Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, since June, national law enforcement agencies have teamed up with their state and local counterparts. The result? The arrest of more than 1,300 violent street gang members, associates, and illegal aliens in 19 states.

In 2005, the Department of Homeland Security's U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement launched a national effort called Operation Community Shield. This effort has already led to the arrests of over 7,600 gang members from 700 different gangs; 107 were gang leaders. ICE agents also seized 340 grams of cocaine and over 1 lb. of marijuana and crack cocaine.

Operation Community Shield focuses on keeping criminal gangs off our streets. ICE agents investigate the crimes and the immigration status of the criminals. Since 2005, ICE charged 5200 gang members with immigration violations and processed them for deportation.

This is a great example of successful law enforcement partnerships. Local, state, and federal anti-gang efforts are leading the fight against street gangs. These partnerships allow law enforcement agents to share resources and leadership and to arrest, prosecute, imprison and deport criminal and illegal alien gang members. And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, walk into any public school, police station, or hospital and you will surely hear public officials speaking in another language than English. We are using taxes from hardworking Americans to hire employees for the sole purpose of being able to communicate with people who refuse to learn English. These people are making the choice not to assimilate as Americans and learn English, but keeping their allegiance to Mexico or whichever country they immigrated from. The United States has had a long history of immigrants, but all of the different cultures desired to become one unified America. The English language was the common bridge to which these cultures could relate, and the same can still hold true today. That is why I passionately encourage the passing of H.R. 997, the English Language Unity Act of 2007.

This bill will require official functions of the United States to be conducted in English only. In addition, it declares that the English language requirements and workplace policies, whether in the public or private sector, shall be presumptively consistent with the laws of the United States.

I believe Teddy Roosevelt had it right when he said: ``There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but is something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language . . . and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.''

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, today I am proud to recognize a distinguished Texan and long time community leader in Southeast Texas. After nearly a decade of service Mrs. Verna Rutherford is stepping down as Port Arthur Chamber of Commerce President. As Chamber President Mrs. Rutherford has worked tirelessly for the economic expansion of Port Arthur and all of Southeast Texas.

Mrs. Rutherford has always been a dynamic leader in her community. She is past president and 1981 Quota Club member of the year, 1984 Port Arthur Noon Business and Professional Woman of the Year, 1993 Chamber Athena Award recipient, a member of the Port Arthur NAACP, Rotary Club, and Aurora Sertoma Club.

Mrs. Rutherford's level of commitment goes far beyond the organizations she is a member of and this commitment was on full display after Hurricane Rita ripped through the Texas Gulf Coast. Hurricane Rita has often been forgotten by all but those who have lived through it on the Texas Coast. After Rita, the role of Chamber President grew much broader; instead of business development, Mrs. Rutherford was concerned about getting the citizens of Port Arthur food, water, and housing--there was no task too large or small. Though hurricane Rita slammed into the Texas coast almost 2 years ago Verna is still helping those who cannot find help elsewhere.

On behalf of the Second Congressional District of Texas, I want to congratulate Mrs. Rutherford on a job well done and wish her the best as she moves forward with her career. Through her diligent efforts and dedication she has made Southeast Texas a better place to live.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, ``Fly the friendly and safe American skies.'' That's what Americans are being told by our government. But not so fast.

NASA just completed a 4-year survey of thousands of pilots on the issue of air safety. The results have been compiled, but NASA not only won't release the results, they have ordered the survey to be deleted from official computers.

NASA officials have said if the results are public, the airline customers' confidence in air safety will be jeopardized. The taxpayers paid $8 million for this survey, and the results should be open and not held hostage just because the results may reveal bad news.

The American public and the airline industry should know what the pilots say about air safety. If it wasn't for the press, the mere knowledge of this survey would not have been exposed, but would have remained a dark secret behind the Moon. Our ``Challenge'' is to continue to ``Endeavor'' to ``Discover'' the truth.

NASA should not be in the business of hiding the truth. Americans can deal with the truth, even if NASA cannot.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, I will address this house tonight on a very special issue. It is good to hear that the speakers prior to me used as the basis of their dialogue the Constitution.

Far too often it seems to me that in this House we talk and pontificate about all kinds of things, but sometimes we forget the basis for all legislation, the basis for what we do, the basis for the oath that we took as Members of Congress, was to support the Constitution of the United States.

Like many Members of Congress, I carry a pocket Constitution with me to refer to from time to time. I want to read just one portion of the U.S. Constitution. It is the eighth amendment to the Constitution. We call the first 10 amendments to our Constitution the Bill of Rights.

It says in the eighth amendment that excessive bail should not be required, nor excessive fines imposed. It also says nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. You notice the phrase is ``cruel and unusual punishment.'' Far too often some quote this phrase in the Constitution as cruel or unusual. That is not the law and it has never been the law. The law is punishment should not be cruel and unusual.

A little history is in order. Our forefathers that wrote this Constitution did not come up with that phrase. It

goes all of the way back to the English Bill of Rights from 1689. Most of the colonists had English heritage, and when they formed their federations and the States and colonies, they enacted certain laws. In those laws and later their State constitutions, they included the phrase that punishment should not be cruel and unusual.

Then when our forefathers wrote this Constitution and made it the law, this eighth amendment was added to make sure that punishment was not cruel and unusual. So that is a little basis for where we came up with this phrase. There have been many debates over the years as to what does that mean, cruel and unusual punishment. Not many Supreme Court cases are involved in what the definition is. But there is one. In 1878, the Supreme Court of the United States in a case called Wilkerson v. Utah tried to define what the phrase ``cruel and unusual'' meant. Here is what they said: It is safe to affirm that punishments of torture, such as drawing and quartering, emboweling alive, such as took place in the movie Braveheart with William Wallace, beheading, public dissecting, and burning alive, and all others in the same line of unnecessary cruelty, are forbidden by the eighth amendment to the Constitution. I doubt there are many Americans who would disagree with that interpretation of what ``cruel and unusual'' means.

But we have a new issue before us today, and this issue is coming before the United States Supreme Court which meets right down the street from us. Those nine members of the Supreme Court have decided to take two cases from Kentucky that deal with the issue of cruel and unusual punishment.

Two men in Kentucky received the death penalty for crimes against the citizens of Kentucky. And they argue now, years later, that the means by which they are executed is cruel and unusual. That means, Mr. Speaker, is by lethal injection. Kentucky's lethal injection procedures are the same as many States, including my home State of Texas. Just to be clear, three chemicals are used for lethal injection. The first is sodium thiopentothal which renders a person unconscious, and pavulon which paralyzes the muscles, including those which control breathing, and then potassium chloride which causes cardiac arrest. Those are the three chemicals that most States use and are administered to the person who has received the death penalty and is to be executed for their crimes.

The Supreme Court will consider one of these cases, it is called Baze v. Rees, the way that lethal injection is actually administered by the administrating process, whether it causes severe pain such that it is a violation of the cruel and unusual punishment provision of the eighth amendment. Baze was scheduled to die on September 25, 2007, for the 1992, that's right, 15 years ago he murdered a sheriff and deputy sheriff who were trying to serve him with a warrant. The Kentucky Supreme Court stayed his execution pending the outcome of the Supreme Court decision.

The second case involves the execution of a Thomas Bowling, also from Kentucky. In 1990, that is 17 years ago, he killed Tina and Edward Early outside their Lexington dry cleaning business. He also shot the Early's then 2-year-old son, but the son did not die. He was able to survive. Bowling was supposed to be executed 3 years ago, in 2004, but his execution was halted in part because of a challenge on how the State of Kentucky executes prisoners.

Both of these offenders, Baze and Bowling, sued the Commonwealth of Kentucky in 2004 claiming lethal injection amounts to cruel and unusual punishment and violates the eighth amendment to the Constitution. The State Supreme Court of Kentucky ruled against both of these men, but the U.S. Supreme Court now will hear their case. This marks the first time that the United States Supreme Court will address the merits of lethal injection without also a request for a stay of execution.

The Supreme Court's precedent is that the death penalty and the method of execution must not be ``contrary to evolving standards of decency'' and may not inflict ``unnecessary pain.'' Let me say that again. The Supreme Court says that the method of execution must not be contrary to evolving standards of decency and may not inflict unnecessary pain.

Our Supreme Court really has only ruled on a direct method of execution once, and that was in 1878 when it upheld the use of a firing squad for execution. But since that time, the Supreme Court in 1972 stopped all death penalty cases because of a different legal issue. The issue was that juries that decided whether a person should get the death penalty or not had too much discretion in making that decision. So the Supreme Court struck down death cases in the United States until State law conformed with the Supreme Court ruling, and then jurors were given a more exact way of determining whether the person should live or die. I am not going to go into those issues at this time, but basically the jury is asked a series of questions, and based upon the way they answer the questions, the person would receive the death penalty or a life sentence. In 1976, juries once again started hearing death penalty cases and making that decision.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, prior to coming to this House, I served in Texas first as a prosecutor in the district attorney's office in Houston for 8 years, and I also served on the bench trying felony cases after that for 22 years. During those 8 years when I served as a prosecutor, I tried death penalty cases. And those people that I tried when I was a prosecutor have all been executed.

When I served on the bench, most of those individuals who were tried and juries heard those cases, those people who received the death penalty have also been executed. But there are still some even now who are on death row.

I want to make it clear that judges do not determine the death penalty in this country. We do not give that power to one person. We want and make juries determine whether a person should live or die for the crimes they have committed. It is a mistaken belief among a lot of Americans that judges assess the death penalty. We just sentence the person to the death penalty if the jury has ordered the death penalty in that particular case.

So it is 12 people from the community who set the community standard on the conduct on the individual who appears in court. I am a great believer in that. I believe juries should be the ones and it should be a unanimous decision before we take a person's life for the crimes they have committed.

And guilt should never be an issue. What I mean by that, juries must be absolutely convinced beyond all doubt that a person committed this crime before they assess the death penalty. I was very careful as a trial judge over those 22 years on the numerous death penalty cases I tried to make sure that the rule of law was enforced in every situation because of the fact that the person that is on trial receives the ultimate punishment.

I am actually one who believes in numerous appeals on death penalty cases, to have it reviewed by other courts. I just wish courts, including our Supreme Court, would not take so long to make those decisions, that they should review those questions of guilt and the constitutional rights of the offender, make sure that those are reviewed quickly and not take years and years. That does not promote any form of justice either for the offender or for the victim in the case.

The State of Texas, as many know, has executed more folks than any other State. Let me just mention a little history here. Before it was even a part of the United States and before it was even a country, Texas was a country for 9 years from 1836 to 1845. But even before that time, Texas assessed the death penalty and death penalty cases were assessed by hanging. That was done until 1923, and then the State of Texas moved to the electric chair until the Supreme Court stayed all executions. And then lethal injection has been used ever since 1976. Texas was the first State to use lethal injection in 1982 as the means of punishing a person who received the death penalty.

There are 38 States now that assess the death penalty or have death penalty statutes on their books; 37 of those use lethal injection. Nebraska still uses electrocution. So 38 States, most of the States make that decision that some cases are so bad that the death penalty should be a form of punishment in those cases.

Now, I say all of that to address just one case. There are many cases that I could mention here. It would fill more than my allotted 60 minutes, but I want to talk of one case that occurred in my district back in Texas in Port Arthur. It involves a person by the name of Elroy Chester. He was born in Port Arthur in 1969. His criminal record begins in 1987 when he turned 18 years of age. I have before me here, Mr. Speaker, the 4-page resume of Elroy Chester. I don't have time to read all of the life and times of Elroy Chester, but I would like to put his rap sheet, as we call it in the vernacular, into the Record.

State of Texas vs. Elroy Chester

Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 986, had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

General Westmoreland said: ``I do not believe that the men who served in uniform in Vietnam have been given the credit they rightfully deserve. It was a difficult war against an unorthodox enemy.'' I agree with General Westmoreland, especially in light of those events when, last month, Vietnam veterans were dishonored when outlaw vandals desecrated the memorial.

I want to thank my colleague, Judge Carter, for introducing this resolution that deplores this despicable act. I'm glad to be a cosponsor of it.

It has also been said that in this war, Vietnam War, ``all gave some, and some gave all.'' And the Vietnam Veterans War Memorial lists the names of over 58,000 Americans who gave all for their country. And of course the men and women who sacrificed their lives in Vietnam deserve better than what happened to the memorial that honors them.

The thugs who desecrated the wall ought to be tracked down and be brought to justice because justice is the one thing we should always find. I certainly know what I would do to them if I were still on the bench, and I'm sure Judge Carter would like to do the same if he caught them. Be that as it may, they should be brought before the bar of justice.

Many of the friends that I grew up with in Texas served in Vietnam, and there are five of their names on that wall. We can honor them today by passing this resolution and demanding justice.

It has been said that in the Vietnam War it cost our troops everything, and it cost the American public almost nothing. It's time for the American public, by standing up for this resolution, to stand up for our troops and honor their memory in Vietnam.

Mr. Speaker, Lance Corporal Jeremy Burris, 22, was buried last week in Liberty, Texas, after being killed in Iraq. This young marine was honored at a funeral by the entire town for his heroism.

But a few days after his funeral, outlaws desecrated Jeremy's grave site. Some reports indicate the suspected criminals may have been antiwar peaceniks that commit violence in the name of peace. They disrespect and dishonor the dead by their vandalism.

But whoever committed such dastardly deeds should be quickly captured by the local sheriff. After these grave-desecrating criminals are convicted, they should be sentenced to serve time at Gitmo prison in Guantanamo Bay. After all, that is where America houses other war criminals.

So, Mr. Speaker, those that commit crimes against the graves of our fallen war dead are nothing more than war criminals and should be treated as such, because justice is the one thing we should always find.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, the first amendment protects the fundamental natural rights of free speech and free press.

These pillars of principle are listed first because they are the most important. These two freedoms ensure the protection of all the other rights that follow in the Bill of Rights.

Many years have passed since these values were chiseled into the Constitution, but they are still under attack by the elites who advocate Federal control of both. Why? Because these censors disagree with the content or claim it's inaccurate or it's not fair. Even former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said last year that people should not harshly criticize the Supreme Court or its rulings.

The Constitution does not guarantee speech or press to be fair or even accurate. It guarantees it to be free. ``Fair'' is too subjective a term.

Our Framers were primarily concerned about protecting the political and religious discourse. Why? Because they are the most controversial and the most important.

Any action by the Federal Government to control speech or press should be met with loud, harsh words; fiery oratory; and a blazing pen.

And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, in the vastness of west Texas, the sky is a brilliant brazen blue and a place where sparse live oak trees fight to even exist. In the stillness of these arid plains is the remote south Texas town of Rocksprings.

The people of this community of only 1,250 had a homecoming Saturday for their favorite son, Deputy Gilmer Hernandez. I was honored to be there. The ceremony, ironically, took place on the courthouse square under the pecan trees and in front of the old limestone courthouse. Ironic because, you see, Mr. Speaker, the town was celebrating the release of Gilmer Hernandez from the Federal penitentiary. He had been sent to prison for, as local sheriff, Donnie Letsinger put it ``just doing his job for the rest of us.'' The sheriff spoke the sentiments of most of the townspeople that I got to talk to.

The town was decorated with signs and flags and banners in windows of houses and in front of stores. Anyway, the ceremony started off with a lengthy prayer by the local Baptist preacher, and then there was a rousing pledge to the flag. There were tears and speeches by politicians. The mayor, Rachel Gallegos, presented Deputy Hernandez a proclamation from the city as Rocksprings' Favorite Son.

Most of the community turned out, many carrying signs of ``Welcome Home, Gilmer.'' Gilmer's family was there, his wife, Ashley; and his wonderful young daughter. When Gilmer was shipped off to Federal prison, the people of this small town rallied around his family. The town paid the rent on his pickup truck, took his family into their homes, provided food, and took care of his mortgage on his house. They sent him letters while he was incarcerated; they prayed for him; and when he got home, he already had a job with the city and the local phone company.

Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting celebration considering Gilmer was a convicted felon. Gilmer Hernandez grew up in Rocksprings. His family is from there. He became a deputy sheriff for Edwards County. He always dreamed of being a lawman, even though he made a little bit over just $20,000 a year patrolling a county the size of Delaware.

Here's what happened sometime ago: while this young deputy was on routine patrol late at night, he came in contact with an SUV that ran the red light in Rocksprings, Texas. He pulled the vehicle over; and as he approached it, the truck sped off and swerved to run over the deputy. Gilmer pulled his weapon and shot out two tires in self- defense. The vehicle stopped, and numerous illegals, including the coyote smuggling the illegals into America, took off running. But one of Gilmer's bullets ricocheted in the SUV and hit a passenger as Gilmer fired at the fleeing vehicle. This was the first time Gilmer Hernandez had ever fired his pistol.

The sheriff and the Texas Rangers investigated the incident; and after investigating it thoroughly, they cleared Hernandez.

But upon the assistance of the arrogant Mexican Government one year after the incident, our almighty Federal Government prosecuted Gilmer for a civil rights violation, saying he should not have continued firing at the vehicle after it drove past him. So Gilmer Hernandez was sent off to prison at the behest of Mexico with the United States being the puppet. By the way, all of the illegals got to stay in the United States.

Many of the townspeople told me Saturday they thought Gilmer was right to defend himself. One old crusty Texas rancher called Gilmer a political prisoner.

I and others of this House have asked the President to pardon Gilmer Hernandez, and we hope eventually the President does pardon him. He has, after all, served his time.

But Saturday, as the magnificent sun began to set, the town of Rocksprings came out to cheer and honor and praise and totally support its favorite native son. After all the hoopla, the town went down the road to the fairgrounds for barbecue and homemade desserts. And, by the way, the sheriff gave Gilmer back his badge, hoping some day he will be able to wear it again.

Deputy Gilmer Hernandez is a remarkable person, and the town of Rocksprings is a uniquely remarkable place to be from.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, we hear much hype about how bad GITMO prison is. That's where we keep prisoners of war, those terrorists that have been captured on the battlefield that have tried to kill Americans. The uninformed have compared the place to a gulag and a dungeon. I have been there and the place is neither.

Be that as it may, some POWs are treated better there than our Border Agents Ramos and Compean, who were sent to Federal prison for shooting a

border drug smuggler. This is the case where our government let a drug dealer go free and put border protectors in prison for 11 and 12 years.

Most POWs at GITMO are not in solitary confinement. But the border agents have been in solitary confinement for most of their sentences. The POWs get 9 hours a day of exercise, including soccer. The border agents spend 23 hours a day in their cells. The POWs watch Arabic TV. The border agents watch no TV. The POWs receive the same medical treatment as the United States military, but one border agent was assaulted in prison and didn't see a doctor for 5 days.

Madam Speaker, only in America do we treat terrorists and POWs better in GITMO than we do border agents who went to prison for protecting the border.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, in America's first war, fighting for freedom it was said by Patrick Henry, the great orator, ``The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active and to the brave.'' We are fortunate that those words still ring true today and that American soldiers overseas carry those values into battle.

One such warrior was Staff Sergeant Eric Duckworth. Army Staff Sergeant Eric Duckworth was killed in the line of duty in Iraq just a few days ago, on October 10, when he was leading a convoy and his vehicle was hit by an IED, an improvised explosive device, on the side of the road.

Madam Speaker, Sergeant Duckworth was 26 years of age and on his second tour in Iraq. He graduated from Clear Lake High School in Houston, Texas, in 1999, and while in high school, he wanted to participate in the military, so he joined the Reserve Officers Training Corps, the ROTC. Of course, as soon as he graduated from high school, he joined the United States Army.

His parents, Michael and Barbara Duckworth, of The Woodlands, Texas, say that for as long as they can remember, their son Eric wanted to serve his country in public service both in law enforcement and in the military. His father, Michael, described him as an outgoing and good- humored son. He further said, ``Eric was full of love and laughter and a Godly spirit, but, above all, he was a true soldier and a proud warrior.''

When I talked to Michael about his son Eric, he told me that Eric's only two wishes were that he serve in the military and that he also serve in law enforcement. Those wishes were granted when he was a military police officer and also a member of the United States Army.

Sergeant Duckworth was also a husband and a father. He is survived by his wife of 5 years, Sonya, and they have three children: Kaylynn, age 10; Madison, age 4; and young Michael, age 1. Eric's mom, Barbara, would send what I call ``care packages'' overseas to her son Eric, and what she included in those packages tells us a lot about Eric

and his personality. He received beef jerky, bubble gum, NASCAR magazines, and Dallas Cowboy T-shirts.

Eric said that the Iraqi people were grateful to Americans for their sacrifice in Iraq. Sergeant Duckworth also said it was his destiny and his belief that he should be an American soldier. He shared that belief with his mother in their last conversation they had together before he was killed in Iraq.

Madam Speaker, Eric's father spoke of his pride in his son's firm belief and dedication to the mission in Iraq. Eric's father, Michael, said Eric believed in his purpose, and his children, his nieces, his nephews will all grow up in a better world because of Eric's dedication to America.

So not only Eric, but the whole Duckworth family felt it was important that Staff Sergeant Eric Duckworth serve in the United States Army overseas. Sergeant Duckworth's service to his family and the Army and this country will always be remembered. Of course he is one of those few proud American heroes.

Madam Speaker, this is a photograph of Staff Sergeant Eric Duckworth. He was a real person that lived and died for the rest of us. His service reminds me of the lyrics to a song written by Toby Keith that is titled, ``The American Soldier.'' Part of those lyrics say, ``I will always do my duty, no matter what the price. I have counted up the cost, but I know the sacrifice. I don't want to die, but if dying is asked of me, I will bare that cross with honor, because freedom doesn't come free. I'm an American soldier, an American soldier.''

Staff Sergeant Duckworth, America appreciates your sacrifice on the alter of freedom for the rest of us, and we also appreciate the sacrifice of the entire Duckworth family down in Houston, Texas. We are sympathetic and grieve with this family, but are proud of their son who served in the United States Army.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, Maya Angelou once said, ``You shouldn't go through life with a catcher's mitt on both hands. You need to be able to throw something back.'' Since its inception in 1960, the Peace Corps has labored tirelessly throughout the world, ``throwing back'' to improve the lives of others. In these

short 47 years, more than 187,000 volunteers in 139 countries, have worked on issues ranging from environmental preservation to information technology.

Despite the fact that many people recognize this global need, fully committing to serving is often easier said than done. Mary and Tom Evans, of Humble, Texas, however, are an example to us all. These Texan grandparents want to ``return to the communities of the world,'' their ``good fortune.''

At the age when most of the couple's peers are retiring, they will soon be departing for their second tour with the Peace Corps. The Evans's are part of the volunteer organizations recent drive to utilize the wisdom of America's baby boomers. Life experiences, undergone by this generation give them a better understanding of what is required to more effectively aid others in foreign cultures. Already serving the community at home in Humble, Mary has taught at local schools for 15 years. Her Husband Tom is retired chemical salesman, who too began teaching as a substitute at area schools.

The grandparents' combined experience adds to the proficiency of their ability to educate and assist different populations, as was demonstrated on their first tour in the Republic of Kiribati. During their previous trip, Mary and Tom's main task was to create textbooks for the Gilbertese speaking islanders. The ``tangible difference'' that the couple observed in the people they helped, made up for the seemingly remote living conditions.

Currently, these Peace Corps volunteers are busy preparing for another adventure this time in the Ukraine. In anticipation of their upcoming trip, Mary and Tom are busy learning both the language and culture of their new posting. Although time has passed since their last endeavor, the couple is confident that they will even now be able to ``serve their country in the cause of peace.''

Giving back to the global community is truly an honorable endeavor. The example set by the Evanses and numerous other Peace Corps volunteers should be heeded by all. These patriots show the world what it means to be American; I commend their noble service.

And that's just the way it is.

Madam Speaker, Congo is facing a rape epidemic. The sexual violence in Congo is the worst in the world. Congolese women are raped, butchered by bayonets, and assaulted with chunks of wood. These brutal attacks leave their reproductive and digestive systems beyond repair.

The election last year has not ended the violence and instability in Congo. The government is inept. The justice system and military barely function. Large parts of Congo remain authority-free, leaving civilians at the mercy of armed militiamen, the Rastas. The Rastas are known for burning babies, kidnapping and raping women, and butchering anyone along their path. Rastas are former Hutus, who escaped into Congo after exterminating 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus during Rwanda's genocide. Rastas seek to destroy the Congolese women.

According to the U.N., 27,000 women in the South Kivu Province alone reported sexual assaults in 2006. That's only a fraction of the number of raped women across Congo. This is especially disturbing because the largest U.N. peacekeeping force in the world, over 17,000 troops, is in Congo.

Rape is a common weapon of war, but the sexual assaults in Congo are now a social phenomenon. Abuse of women, even by their husbands, is now considered ``normal.''

Congolese women face an extraordinary struggle. Their husbands leave them after they are raped for fear of ``disease.'' Congo does not have enough resources to treat sexual assault victims. The lack of hospital beds forces rape victims to return to their villages before they have fully recovered.

Rape victims are often left with colostomy bags, damaged internal organs, pregnant or unable to bear children, and afraid of being attacked again.

I founded the Congressional Victim's Rights Caucus to provide a voice for victims and to advocate on their behalf. As the co-chair of the caucus, I hope we continue to raise awareness of the devastating effects of domestic violence and other crimes on victims across the world.

Congolese women are victims of sadistic sexual assaults, irreversible internal damage, and a government that has failed to protect them. And that's just the way it is.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, The Free Flow of Information Act helps ensure that our press remains free. Our Constitution provides for a free press in the first amendment. The first amendment is first for a reason. It is the most important. Without the first amendment freedom of press, speech, religion and assembly, all the rest of the amendments are meaningless. A free press provides for a free flow of information.

I agree with the doctrine: a free press will ensure a fair press. The president and publisher of the Houston Chronicle, Jack Sweeney, said today: ``Journalists should be the last resort, not the first stop for civil litigants and prosecutors attempting to obtain the identity of confidential sources. This bill would protect the public's right to know, while at the same time honoring the public interest in having reporters testify in certain circumstances.''

This bill really does not create a new special protection. It gives journalists the protection that is already afforded to them in 49 States which protect the confidentiality of reporters' sources. Federal protection is long overdue.

Mr. Speaker, I gladly cosponsor this bill, and that's just the way it is.