. It involved a book written by

Matthew Levitt, the director of the Stein Program on

Terrorism, Intelligence and Policy at the Washington

Institute for Near East Policy, titled ``Hamas: Politics,

Charity, and Terrorism in the Service of Jihad.''

In his book, Levitt disputes the notion, popular among

Hamas apologists, that the group's terrorist and social

service pursuits can be seen as separate. In the process, he

implicates the Dallas charity KinderUSA, which allegedly

raises funds for Palestinian children, in terrorist

financing. The group has personnel connections to the now-

closed Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, which

has been under investigation by federal authorities for

funding Hamas. KinderUSA has also come under investigation

and as a result, in 2005 suspended operations temporarily.

All of this information is available to the public and the

book was thoroughly fact-checked prior to publication.

Levitt, who is a witness in the ongoing trial of the Holy

Land Foundation, explained further that he ``conducted three

years of careful research for Hamas, and the book was the

subject of academic peer review.''

But this didn't stop KinderUSA and the chair of its board,

Dr. Laila AI-Marayati, from filing a libel suit in California

in April against Levitt, Yale University Press, and the

Washington Institute for Near East Policy. They disputed a

particular passage from the book, as well as alleging that

Yale University Press did not subject it to fact-checking.

But, in filing the suit in California, they were faced with a

formidable challenge: the state's anti-SLAPP statute.

According to Inside Higher Education: ``KinderUSA asked the

court for an injunction on its request that distribution of

the book be halted, and also sought $500,000 in damages. But

in July, Yale raised the stakes by filing what is known as an

``anti-SLAPP suit'' motion, seeking to quash the libel suit

and to receive legal fees. SLAPP is an acronym for

``strategic lawsuit against public participation,'' a

category of lawsuit viewed as an attempt not to win in court,

but to harass a nonprofit group or publication that is

raising issues of public concern. The fear of those sued is

that groups with more money can tie them up in court in ways

that would discourage them from exercising their rights to

free speech. Anti-SLAPP statutes, such as the one in

California with which Yale responded, are tools created in

some states to counter such suits.''

Not only did Yale University Press stand by its author,

but, in the end, its aggressive response to KinderUSA paid

off. It was announced this month that the libel suit has been

dropped and no changes to the book or payments to the

plaintiffs will be forthcoming. KinderUSA claims that it

dropped the suit because of the costs involved, but it's more

likely it felt that it could not win. If the case had been

brought in the United Kingdom, the outcome could have been

far different.

This is why Americans must be vigilant about protecting

their free speech rights, even when the threats at hand do

not fit into the politically correct playbook. Certainly not

all Muslim charities and Saudi businessmen are involved in

financing terrorism, but the overwhelming amount of evidence

pointing to existing links deserves attention, as do the

fervent attempts by interested parties to silence those

trying to bring the truth to light. It is crucial that they

not succeed.

Madam Speaker, the lessons learned through the advice of a mentor or coach are often invaluable. For those involved in athletics, a coach's guidance reaches far beyond game time. The leadership of a coach not only improves an athlete's performance but works to instill values of hard work and discipline. Texas native Kevin Mazeika continues this tradition as an internationally recognized gymnastics coach. I would like to honor Kevin for representing the state of Texas and our country, with honor and dignity during the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing, China as the head coach of the USA men's Olympic Gymnastic Team.

Since 1988 Kevin Mazeika has been on the USA National Gymnastics coaching staff. His own personal coach and mentor Bill Meade inspired him to also pursue coaching. Following

his own stint as a Saluki gymnast at Southern Illinois University, Kevin's personal understanding of the sport is unique.

Representing the U.S. in over 40 international competitions, he is America's most successful Olympic and World Championship coach. His twenty-four year coaching career has resulted in his being awarded numerous awards from his noteworthy positions. He has achieved his great success through much hard work, determination and perseverance. He has established himself as an outstanding coach and community leader. Athlete, leader, father-figure, competitor, a credit to his community, to Texas, and to our nation; Kevin Mazeika has earned his place among the elite of his profession.

At this year's 2008 Olympic Games held in Beijing, China, Coach Mazeika led the USA team to a bronze medal in gymnastics. His stalwart victory follows his previous coaching success at the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens where the team received a silver medal. His friends, family and team mates should all be proud of his accomplishments, as we look forward to his coaching future.

Currently, he owns and operates Mazeika's Elite Gymnastics where aspiring gymnasts continue to benefit from his guidance. For his exemplary contributions to the sport of gymnastics and the athletes he coaches, I commend Kevin Mazeika. I applaud his remarkable career as he continues to represent our nation on the international stage.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, they tell us that we are facing financial Armageddon. They tell us we must buy our way out of this. They tell us we must act now or the country will fall into the abyss.

The plan? A $700 billion bailout will be given to the very people who are responsible for this financial mess: Wall Street money grabbers. And to top it off, the idea for this bailout is from the same financial schemers who themselves are responsible for this chaos.

We in Congress have to resolve three issues first: What is the problem? What caused the problem? And what is the solution?

We are still debating what the problem is and what caused it. Until we figure that out, we should not come up with a shoot-from-the-hip, quick-draw decision on what to do.

We have spent more time in congressional hearings on steroids in baseball than we have in discussing this $700 billion ripoff of the American people.

Before we strong-arm American citizens into paying for the sins of New York City financial markets, we need to do more investigation. Then we can come up with the right thing to do and make sound judgments-- sound judgments that the so-called experts from Wall Street don't make.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, due to preparations for and recovery from Hurricane Ike, which impacted my Congressional district, I unfortunately missed the following votes on the House floor on Thursday, September 11, Monday, September 15, Tuesday, September 16, Wednesday, September 17, Thursday, September 18, and Monday, September 22.

I ask that the Record reflect that had I been able to vote those days, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall Nos. 586, 587, 589, 590, 591, 602, 603, 604, 607, 613, 615, 617, and 618, and ``no'' on rollcall Nos. 585, 588, 592, 593, 594, 605, 606, 608, 609, 610, 611, 612, 614, and 616.

Mr. Speaker, because Wall Street has made bad judgment calls, the American taxpayer has been forced to bail them out at $700 billion. Seven hundred billion, what does that mean? That means every man, woman, child and illegal in the United States will have to fork over $2,000 apiece to bail out the money grabber barons on Wall Street. And that's just wrong.

Why is it, Mr. Speaker, the bigger the business, the more the Federal Government thinks it should swoop in save these incompetent business people? Small businesses, mom and pop stores, don't get this break. When they make bad financial decisions, they go out of business. But the rich and famous Wall Street New York City fat cats expect ``Joe Six-Pack'' to buck it up and pay for all this nonsense.

Reward people for being irresponsible and expect responsible people to pay for the sins of the financial industry? I don't think so.

Putting a financial gun to the head of America is not the answer. The government has no authority to force Americans to ante up a $700 billion ransom to save the hides of the rich robber barons on Wall Street.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, I'm glad that this package includes disaster assistance. Eleven days ago Hurricane Ike came blasting through the Southeast Texas area. To give some magnitude of how large this hurricane was, if you take the State of New York and superimpose it in Southeast Texas, that's the mass of land affected by this disastrous hurricane, causing power outages even to 2 million still to this day, most of my Congressional district.

Most of my Congressional district was affected, and the area affected most was the areas that refine gasoline for the United States. Twenty percent of the Nation's gasoline that is refined east of the Rockies is refined in my congressional district. All of those refineries shut down. They had damage because of the surge that came into that area; not to mention the people as well that are still suffering today.

So I'm glad to see that both sides came together on this issue to offer disaster assistance to the individuals that were affected by not only Ike but by Gustav and all the other natural disasters that occurred this year.

Mr. Speaker, they tell us that we're going to have financial Armageddon and the answer is to bail it out. You know, the phrase ``bailout'' is an interesting term. Having spent most of my life as a judge and a prosecutor in the criminal justice system, we used that term to bail somebody out of jail. Bail them out of a mess that they have created and somebody else pays the price. Appropriate term I think for the situation we're in now.

We want to bail somebody out of making mistakes, the rest of us are going to have to pay for. And the bailout now we're talking about is bailing out the financial institutions, financial institutions that are incompetent, that made bad judgment calls, mismanagement, bad risk, and maybe a little corruption to boot. But yet those people, those fat cats on Wall Street, New York City, expect America to pick up the pieces, and they pay for the mistakes that these people made. That is not, Mr. Speaker, the American way.

In this country and where I come from, we are all responsible for the decisions we make, and we're held accountable. We cannot expect somebody else to be held accountable for the mistakes we made, and Mr. Speaker, the same ought to apply to Wall Street and New York City.

Now, bailout's been a term we've been using in Congress the whole year. I have this poster over here. Mr. Speaker, it's entitled, ``It's a sad time to be an American taxpayer,'' and here's the reason. This Congress and the government has authorized bailouts already this year for troubled financial institutions and expected somebody else to pay.

First, it was Bear Stearns' bailout. Oh, that was just $28 billion. Right after Bear Stearns came the old Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailout, another situation of financial mismanagement, incompetence, maybe corruption. That was only $200 billion. Taxpayers paid. The responsible people did not pay. And then the AIG bailout just a couple of weeks ago. That was $85 billion to bail out that financial giant from making bad decisions, mismanagement, maybe corruption. And today, today, lo and behold we bailed out the automobile industry in the United States to the tune of $25 billion.

But we're not through, Mr. Speaker. Now they tell us, because of a financial crisis on Wall Street, we need to pay $700 billion to fix the system. Now, what does all that mean? That means it's $1 trillion of money belonging to people in the United States to have to pay for all of this mismanagement. What does that mean? Well, if you take every man, woman, child and even illegal in the United States, that means they've got to pay $3,000 apiece for this mess somebody else created.

Mr. Speaker, that ought not to be. That certainly is not the American way. But yet we're expected to do it, and why, Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure. It seems to me that maybe these folks have a little more political clout than the average American citizen.

The district I represent down in southeast Texas, it's about 60, 70 percent blue collar. City councilman from Bay Town, Texas, is a friend of mine. He's named Sammy Mahon. His real job, he runs a wrecker service in southeast Texas. Yes, city councilmen in southeast Texas are wrecker drivers. And he has a hard time making ends meet because of the cost of diesel fuel, which is another issue. But he looks at it kind of the way I think most Americans. He says, Congressman, if I go out of business for whatever reason, I shouldn't expect my neighbor to pay for my business. And he's right, because he's just a little guy.

But these big guys, they expect us to pay for mismanagement. Hold us ransom. Pay this $700 billion in ransom, and it's all because of incompetence and mismanagement.

Responsible Americans have to pay for irresponsible conduct by the others. That ought not to be.

And this didn't happen universally to all banks. Some banks, small banks, community banks, they didn't make these mistakes. They didn't take those risky loans, give loans and money to people who had no business borrowing money in the first place. Why should we bail out those people that took those loans knowing they couldn't pay them back? Why should we bail out the banks who didn't take that risk but passed it on to the rest of us?

They tell us, Mr. Speaker, that we must act now or the sky will fall or we'll have financial Armageddon. I think not. The politics of fear is certainly not the answer.

You know, we have spent more time as a Congress studying steroids in baseball than we have been studying the financial crisis this week. And why is that? Political clout. This ought not to be.

We have a problem. We have a cause. We have to figure out the solution. We don't know the answer to those three, and Mr. Speaker, it's time we get busy and solve this problem but not expect somebody else to pay for the conduct and misconduct of others.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, due to preparations for and recovery from Hurricane Ike, which impacted my district, I unfortunately missed the following votes on the House floor on Thursday, September 11th and Monday, September 15th.

I ask that the Record reflect that had I been able to vote that day, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall Nos. 586, 587, 589, 590, and 591.

Madam Speaker, on that bright sunny day in September 2001, when America was attacked, there were many heroic responses.

Next to the Pentagon is Arlington National Cemetery, where America buries its war dead. In sight of the Pentagon is the Tomb of the Unknown.

This tribute to our warriors has been guarded continuously, 24 hours a day since 1930, by the oldest active duty infantry unit in the Army, the 3rd U.S. Infantry, known as the Old Guard.

These soldiers that guarded the tomb on 9/11 already knew about the suicide attacks against America in New York. And when that third plane roared low and fast near Arlington Cemetery and crashed into the Pentagon killing 189 people, these remarkable soldiers did not seek cover or safety before or after the assault on the Pentagon. They continued to do their duty, and stayed on vigilant guard at their post, not forsaking their dedication to the Tomb of the Unknown or to America. In fact, after the news of the New York attack, the Old Guard brought in reinforcements to protect and guard the tomb.

Amazing soldiers, these people of the Old Guard that never leave their post.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, our country takes pride in the first amendment right of free speech and free press, but it seems that philosophy is no longer applicable when it comes to criticizing certain religions.

Random House Publishing has decided not to print the novel ``The Jewel of Medina'' because Islamic radicals are a bit upset. Apparently, American author Sherry Jones hurt some feelings by writing a fiction book about Muhammad's child bride Aisha. Now Random House has been intimidated into not publishing the book because a small radical group of Islamic individuals object. Random House has given in to the threats of the religious speech and press police.

Author Salman Rushdie, who was threatened by these same type of individuals years ago because of his book, ``The Satanic Verses,'' said that, ``This is censorship by fear.''

These Islamic radicals go throughout the world and denounce free speech and free press if the content is critical of Islam. Further, they demand censorship of the offensive material. Radicals cannot control and suppress the first amendment because they don't agree with what people say or print. Too bad book publishers have given up their right to a free press because now a novel offends some religious group.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, recently this country has been very concerned about something that's taking place in lands far, far away. It seems as though that the Russians have decided to invade the Republic of Georgia. Many Americans didn't even know where the Republic of Georgia was. Now, most of us know where it is and where it's located.

In fact, the government has been doing much lately, talking about this invasion of another country and very concerned about the people of South Ossetia that have now occupied or have their country or territory occupied by the Russians. In fact, the country is so upset about this, our country, we have sent $1 billion to Georgia to help Georgia, supposedly for humanitarian aid.

But we seem to be somewhat concerned--and our rhetoric as a Nation is that one sovereign country has invaded the sovereign country of another, concerned about the borders of the Republic of Georgia.

It's interesting to me that we are concerned about the sanctity and sovereignty of other Nations and their borders, but yet back here at home we seem not to care about the sovereignty and sanctity of our own borders. We protect the borders of other Nations throughout the world. We're concerned about the border of Georgia, but yet this country still has no policy about being concerned and enforcing border security of our own Nation.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'm talking about the southern border with Mexico, and I'm talking about the northern border of Canada. Yet every day we still have hundreds of people crossing into the United States illegally. It's an invasion into our country. Without permission people are coming into this country, and they're here for all purposes. Sure we hear about those who are over here trying to look for jobs, that supposedly Americans won't take.

But there are also other people coming over here. We get the good, the bad and the ugly because we don't secure our borders, and right now we're getting a lot of bad and ugly. Mr. Speaker, if you don't believe me, I will take you down to the Texas-Mexico border and show you how the violence has gotten worse and worse because this Nation refuses to protect its own border from people coming in without permission. That's very unfortunate.

We are in a Presidential campaign. We hear a lot of talk about all kinds of issues, but yet I have not heard from either Presidential candidate about a plan to secure our borders. They're talking about everything else. I'd be glad to take either one or both of them down to the Texas-Mexico border and show them what it's like, the porous border, because we don't protect the sovereignty of our own Nation.

But yet we're concerned about the Republic of Georgia halfway around the world and their border. Doesn't make much sense to me. We should be just as concerned about our own borders as we are about borders of other people and give the money to our own people on our own border to secure it.

We send $1 billion quickly to the Republic of Georgia. What could our border patrol agents do with $1 billion on the Texas-Mexico border? They could do a whole lot more. And they're not getting it. They're not getting the support that they need. They're doing the best job they can. The sheriffs all along the border, from San Diego all the way to Brownsville, they're doing the best they can.

But let me tell you something, Mr. Speaker, the drug cartels have more money, they outgun our border security officials, and they're more tenacious and they're doing everything they can to come into the United States illegally. Yes, we're getting all of them, we're getting everybody because we refuse to secure our border.

And we don't need to do a whole lot except enforce the laws we already have. It's already illegal to come into the United States without permission. Why don't we enforce that law? We are trying to enforce the border security of Georgia. Let's enforce the border security of our own Nation. That's the public duty our government has.

We can work out the issues of what to do with people that are here illegally down the road. America will do the right thing, but we can never deal with that issue until we secure the border.

One of the things we ought to do is enforce the rule of law, and if businesses choose to hire folks that are illegally in the country and they know they're illegal, those business owners need to be prosecuted under current law. We see a few of those CEOs be carted off to jail in handcuffs, maybe they'll quit hiring folks that are illegally in the country. That's just one answer, but it's already the law.

So I encourage our government: enforce the law, protect our borders, secure our Nation first. That is the duty, obligation, and moral duty of our government.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, there has been another tragic misapplication of the word ``honor.'' In Pakistan a 17-year-old girl was killed by her parents last week because she wanted an annulment from an arranged marriage, a marriage that she was forced into when she was 9 years old. That's right, 9 years of age, the age when most girls still play on the playground, enjoy cartoons, stickers, and still play with dolls, the age when little girls are still just little girls. Instead, at 9, Saira Bibi was robbed of her childhood and compelled to become the bride of a 45-year-old male.

After turning 17, Saira wanted out of her shotgun wedding and marriage; so she filed a legal suit, and eventually a judge granted an annulment. Unfortunately, Saira was only able to enjoy her newfound freedom for moments because the very same parents who stripped her of her youth stripped her of her life. These parents hired killers who gunned down their daughter Saira as she was walking out of the courthouse in Pakistan.

This is only one example of many so-called ``honor killings'' in Pakistan recently.

Mr. Speaker, there is no honor in killing your children or murdering women in the name of religion.

And that's just the way it is.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of House Concurrent Resolution 344, which recognizes the impact that the global food crisis will have on vulnerable children in the developing world. This resolution reminds us all that the children of impoverished families are suffering even more today as a result of the rapid worldwide increase in prices of basic foods in recent months, such as wheat.

All of us are facing rising food and energy costs in our own homes and families, but for many around the world those changes are a matter of life and death. When we see newspaper photos of dying children, we see the urgency of this crisis for countless families throughout our world.

I am pleased that the President and the Congress have taken concrete steps to help poor people facing this dire reality by increasing America's food aid. Notwithstanding the challenges we face in our own communities, it is a testament to the enduring generosity of the American people that we remain the largest donor of food assistance in the world. Americans give of their wealth throughout the world, especially to people in need.

Many of the poorest people in developing countries work extremely hard to earn just a dollar or two every day, and then have to survive off that meager sum, managing somehow to find affordable food. It may be hard for some of us to imagine how difficult that is in other countries.

This resolution describes the food crisis and the many complications that children suffer as a result of lack of proper nutrition. It notes that 5\1/2\ million children under the age of 5 die each year due to malnutrition caused by chronic hunger. It reminds us that even if malnourished children don't starve to death, they face a heightened risk of dying of numerous infections, as well as lifelong impacts on their physical growth and intellectual potential.

With that in mind, this resolution states the nutritional needs of children must be a humanitarian priority in our response to the current global food crisis. I commend the gentlelady from Texas (Ms. Jackson- Lee) for introducing this measure.

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