Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the miracle of birth is a remarkable, happy event. None of us pick our parents or the place from which we come. The good Lord makes those decisions, and some of us have the fortune of being born in America.

Yesterday, April 9, at 10:28 a.m. in the central Texas town of Waco, another child took his first breath of the

crisp air of life, being born in the land of the free.

Payton Poe Alexander showed up tipping the scales at 9 pounds-1 ounce and a height of 22 inches. Not bad for his first day on earth. His mother, Kara, my daughter, and his father Shane, are right-thinking, God-fearing people. Payton's little 2-year-old sister Elizabeth, shall we say, is inquisitive.

Mr. Speaker, we all get excited when kids are born, because we see in those innocent eyes the hope of the world, the chance that this new child might make a difference for the rest of us.

My hope for my new grandson is that he grows up embodying the spirit of truth, justice and the American way, and that he plays football for the University of Texas and not Texas A&M.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, free speech is under attack again. This time the so-called U.N. Human Rights Council passed a resolution encouraging the criminalization of freedom of expression by the U.N. chief spokesman on speech. Egypt and Pakistan proposed the anti-speech resolution. What it does is promote specific criminal restrictions on individuals in the world who criticize or make negative comments about Islam.

According to the International World Tribune, ``Muslim countries have been demanding world limits on free speech ever since a Danish magazine published those not-so-flattering cartoons of Mohammad.'' So now the U.N. Human Rights Council wants to limit the human rights of free speech and religious discourse. Of course, this limit only applies to those who criticize one specific religion, Islam. Muslims are still permitted to bash Christians, Jews and Hindus.

Free speech cannot be limited because some group doesn't like what somebody says. That is what free speech means. The Human Rights Council was wrong when it surrendered to the Muslim speech police and passed this speech control resolution that advocates the criminalization of criticism of Islam.

And that's just the way it is.

I want to thank the gentleman for yielding time.

This legislation will turn 26 million acres of land, the same size of all of New England, or 16 States, that are now in the Western part of the United States into vast tracks that will be walled off from almost all human use to the United States except illegals. And here is the reason I say that.

This bill is nothing more than another land grab by the Federal Government to restrict land use in America. Under current law, the Border Patrol is prohibited from patrolling these areas in the West and the Southwest. Remember, we are talking about the size of New England. And they are prohibited from doing so because of current law. And this measure will make it actually worse. All in the name of protecting the environment, we are going to restrict land use by our Border Patrol and American citizens.

Here is part of the problem that is already occurring on current land that we are trying to protect the environment from. This is a place called ``Amnesty Highway'' in Arizona where illegals come through the United States in an area where the Border Patrol cannot patrol with their vehicles. They are dumping all kinds of garbage and then moving into the vastness of the United States. This bill should be called the ``Illegal Immigrants Paradise Land Act'' because the area in question under this act will be a safe haven for illegal immigrants. In fact, just 2 months ago in the Tucson Weekly, it reported rampant illegal immigrant activity in Arizona's Ironwood Forest National Monument, that is this area right here, an estimated 180,000-acre preserve managed already by the Federal Government. People in Arizona call this the ``Amnesty Trail,'' the ``Amnesty Highway.'' The article reports that probably hundreds of illegals a week make it into the Ironwood area because of the ``Amnesty Trail.'' Areas that were once pristine wilderness now resemble dump yards because of the illegals already coming into this area. This bill will make this problem worse. In Arizona's Ironwood National Monument, 2 tons of trash left by illegal immigrants is removed every week. Trash like this that we see.

Federal land management officials can't even do their job now, and they want to restrict use of this land to Americans. In fact, for several weeks last year, Land Management officials did not even enter this area because three people were found executed. Supposedly they were illegals coming into the United States, maybe drug dealers.

So why doesn't the government do something about this problem and resolve this problem before we restrict the use of land in America to Americans? Almost all the lands included under current law have prohibitions against Border Patrol and law enforcement officials performing regular patrols by vehicles. And as I said, this bill will make the problem worse.

This other photograph is on the same trail, the ``Amnesty Trail.'' It is not a very good photograph, but it is taken with a telephoto lens. It shows a vehicle bringing in approximately 40 to 50 people in a pickup truck coming from south of the border into the United States, presumably illegals, traveling the highway that the Border Patrol is not even allowed to travel with their vehicles.

So it is important that we, for several reasons, don't pass this legislation. You know, the Border Patrol cannot protect the land, so the smugglers and the illegals have a sanctuary area in our national landscape. So much for protecting the environment. What we don't hear is that the Ironwood National Forest Monument is part of the largest human trafficking corridor in the world. Even government officials now acknowledge that there is a human trafficking problem in this area. They admit that smugglers are bringing people further north every year, giving them drugs and then abandoning them on this monument land where many of them die of starvation. So naturally, this is where all the drug runners and human traffickers go into the Arizona area.

What our government ought to be doing is opening up these lands to our law enforcement, so they can protect our Nation rather than putting another layer of Federal bureaucracy on these lands, which is what this legislation does. This bill does nothing to protect our lands, but makes our lands more susceptible to the land invasion by coyotes and drug smugglers.

There is a border crisis occurring on Federal land, and this bill ought to address that issue instead of making this bad situation worse.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, the justice system has broken down for Jamie Leigh Jones and other female contractors sexually assaulted in Iraq by their coworkers.

In June 2005, nearly 3 years ago, Jamie Leigh Jones was drugged and gang raped by her KBR coworkers in Iraq. After 2\1/2\ years and no real answers from our own government agencies, Jamie decided to go public in hopes of finding the answers and getting justice. She testified before the House Judiciary Committee in December of last year. And despite Jamie's experiences and the national attention that this issue garnered, nothing changed in Iraq. There continues to be a hostile living and working environment for female contractors that are Americans working overseas for American employers.

A ``boys will be boys'' atmosphere seems to appear where assaults occur, and then they're covered up. The Department of Justice says it has several active investigations, but it has not prosecuted any contractor for a sexual assault since the invasion of Iraq 5 years ago.

The Justice Department has over 200 employees in Baghdad. The question is, what are they doing? Why aren't they prosecuting crimes by Americans against Americans? There are 180,000 civilian workers in Iraq; not all of those people are good folks, some of them have committed crimes, but yet not one of them has been prosecuted for an assault that has occurred. These assailants remain free and unaccountable while the victims continue to suffer.

And yet there is more. This week we learned of another victim. She identified herself this morning at the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations as Dawn Lemon. Dawn Lemon's story is brutal. She went to Iraq as a KBR contractor. She was stationed in the hostile red zone as a paramedic. She awoke in January of 2008, just 3 months ago, to the sound of incoming rocket attacks. But when she woke up, she was naked in a chair, covered in blood and feces. She had feces in her mouth. She found a U.S. soldier lying naked in the bed next to her with his clothes and his gun on the floor. All she could remember was screaming at this unknown soldier that was laying on top of her. She sought help from a KBR colleague, thinking that he would save her, but he didn't. As a soldier anally raped her, her KBR colleague forced her to perform oral sex on him. And when Dawn told her KBR supervisor about the incident, she was told to be quiet. When she reported the incident to the camp's military liaison, she was told again not to say anything.

In order to leave Iraq, Dawn had to cooperate with KBR. She had to sign documents agreeing not to discuss the rape in public. She decided to send those documents via e-mail to an attorney in the United States, but 20 minutes after she sent those documents Army investigators showed up and confiscated her computer. They were obviously tracking her e- mail communications.

Before she left Iraq on leave, she was assigned to sleep guarded by two Army Criminal Investigative Division officials to keep her safe. Her alleged assailants, however, were in the same camp, but they roamed freely, doing what they wished.

As the Federal Government agencies refuse to take responsibility and implement change and as these agencies have continued to pass the buck back and forth, still, nothing has occurred in these cases. There are no jurisdictional problems. The law exists to prosecute these individuals in Iraq, and these laws have been applicable for some time. There is nothing but excuses from our government agencies for failure to prosecute these criminals.

We knew in December that Jamie Leigh Jones was not alone. Three years later, this is still occurring. Dawn Lemon now joins a growing number of female contractors who have been sexually assaulted in Iraq by their coworkers.

Justice has failed these women. Is our government hiding these crimes? Why don't companies like KBR cooperate rather than stonewall these investigations?

Mr. Speaker, we will find the answers to these questions, I assure you. Victims like Jamie Leigh Jones and Dawn are to be admired for coming forward. Our duty is to protect them and their rights. We can do no less because, Mr. Speaker, justice is the one thing we should always find, even in Iraq.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, on Wednesday, April 9, 2008, the Congressional Victim's Rights Caucus will holds its annual awards ceremony to recognize individuals for their significant contributions to the victim's rights field. The Congressional Victim's Rights Caucus will award Jamie Leigh Jones with the Suzanne McDaniel Public Awareness Award to recognize her efforts in raising national awareness of the plight of American contractors victimized abroad.

Jamie Leigh Jones was only 20 years old when she went to work for KBR in Baghdad. She was only at the ironically-named Camp Hope a few days before her coworkers allegedly drugged and gang-raped her. An Army doctor administered a rape kit, which was then turned over to KBR, not the appropriate law enforcement authorities as is standard in rape cases. It's not a surprise then that KBR lost the very evidence that could be used against it.

Jamie was then kept in a shipping container, under armed guard. She was told that this was to protect her. It was really a way to keep her from telling others what she endured. Jamie convinced a sympathetic guard to let her use his cell phone. Jamie called her dad and asked for help. Her dad then called my office. My staff and I contacted the Department of State. Within 48 hours, agents were dispatched from the embassy in Baghdad and sent to rescue Jamie.

It's been nearly 3 years since Jamie was assaulted. No one has been held accountable for what happened to Jamie. For 2\1/2\ years, the Department of Justice was silent as to what it was doing, if anything, to prosecute the criminals. Its silence was broken once Jamie went public with her case.

In December 2007, Jamie went to the national media with her story. Since Jamie went to the press, my office has heard from several other former contractors alleging sexual assaults in Iraq. Jamie has heard from as many as 40 women through the nonprofit organization she created, the Jamie Leigh Foundation, to help other Americans victimized while working abroad as government contractors.

By telling her story, Jamie showed other victims that it is okay to come forward and talk about their assaults. She opened this country's eyes to the ``boys will be boys'' atmosphere among the contractors in Iraq. And perhaps most importantly, she showed other victims that they are not alone in their struggle to piece their lives back together.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, as positive progress continues against America's enemies in Iraq, the vocal, timid and meek here at home promote a strategy of defeat and retreat. Victory to these retreatists is not an option because they plan for abandonment of the Iraqi people and failure for America's fight against those who murder in the name of religion.

These war alarmists wish to capitulate in this war. They want to redeploy the troops, which means withdraw our military while they are in the midst of success. This strategy of defeat will not bring peace to Iraq or America. It will not stop the extremists, but increase their determination for more violence against the innocents. It will not make us safe at home, but encourage those who hate us to kill again. And those vile zealots will rightfully claim America doesn't have the stomach to fight for the God-given principles of liberty.

President Kennedy told the world that America will pay any price, support any friend and oppose any foe to defend liberty. We do not fight for ourselves alone. This war is more than for our cause alone. We fight for the human cause of all peoples to be free. That is what this war is about.

And that's just the way it is.

I thank the gentleman for yielding time.

Madam Speaker, Tibet is being denied the basic human rights of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and the freedom to seek grievances against its own government.

China, the bully of Asia, literally is beating up on the small religious Tibetan community. China puts down dissent by the use of the bloody club and the firearm. And China suppresses the world press that tries to report on what they are doing by issuing scripted propaganda papers about these peaceful Tibetan people, propaganda that we have not seen since Hitler's Nazi Germany.

China's ugly personality of brutality and oppression is now being seen by all of the world. And as China tries to carry the Olympic torch throughout the world, the flame of the torch is setting peoples in this world on fire in support of the people of Tibet.

So China must cease its oppression of its own people or face international rebuke and international condemnation, including condemnation by this body.

I support the people of Tibet, and I urge passage of this resolution. And I want to thank the chairman for bringing this resolution so quickly to the House floor.

Madam Speaker, in the early morning hours of March 2, 1998, 10 years ago, Patrick Kennedy of Jefferson Parish, Louisiana, called 911 to report that his 8-year-old stepdaughter had been dragged from her garage to the side yard and raped by two neighborhood boys. Kennedy told the 911 operator that he saw one of the boys riding away from the house on a bicycle, so a sheriff's deputy that was immediately in the area responded to the complaint and started looking for the culprit, but he did not find the individual.

The deputy noticed that the crime scene in the backyard was somehow inconsistent with rape, and he noticed that the dog was still sleeping undisturbed in the grass. Be that as it may, Kennedy led the deputy to the victim, his stepdaughter's bedroom, where she was lying on the bed wearing a T-shirt and wrapped in a filthy, bloody cargo blanket.

Kennedy informed the deputy that he had carried his stepdaughter like an infant from the yard and placed her in a bathtub to clean her. But the deputy noticed there was no blood on Kennedy's clothes.

When the deputy tried to question the victim, Kennedy constantly interrupted and answered the questions for his stepdaughter. The victim said that she was trying to sell Girl Scout cookies when the two neighborhood boys dragged her from the garage and raped her on the grass nearby.

The victim was taken to Children's Hospital for emergency surgery to repair serious injuries to her body. At the hospital, the victim told hospital personnel and a psychologist that the two neighborhood boys had raped her, but she finally told a family member that Patrick Kennedy, her stepfather, had assaulted her.

The investigation began to focus on Kennedy because his story did not make any sense to the investigators. And then the police learned more about Patrick Kennedy and who he was. Before he called 911, Kennedy called his boss at a local moving company to say he wasn't going to work that morning and he asked a co-worker how to get blood out of a carpet. The co-worker later indicated at trial that Kennedy sounded nervous, and he said his stepdaughter had ``just become a young lady.''

Kennedy also called B&B Carpet Cleaning at 7:30, 2 hours before the 911 call, and he asked how to clean and remove blood stains from a carpet. Police then found a 1-gallon jug of carpet cleaner and the bloody towels Kennedy used to clean up his crime and hide the evidence.

A forensic lab confirmed that the victim had no grass or soil stains on her clothes so she could not have been assaulted in the grass. The victim later told her mother that Kennedy had raped her. At the trial, she testified that when she woke up that morning, he was on top of her, covering her eyes with his hands, and that he raped her in her own bed. The victim said she fainted and later threw up.

A jury convicted Patrick Kennedy of aggravated rape of his own 8- year-old stepdaughter and sentenced him to death in Louisiana. Under Louisiana law, a person who commits sexual assault of a child under the age of 12 is subject to the death penalty. Kennedy has appealed to the Supreme Court, and next week in Kennedy v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court will hear the case and decide if rape of a child is constitutional under the eighth amendment and whether it violates the cruel and unusual punishment provision of the eighth amendment.

No one has been executed in the United States for a crime other than murder since 1964. Of 3,000 inmates on death row, only two face the death penalty for nonhomicide, and one is Patrick Kennedy.

In addition to Louisiana, Georgia, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Texas have laws allowing death penalty for rape of a child. In 1977, the Supreme Court decided that the death sentence for rape of an adult woman was unconstitutional, but they never ruled on the issue of sexual assault and rape of a child. Thus, this case appears before the Supreme Court.

Louisiana has interpreted the Supreme Court's previous rulings not to apply in Louisiana because the sexual assault was of a child and that is why this case appears before the Supreme Court to make this decision.

Madam Speaker, this crime is senseless. We can sometimes understand why people commit the crime of theft, we can understand why sometimes people commit the crime of burglary, and even sometimes commit the crime of murder, but there can never be a time in our culture when we understand why a person rapes an 8-year-old girl. It is the ultimate crime of degradation. It is the ultimate type of torture, and it is the ultimate crime against little girls and their identity. It is worse than murder. And in this instance, the victim has a daily reminder of the crime that has ruined her life. It is an attempt to destroy not the life but the soul of this victim. So justice must be pronounced in this case. Society will be judged and the Supreme Court will be judged by the way it treats the innocent among us. Hopefully this case will be upheld by the Supreme Court.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, homeschooling has been a major part of this Nation's history since its founding. In fact, when the Constitution was written nearly everyone was homeschooled. Many of our country's greatest leaders received quality education at home including: George Washington, Thomas ``Stonewall'' Jackson, General George S. Patton, Abraham Lincoln, Benjamin Franklin, John Quincy Adams, Patrick Henry, James Madison, Davy Crockett, and General Douglas MacArthur.

From 1620 until the mid-1800s, most parents in America taught their children to read at home. Students would then attend university systems that were operated by religious leaders. Education was voluntary and yet literacy rates in colonial America were significantly higher than they are today.

Across the United States today more than 2.1 million children are homeschooled. Studies have confirmed that children who are educated at home consistently score higher on achievement tests and college entrance exams than non-homeschooled children. These graduates then go on to act as responsible parents and citizens in the workplace and the home.

Now judges on the California appellate court, want to overturn not only hundreds of years of tradition, but the United States Constitution by denying parents their constitutionally protected right to homeschool their children. According to the California court, parents who homeschool their children ought to be fined or sent to jail.

Who do these judges think they are?

Apparently, they don't believe they have a responsibility to uphold the Constitution of the United States. If they did they would have known that the Supreme Court has already addressed the fundamental and constitutional rights of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children and they have found in favor of parents.

In Wisconsin v. Yoder, decided in 1972, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in favor of Amish parents who wanted to remove their children from public school after the 8th grade because it violated their religious beliefs. The Court held that the compulsory attendance law unduly burdened the free exercise clause in the First Amendment of the Constitution.

In Pierce v. Society of Sisters, decided in 1925, the Supreme Court invalidated legislation that required parents to send their children to public schools. The Court found that the law unreasonably interfered with the liberty of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of their children.

Again in Meyer v. State of Nebraska, decided in 1923, the Supreme Court struck down a law that prohibited parents from letting their children learn a foreign language before the 8th grade. The Court held that the liberty guaranteed in the 14th Amendment protected the rights of parents to control the education of their own children.

In accordance with the Constitution, Supreme Court case law clearly supports the fundamental right of parents to direct the upbringing and education of their children.

It's about time for the judges out in California to pick up the U.S. Constitution, look at Supreme Court case precedent, and issue a new ruling that is consistent with the freedoms this country was founded on.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, gasoline prices are soaring. The problem rests on the well-known principle of supply and demand. Our domestic energy supply cannot meet our demand. The solution is to increase our supply by exploring domestic energy sources and allowing drilling in

Mr. Speaker, the Constitution gives the President absolute authority to grant a pardon. He has exercised that power 157 times. Last week, he pardoned 15 more people convicted of everything from importation of drugs to bank fraud and other crimes.

But two people not on his pardon list are Border Agents Ramos and Compean, who are serving 11 and 12 years for enforcing the law on the Texas-Mexico border. They were convicted of civil rights violations when they shot a drug smuggler bringing in $750,000 worth of drugs to the United States.

The United States Government gave the drug dealer complete immunity for his crimes to testify against the agents. Then the Justice Department hid from the jury the fact that the drug dealers smuggled in another load of drugs shortly before the trial. The U.S. Attorney made a backroom deal with the smuggler for his testimony and got the tainted testimony they bartered for.

Last session, this House passed legislation to prevent taxpayer money from being used to incarcerate Ramos and Compean, but they are still in prison. Because of the U.S. Attorney's actions of deception in this trial, and the fact that the agents were just doing their job, are grounds for the President to pardon both of the border agents immediately.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, as we talk about the war on the first front in Iraq and Afghanistan, we must remember that there is another war going on on the second front, and that is the border war between the United States and Mexico. All of the politicians that are running for President this year are talking about everything. Some things are just not important. But one thing they're not talking about is the border war in the south part of the United States, between Mexico and the United States.

Two years ago, two border agents by the name of Ramos and Compean were tried and convicted for doing their job on the Texas/Mexico border. What happened was, that in February of 2005, Ramos and Compean came in contact with a drug dealer. He came into the United States at Fabens, Texas. Most of America's never heard of this little small Texas town.

He's driving a van. He sees the border agents and he turns around and he tries to run back to Mexico. He abandons the van. The border agents give chase. An altercation occurred down in the Rio Grande riverbed. Shots were fired. The drug dealer disappears into Mexico.

It turns out that the drug dealer had been shot by one of the border agents, and it turns out that the van that he was driving had, get this, $750,000 worth of drugs in the van.

So what does our Government do? Instead of trying to find the drug dealer to prosecute him, our Government goes to Mexico, finds the drug dealer and promises him a back room deal, a deal to testify against the border agents, claim that the border agents unlawfully used their firearms, even though they said they fired in self-defense. And they make a deal with him not to prosecute him for his drug smuggling if he testified. And he did testify against the border agents, and 2 years ago they were convicted.

But unbeknownst to the jury, and what the U.S. Attorney's Office would not let the jury know, is that before the trial took place, this star witness, backroom-deal witness, brought in another load of drugs into the United States for money. The U.S. Attorney's Office knew about it. They didn't want the jury to know about it, and they kept it out of the trial. Now the whole world knows the U.S. Attorney's Office was deceitful in that trial.

Those border agents are serving 11 to 12 years in the Federal penitentiary. The President pardoned 157 people in his administration. Fifteen of them last week. Some of them were drug dealers. But why doesn't the President pardon these border patrol agents for doing their job?

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has heard this case. I suspect they will reverse it because the U.S. Attorney's Office was deceitful in the trial and prosecution of these two border agents because they were relentless in prosecuting them.

Our government is on the wrong side of the border war. We're trying to hire more border agents, and people don't want to join the Border Patrol. One reason is because our government doesn't support them. When an altercation takes place, they side with the other guys instead of siding with our border agents.

And this is not the first time the U.S. Attorney's Office has been caught cheating in a trial. A border agent by the name of David Sipe was arrested by our government because he was in a fight and assault with a drug dealer down in Texas. And he was prosecuted for a civil rights violation, but it turns out in his trial the U.S. Attorney's Office hid evidence in that case as well, but they got caught; and that case was retried and the jury found David Sipe not guilty because the U.S. Attorney's Office, once again, didn't want the jury to know the truth about the person that came in contact with our border agent.

So it's time our government gets on the right side of the border war. Defend our boarder patrol agents. Secure the border. Make sure that the war on the second front is won, that people not be allowed to come into the United States illegally for any purpose, especially drug smugglers; and our government needs to quit taking the side of drug dealers from foreign countries and start siding with the American Border Patrol because they're doing their job to protect the rest of us.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, as gasoline prices rise higher at the pump, the American driver is mad and the Congress blames the oil companies. But the real culprit is Congress. Gasoline prices are rising because Congress fails to have an energy policy that encourages the development of our own resources. Instead of making it easier to obtain crude oil, Congress has decided to subsidize the special interest groups to produce unproven, unreliable, and expensive alternative fuels, like corn-based ethanol, which now may pollute the environment more than first realized. Not to mention this idea is bad for land management and increases the cost of agricultural products. So now we have high gasoline prices and higher prices for corn products worldwide, thanks to Congress.

We are the only industrial power in the world that refuses to take advantage of its own energy resources. Congress should lift the absurd restrictions on offshore drilling, allow drilling in ANWR and stop the expensive, unnecessary regulations. This will increase production, supply, and lower costs. Otherwise, we will continue to be held hostage by third world dictators, like Chavez, and the cost of crude oil will continue to grow.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, homeschooling is an ever growing choice for parents in America. Parents teach their children at home for various reasons: They are concerned about the quality of education, or the lack of it, in government schools; they don't approve of the public school curriculum; they want their kids to have a religious-based education, which is of course strictly forbidden in public schools; parents are concerned about school safety, especially in big urban schools; or, parents have special needs children that are not adequately served in public schools. Whatever the reason, many parents choose to homeschool.

Homeschooling is successful. Recent statistics show that homeschooled kids get higher test scores on ACT tests than non-homeschoolers. In the last 10 years, homeschooled children have scored higher every year on the ACT test than non-homeschoolers. I just recently appointed a homeschooler to the United States Air Force Academy, and his homeschooled education was superb.

But now, an appellate State court in California has ruled that, ``Parents not only don't have a constitutional right to homeschool; parents that homeschool their children can face fines and go to jail,'' sayeth the all-powerful Judge Walter Croskey.

Where does the California court get such nonsense? Education has been the responsibility of parents since the beginning of time. Public education really is a relatively new concept. And now we have judges saying that parents are criminals unless their children are taught in government schools. This reminds me of my visit to the school system in the Soviet Union, which mandated all students should be indoctrinated with propaganda in the communist school system. This is Big Brother and government control at its worst. Can you imagine? A crime to teach your own children.

I have nothing against public schools or teachers. My mother was a public school teacher. All my daughters are teachers. I even taught in the State university. But no government has the right to tell parents how to educate their children, not even the government in California.

Parents and students need all education options. They need private school options, public school, religious school, or even home school. The real issue is not quality of education, but education freedom of choice by parents.

The judge says it is unconstitutional to homeschool your children. Well, Justice Croskey must not have ever read the U.S. Constitution. There is nothing written in the United States Constitution about giving government or judges the authority to control education. In fact, the word ``education'' is not even mentioned in the Constitution as a responsibility of government. The California court's ruling, in my opinion, is unconstitutional.

Education has generally been deemed a matter for local communities and parents. We have always believed that in this country. In fact, the Constitution in the Tenth Amendment states,

``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states respectfully or to the people.''

And, I submit, ``the people'' in that phrase are parents that have the power, under our Constitution, to decide how to educate their children. It is their responsibility, their right, and their authority. After all, our children do not belong to the government and are not government possessions to be molded as the government or government judges deem fit.

The U.S. Constitution gives liberty to Americans, not enslavement to government. It is a parent's responsibility and right, not the government's, to raise our children. That includes how best to educate our children.

Living in a Nation that was founded on the inalienable right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, means that parents have the right to raise and teach their children in a manner that is consistent with their beliefs and their principles, whether the California appellate judges like it or not.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Taiwan for having successfully completed its 4th direct presidential election on March 22, 2008. Dr. Ma Ying-jeou, a Harvard-educated attorney and former mayor of Taipei, won with a convincing margin. I wish President- elect Ma and the people of Taiwan good luck in the next 4 years, along with continuing economic success and meaningful political reforms.

Since President-elect Ma's victory on March 22, he has made many gestures of good will, which include encouraging Beijing to start meaningful dialogue between Taiwan and Chinese mainland on the issues separating them. It is my sincere hope that both Taipei and Beijing will soon resume dialogue on the issues of mutual interest, leading to the peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region. Also, President- elect Ma has indicated his willingness to strengthen Taiwan's good relations with the United States. I hope that he will be able to visit Washington before his inauguration on May 20. Even though our two countries do not have official ties, our ties are strong and growing. The issues between us and Taiwan include our defense commitments to Taiwan, trade with Taiwan, our support of Taiwan's participation in international affairs, and lifting of outdated restrictions imposed on high-ranking officials from Taiwan to visit the United States. As our friend, Taiwan wants to see us fully committed to the letter and spirit of the Taiwan Relations Act, enacted on April 10, 1979.

Again, my best wishes to President-elect Ma and the people of Taiwan. And that's just the way it is.