Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to highlight the prospect of using rice as an alternative energy source in the production of ethanol.

We all understand the importance of securing affordable and reliable means of energy for future generations. On the heels of the comprehensive energy bill that this body passed in April, which encourages ethanol production, I submit that rice and rice farmers specifically could contribute to this endeavor.

Rice producers like those in my southeast Texas district face great difficulties in finding markets for their goods. Just a few years ago, there were over 600,000 acres in Texas that was farmed for rice, about the size of Rhode Island. Now, less than 200,000 acres are rice farmlands.

One untapped potential market is ethanol. While many folks think about ethanol developed from corn, not much attention has been directed to ethanol developed from rice. The process of cellulosic conversion can derive ethanol from various sources including rice. It is essential that the Department of Agriculture continue their work with the universities in Texas to fund research into this type of conversion to ethanol.

I understand the problems facing rice farmers in Texas. It is critical to support scientific research that develops new markets for our farmers. Cellulosic conversion holds the promise of deriving ethanol from rice along with other biomass materials.

Mr. Speaker, the President's budget was tough on farm programs and it is important that we support agricultural research that benefits American farmers and helps supply Americans with more energy.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf) for the time.

I want to, at this time, personally thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) of the House Committee on Appropriations for saving VOCA, the Victims of Crime Act funding, by not removing these funds and giving them to other projects.

This was a novel brainchild of the Reagan administration. VOCA constitutes the United States Government's vision to make criminals literally pay for the crimes they have committed. Since the beginning of VOCA in 1984, fees and fines and forfeitures that are collected from criminals in any given year go to VOCA's Crime Victims Fund. The following year, these grants are then issued to States for services that go directly to victims of crime. The money does not come from taxpayers, but criminals pay for the system they have created.

So I want to praise the effort of the gentleman from California (Chairman Lewis) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) because they are not only saving VOCA, they have also affirmed that victims of crime should have a high priority, more of a priority than building another bridge someplace or expanding the bloated bureaucracy. Saving these funds is a statement that we as a Congress will not forget the plight of American crime victims.

I also want to thank the effort of fellow members of the Victims Rights Caucus that we have cofounded, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Harris) and my good friend across the aisle, the gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

More importantly, there are numerous victims of crimes organizations in the United States that fought to save these funds. They include Justice Solutions, the National Association of VOCA Assistance Administrators, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, the National Association of

Crime Victim Compensation Boards, the National Children's Alliance, the National Center for Victims of Crime, and the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and many others.

So I want to commend these organizations for coming on board to make the statement basically: Do not mess with crime victims.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for sponsoring this legislation.

Based on my experience as a judge and prosecutor for almost 30 years combined, this epidemic of methamphetamine is a disease that is affecting a lot of people. It crosses all barriers, all social economic barriers, all races, all ages, both sexes. And it is incumbent upon Congress to make sure that our local law enforcement officials have the ability to fight the war on drugs, to fight it the way they understand best, and the nationalization of this whole process is a very bad idea.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to ask a question, and that question is relatively simple. By what legal authority do justices of our Supreme Court use foreign world tribunals, global opinion, and the philosophy of European elites in making their decisions, those decisions that affect all Americans of this Nation? By what license, by what authority do members of America's highest court ignore our Constitution, the Constitution they took an oath to defend, and why do they cite foreign court decisions at all, decisions from England, the European Union, the World Court, Belgium, and numerous other nations? The Constitution clearly does not give them the power to abandon the scriptures of the Constitution. So where do they obtain such authority? Mr. Speaker, has the Supreme Court lost its way?

I imagine that these justices wonder who I am to question them and their use of foreign court decisions in making laws that apply to the rest of us. With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I am a citizen of the Republic just as they are. I am an elected representative of this House that represents the people. Furthermore, I possess a loyal and lengthy relationship with the law. I am a former instructor in constitutional law. I was a trial prosecutor for 8 years, trying every type of criminal case from theft to kidnapping to capital murder, including cases where the death penalty was assessed and executions were actually carried out.

But more recently, I spent 22 years as a felony court trial judge in Houston, Texas. I heard over 20,000 criminal cases. In fact, I suspect I heard more criminal cases in 1 year than all the nine judges of the Supreme Court decided in an equal amount of time. As a criminal court judge, I used the Constitution, particularly the first 14 amendments, every day. I made decisions that affected people, real people, defendants, victims, and the community. Those decisions affected those individuals for the rest of their lives. I determined whether individuals should lose their property, their liberty, and their freedom. Sometimes the decisions I made even resulted in those individuals losing their life. Yet every one of those 20,000 cases was rooted in the United States Constitution.

Individuals who came to my court, whether they were defendants, victims, or members of the community, knew that the basis of all American law is in the Constitution. Not my personal opinion, not the rulings of foreign nations, and not the World Court. Not even what the French think. It is the Constitution that gives all courts from trial courts to the courts of appeal their foundation, their identity. If I had used any other law but that of the Constitution, I would have been removed from the bench.

In the jury trials over which I presided, the jury too would take an oath to follow the law and the evidence. They were to internalize the law of the Constitution and make their decisions. They were expected to decide the case with domestic law, our law, not the law in some other nation.

Mr. Speaker, if our Supreme Court uses foreign court decisions, why cannot our trial courts use foreign court decisions in their opinions? If the Supreme Court justices are our example, why cannot that example be followed by other judges in America? Is it not good for the gander what is good for the goose?

Using foreign court decisions across the board would create, of course, judicial chaos, judicial anarchy. But yet the Supreme Court does exactly this. Why should the Supreme Court be left to its own devices? If there is any other standard other than the Constitution, than what is next?

Mr. Speaker, looking to foreign court decisions is as relevant as using the writings in ``Reader's Digest,'' a Sears and Roebuck catalogue, a horoscope, my grandmother's recipe for the common cold, looking at tea leaves, star gazing, or the local gossip at the barber shop in Cut N' Shoot, Texas. Mr. Speaker, has the Supreme Court lost its way?

Also, how do our justices know which foreign decisions they will embrace and which ones they will reject? Why have they discriminated and not used the decisions of our neighbors in South and Central America or even Mexico? I have personally witnessed trials in Russia and in China. Why not use those courts' decision in determining American jurisprudence? Who exactly decides what will be used to decide? Is there any longer predictability or uniformity in our legal system?

Mr. Speaker, many of the judicial matters for which our justices consult the opinions of other nations deal with the issue of cruel and unusual punishment. That is a concept addressed in our very own Constitution. Just like the provisions for a jury trial are in our Constitution. Now, I ask this question: If the Supreme Court justices look to foreign courts to define what should be cruel and unusual punishment in our Nation, then I ask what is to restrain them from determining that our guarantee of a jury trial should not be modified? After all, many of the international entities that these

justices confer with on judicial principles do not even subscribe to jury trials. Europeans use tribunals. In fact, they disdain the concept of the jury trial. What is next? Will someone on the Supreme Court conclude that the American jury trial system is outdated and should be abolished because it is not the European way?

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, Justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Ginsburg, David Souter, and Sandra Day O'Connor are suffering from the Black Robe disease, an incapacitating, invasive infection imported from Europe. There is a cure to the Black Robe disease, however. It is a dose of the Constitution. A strong dose of our United States Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, trial judges, like I was once was, deal with real people every day. Many of our Supreme Court justices, with all due respect, have for the most part only handled cases on review and on appeal. The consequences of our Constitution occur in our trial courts. Having been down there in the mud and the blood and the beer with people, I have seen the impact of the Constitution on the lives of Americans. We call those consequences justice. Our Supreme Court justices deal in judicial theory, judicial thought. Simply put, it is judicial review. We are talking about the fundamental difference between the original applications of the law and the trenches in a trial court versus the pontifications about the law on the ``mount.'' As a side note, the Supreme Court should not make law. Their duty is to review the Constitution, not revise it, not reinvent it, and certainly not rewrite it.

The Constitution, Mr. Speaker, is the people's document. It is ordained by and subject to the will of the people. It should not be meddled with by anyone, including members of the Supreme Court. If we believe the Constitution delivers justice, does not injustice, on the other hand, flow from calling upon standards like foreign courts, global norms, and international organizations?

Mr. Speaker, I do not criticize the results of the Supreme Court decisions. No one respects the role of the judiciary more than I do. My grave concern, however is rooted in the process and method by which the Supreme Court makes those decisions that affect the rest of us.

Their use of foreign court opinions in interpreting American laws. How can the result be fair if the basis for the result is something other than the Constitution?

Mr. Speaker, a historical review of a few Supreme Court decisions is in order. In Thompson v. Oklahoma, Justice John Paul Stevens maintained it would be offensive to civilized standards of decency to execute a person who was less than 16 years of age at the time of the offense.

Referencing the views of other nations that share Anglo-American heritage, as well as leading members of the Western European community, he had tremendous confidence in this decision. Further citing the abolishment of the death penalty in nations like West Germany, France, Portugal, the Netherlands, all Scandinavian countries, and the Soviet Union, as well as the scant use of that penalty in New Zealand and the United Kingdom, Justice Stevens suggested Americans should consider global norms in determining our system of criminal punishments. By what authority does he use these nations as an example for American law?

Mr. Speaker, has the Supreme Court lost its way?

When we hear, as in this case, Mr. Stevens' reference to the United Kingdom's practices, it makes one wonder whether he recalls his high school American history class. I suspect more history is in order at this point.

While engaged in an intense revolution in 1776, our forefathers signed the Declaration of Independence, which boldly sets out the 13 colonies' desire to disband their political union with England forever. In that document, which is just down the street from this building, Thomas Jefferson penned among the list of grievances against King George of England that he combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our own laws.

Americans, Mr. Speaker, fled from England and Europe because they did not want to be subject to those unfair laws.

Mr. Speaker, over the course of 8 years in the American War of Independence, patriots spilled blood to secure liberty for us and preserve constitutional rights. Their will was to permanently cut the ties with England.

We won the war for American independence, but in 1812 we had to do it all over again, because the British invaded the United States once again because they still wanted America to be subject to the King of England and the law of England. The British were resolute on the recapture this free Nation of America. They even burned this city. They burned this very Capitol, the symbol of democracy. Americans, however, defeated the British for a second time, showing them that we will not do things the English way, the European way or any way except the American way.

Nonetheless, justices here in America across the street from this Capitol choose to use British court decisions and European thought in interpreting the Constitution of this country. What the British never could accomplish by force has our Supreme Court raised the white flag and surrendered to them voluntarily. Has the Supreme Court become like a Benedict Arnold and betrayed the Constitution for the rule of the British empire?

Let us move on to other decisions by our Supreme Court. In Atkins v. Virginia, the justices once more glanced across the seas toward foreign courts, and although over a decade earlier our Supreme Court decided that decisions of international courts were not to be used in the determination of sentencing in the United States, the Supreme Court did a judicial backflip. The justices in this case now in this particular matter listened to the voice of the European Union and the global community at large in making this inconsistent decision.

I ask once again, why not just use the Constitution? Is it because the Constitution does not allow them to do what they do, so they grab European law to justify the decisions that are imposed on the rest of us? Has the Supreme Court lost its way?

Now let us turn to a case in my home State of Texas, the case of Lawrence v. Texas. One of the most egregious perpetrators of citing foreign court decisions is Justice Kennedy. Justice Kennedy referred to international standards in the court's decision and consideration of Texas laws in Lawrence v. Texas. In this instance, writing for the majority, he clung to a previous ruling handed down from one of the most excellent high courts, the European Court of Human Rights.

Mr. Speaker, people in Texas do not care what the European court says about much of anything, but they do care what the Constitution says. Why are we looking to Europe at all, with its not-so-glamorous history and the long lamentable catalogue of human conduct. Europe is no righteous stalwart of human rights.

Europe, you remember. That part of the world that brought us two world wars in the last century. That part of the world where history is littered with episodes of massive religious intolerance and persecution of races. That part of the world where political murder and drawing and quartering were done for entertainment. All the while, a poor man could be hung for killing the king's deer.

Why do we turn for advice to that civilized world? Is that not why we established our Nation to begin with? Is that not why we established the Constitution of the United States?

Just recently, in April, the Supreme Court heard Small v. United States. In 1992, Gary Small shipped several multi-gallon electric water heaters from the United States to Japan. Japanese custom officials searched the container and they uncovered rifles, numerous semiautomatic pistols and several hundred rounds of ammunition. So he was tried and convicted of violating Japanese customs and weapons laws and he went to jail in Japan.

Once he got out of that Japanese jail, however, about one week after he got out, he came to the United States and purchased a 9 millimeter pistol. Following a search of his residence, his vehicle and his business, U.S. Federal authorities discovered this .380 caliber pistol and several hundred rounds of ammunition. Deeming a convicted gun smuggler apprehended with additional

ammunition could constitute a danger to society, Federal prosecutors, using common sense, prosecuted him under a U.S. statute which says ex- convicts for weapons violations may not possess guns.

This statute, passed by this Congress prohibits, ``Any person convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding a year to possess any firearm.'' Notice the statute says any court, it does not say U.S. court or state court, but any court.

Nevertheless, when this case went on appeal, the justices of the Supreme Court trumped the law, a law that is on our books, on America's books. They concluded that Congress ordinarily intends its statutes to have domestic, not foreign application. They determined that involving foreign convictions would raise the possibility an individual may not have the entire fairness of the American legal system.

Now it appears the Supreme Court is inconsistent on which foreign decisions they will follow and which ones they will not. Is this the law of chaos? Is this the law of arbitrary decisions?

Just as a side note, Mr. Speaker, the Japanese Constitution was written for the most part by General Douglas MacArthur after the end of World War II.

In any event, something is amiss. This is perplexing. It is appearing that the Supreme Court is becoming inconsistent on which foreign laws they will apply and which ones they will not. With this type of reasoning, when do we accept foreign court opinions and when do we ignore them? Is there any rhyme or reason to this arbitrary justice?

In a rare public debate, Justice Anthony Scalia rightly asked his colleague Justice Breyer this question: ``Do we just use foreign law selectively when it agrees with what the justice would like the case to say? You use that foreign law, and when it does not agree with you, you ignore that foreign law. Nevertheless, the use of foreign law marches on.''

The Supreme Court has also used the law of Jamaica in deciding cases to get a desired result, a result that we in America have to follow.

Further, when the Supreme Court justices have cited opinions from foreign courts in far away lands like that bastion of civil rights, Zimbabwe, was that based on an overriding confidence in the inherent standards of fairness in the country of Zimbabwe and its legal system?

Mr. Speaker, that dog just will not hunt. The last time I checked, Zimbabwe was an authoritarian government ruled by a cold and callous conniving Robert Mugabe, who oppresses political challengers, civil rights activists and jails representatives of the media. It appears the Supreme Court may have lost its way.

It also appears that some of the justices have no intention of curbing this arbitrary and alarming habit any time soon. The black robe disease is spreading. According to Justice O'Connor, the Supreme Court will rely increasingly on international and foreign courts in examining domestic issues. Why? Why do that? Well, she says, because the impressions we create in this world are important.

It sound like the justice makes her decisions based upon the opinions of a worldwide focus group.

Listening to Justice O'Connor, one would think the Supreme Court is the agent of a popularity contest. In Justice O'Connor's view, ``The world really is growing together, through commerce, globalization, the spread of democratic institutions, immigration to America. It is becoming more and more one world of many different kinds of people, and how they are going to live together across the world will be the challenge, and whether our Constitution and how it fits into the governing documents of other nations will be a challenge for the next generations.''

Mr. Speaker, this defies common sense.

Justice Breyer argues that for years, people all over the world have cited the Supreme Court, why do we not cite them occasionally and give them a leg up, so they may then go to some of their legislators and others and say, see, the Supreme Court of the United States cites us.

Well, why not just cite Reader's Digest? Mr. Speaker, this defies common sense.

Justice Scalia concedes foreign authorities may prove useful in devising a Constitution, but not interpreting the Constitution. In fact, the Federalist Papers, which flush out many of the particulars concerning the Founding Fathers' vision and what they thought about America and our Constitution, has discussions of systems of government from other countries, for example, Switzerland and Germany. But there is a difference in using foreign courts and foreign thought to write a Constitution and using foreign thought and courts to interpret our Constitution now that it has been established.

Justice Scalia asks, why? Why is foreign law relevant to what American judges do when they interpret our Constitution? He goes on, answering his own question. The court's discussion of these foreign views is meaningless. It is dangerous, since this court, talking about the Supreme Court, should not impose foreign moods, fads or fashions on Americans.

But that is what happens. That is what happens when our Supreme Court cites foreign courts in making its decisions about the United States Constitution.

Justice Scalia's assessment, Mr. Speaker, is further echoed by the Chief Justice of our Supreme Court, William Rehnquist, who in a dissenting opinion of Atkins v. Virginia wrote, ``The viewpoints of other countries simply are not relevant, and that global notions of justice are, thankfully, not always those of our people.''

One could even travel an additional mile, as Justice Clarence Thomas has, to suggest that citation of foreign authorities really reflects a sign of weakness, an admission that the position for which the foreign authority is cited really lacks support in the United States legal sources, specifically lacks support in the Constitution.

Our Constitution is sacred, Mr. Speaker. It is not a mere list of suggestions. Its values are timeless. The Constitution is complete. It needs no help from foreign courts. America's standards are timeless, and they are in our very own Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a Democrat or a Republican, liberal or conservative issue. It is an issue of stand with the Constitution and who will go the way of the wayward foreign courts.

When asked during a recent ABC interview whether a day will come when the Constitution will no longer be the last word on the law, Justice O'Connor shared the following. She said, ``Well, you always have the power of entering into treaties with other nations, which also became a part of the law of the land. But I can't really see the day when we won't have a Constitution in our Nation.''

While Justice O'Connor hardly predicts the dark and dreary demise of America's Constitution, her words, Mr. Speaker, are sad. Her words fall far short of assuring us that forever and always the U.S. Constitution will be the lifeline of our land's existence. The more we hear from our Nation's top jurists like Justice Ginsberg that ``our island'' or ``lone ranger mentality is beginning to change,'' and that they ``are becoming more and more open to comparative and international law perspectives, it concerns me a great deal. The Supreme Court has lost its way, and the Black Robe disease is still infecting our court. People speak of the independence of the judiciary. Mr. Speaker, that is a legal myth. A judiciary cannot be independent of the Constitution but, rather, it must be dependent upon its words.

Mr. Speaker, let us in this body, as fellow defenders of the Constitution of the United States, help all people, including those in the Supreme Court, remember our heritage. And until they decide to rejoin the cause of championing our Nation's identity, let us purposefully grip our Constitution with both hands. The Constitution does not give judges, any judges, the authority to use anything as a basis for their decisions except that very Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson, who I cited earlier in writing the Declaration of Independence, years later, in 1820, saw the bleak future for our judiciary and predicted future judicial subversion. He said, ``The judiciary of the United States is the subtle core of individuals and miners constantly working underground to

undermine the foundations of our fabric. A judiciary independent of a king or executive alone is a good thing, but independence of the will of the Nation is a travesty.'' And that will of the Nation, Mr. Speaker, is the Constitution uttered straight from the will of the people. Let us remember some of its words. How about the first words of the Constitution to bring us back, back home, back to a perspective of our law. Those words that say, ``We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.''

The Constitution belongs to the people. It is ordained by the people. It does not belong to the Supreme Court for them to bend, rewrite, reinvent, or ignore it under any circumstances. Section 1 of the Constitution dictates that ``The judges, both of the Supreme Court and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior. I ask this question: Mr. Speaker, does citing foreign court opinions constitute good behavior? History will reveal whether it does or does not. If, however, I carried on like this in my courtroom in Texas, I would have been removed from the bench, and rightfully so. People from where I come from would not stand for a judge citing foreign courts to make decisions that affect Americans.

Perhaps the Justices, Mr. Speaker, should think long and hard about the meaning of good behavior. Serving this Nation is a privilege; it is not a right. We are all accountable to the Constitution that have taken an oath to defend the Constitution.

All of us in this body, this House of the people, this House of Representatives took an oath, an oath that people throughout the lands have taken, people from school boards, police officers, firefighters, city councils, mayors, big cities, and little cities, legislators, Members of Congress; all judges, State, local, and Federal, and the judges of the Supreme Court. We have all taken the same simple and solemn oath, to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. We owe it to the American people, we owe it to the Constitution, to follow that oath. That is our duty. That is our obligation, and we can do nothing but follow that oath.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 21 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, June 14, 2005, at 9 a.m., for morning hour debates.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) for yielding and his leadership in underscoring the lengthy, loathsome and lewd history that the United Nations possesses, a history of the deception and dishonesty and duplicity.

As a former judge in Houston, Texas, for over 20 years, I believe in consequences for bad conduct. When improper behavior takes place, I do not believe that we should say to the perpetrator, the person responsible, try to do a little better. Normally, we look to the head of the organization when the organization is floundering, especially in corruption.

In order for the U.N. to regain credibility, Kofi Annan must step down. Under his watch, the world's largest financial and human rights scandal has occurred. The U.N. Oil-for-Food scandal makes the Enron scandal in Houston, Texas, look like theft of a toothbrush. This U.N. scandal resulted in millions of lives languishing in Iraq. In the ongoing investigation, it appears as though Kofi Annan and his top staff may have obstructed justice, may have destroyed piles of files that many suspect reveal how he knew what was going on all along.

There should be consequences, and my question is, what is the United Nation's position on the consequences in its own body for improper corrupt conduct? Why cannot the United Nations enforce basic civil rules for conduct?

Let us revisit just briefly some of the accusations against the United Nations in addition to the Oil-for-Food disgrace. How about the 150 allegations of sexual abuse by U.N. civilian staff and soldiers in the Congo? Accusations which include prostitution, rape, pedophilia. Or what about the numerous cases of abuse among peacekeepers in the northeastern town of Bunia? This does not include previous reports of peacekeeping abuses in Cambodia, Ethiopia, Bosnia, and Somalia, and the list goes on and on.

How about the tragic tales of defenseless North Korean defectors who faced deprivation or worse at the hands of U.N.-operated refugee camps? Or the investigations into the involvement of U.N. affiliates in trafficking prostitution in Kosovo? Not to mention, Mr. Speaker, some of the internal misconduct we have heard about like the allegations of sexual harassment, abuse of power, unwanted physical conduct within at least one U.N. administrative office. And let us not forget the indications that Kofi Annan's son, Kojo, may have engaged in corruption by way of the Swiss company for which he worked that inspected items going to Iraq on behalf of the Oil-for-Food program.

Whether or not we ever substantiate claims that the UN's Oil-for-Food initiative has ties to international terrorism, one thing is certain: Outlaws within the ranks of the United Nations have instigated terror in the lives of people across the globe. Rather than weeping for joy at the arrival of United Nation relief, many of those people run in panic at thought of such a sordid savior touching the ground in their own country.

Whatever happened to the United Nations' charter promise that advances

justice and respect for obligations arising from treaties and the dignity and the worth of the human person?

In fact, in raising the United Nations' duty to promoting dignity and humanity, how ironic it has become that countries like Sudan, Zimbabwe, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and even China now comprise the membership in the United Nations' Commission on Human Rights.

This body must act. It must act now. And it must start with demanding that Kofi Annan step down. He is responsible for the conduct of the United Nation, because in our society we look to the head of any organization. Then let us try to aid congressional investigators in their efforts to unravel the deception and gluttony and the corruption perpetrated for years by the United Nations.

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for allowing me to make those comments; and I hope that we as a body can make a statement that the United Nations is going to be held accountable for its conduct.

Madam Speaker, I rise this morning to highlight the importance of free trade and the merits of agricultural trade, particularly rice trade, with Cuba. An injunction against tourism is one thing, but our sanctions against Castro's regime, which have been in place since 1963, should not prevent our Nation from selling farm products, specifically rice, to the people there.

The Cuban people will eat rice. If we will not sell it to them, they will get it elsewhere. Why are we economically punishing ourselves and our farmers in the name of punishing Communists in Cuba?

The Cuban market remained closed until this body passed the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000. With the reopening mandated by this Act, rice sales to Cuba have grown to $64 million a year. But now we hear that some want to slash back this momentous trade for political reasons.

The Federal Government announced it was redefining the definition of ``payment of cash in advance,'' a ruling which could jeopardize future trade. This bureaucracy is getting in the way of the law. As Cubans begin looking to Vietnam, Thailand and for other sources for rice, I urge colleagues to cosign H.R. 1339 to further explain in simple terms to government bureaucrats that U.S. farmers should be allowed to trade with Cuba on a cash-for-crop basis.

``I don't do it for the money . . . I don't do it for the glory . . . Providing for our future is my responsibility . . . I can't call in sick on Mondays when the weekend has been too strong. I just work straight through the holidays and sometimes all night long. You can bet that I stand ready

when the wolf growls at the door . . . I am solid . . . I am steady . . . I am true down to the core . . . I'm an American soldier.''

Words from Toby Keith's ``American Soldier.''

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in honor of a young American soldier, Private First Class Wesley Robert Riggs, who died serving our Nation in Iraq. Private First Class Riggs, in only 19 years, had exhibited a lifetime of dedication and duty. He was killed during a patrol on May 17, 2005, near Tikrit, Iraq, when a roadside bomb exploded.

He was a native of Baytown/Beach City, Texas. Wesley graduated in 3 years from Barbers Hill High School in 2003. He was active in the Future Farmers of America. To Wesley's Ag teachers, he was well devoted to the curriculum and is remembered for his skills in Ag Mechanics and Meats Technology. They recall his love of fishing, hunting and anything outdoors.

Before enlisting in the United States Army in 2004, Wesley spent his days like many other young Texans. He enjoyed hanging around with friends and working on cars. He liked four-wheeling and camping. He was also a member of the Houston Olympic weight lifting team.

He attended Holy Trinity Catholic Church in Mt. Belvieu, Texas. Reverend Andrew Moore, Wesley's Pastor at Holy Trinity, recalls a dedicated young man that was extremely motivated and driven. He dreamed of a career in law enforcement after his years in the military.

A number of his band of brothers in the military paid tribute to Wesley at his funeral service. Others commemorated him at his memorial service that I was able to attend this past Memorial Day weekend. They all spoke of a comrade who illustrated exemplary service.

To date, Mr. Speaker, in Operation Iraqi Freedom, our United States Army alone has lost 93 Texans in combat-related casualties. It is interesting to note that one out of every ten Americans in the United States military comes from the Lone Star State.

Our military cannot replace individuals of such exceptional character as Private First Class Riggs. However, his service will provide a stirring example for the men and women who carry forward his tenacious fight against tyranny, terror and treachery.

Moreover, Private First Class Riggs helped to establish a democracy, the historic start of which I was privileged to witness in Iraq this past January. Freedom does not come, Mr. Speaker, because somebody carries a sign in protest. It comes because of sacrifice.

So if today we could hear from Private First Class Wesley Riggs himself, as a member once and always of the United States Army, as a member of the Infantry, called ``the Queen of Battle,'' he would resonate the remainder of Toby Keith's ``American Soldier:''

``And I always will do my duty, no matter what the price. I have counted up the cost, I know the sacrifice . . . I don't want to die for you, but if dying is asked of me, I will bear that cross with honor, cause freedom don't come free . . . I am out here on the front line. Sleep in peace tonight . . . I am an American Soldier, an American, an American Soldier.''

Private First Class Riggs might also hear the words that were spoken many years ago regarding the band of brothers in Henry V. He could say, inspired by Shakespeare, ``For he that sheds his blood with me is my brother. From this day to the ending of the world. But we in it shall be remembered, we few, we happy few, we band of brothers.''

Private First Class Riggs, we will not forget you, an Army of one. He received the Bronze Star, Purple Heart, National Defense Service Medal, Global War on Terrorism Medal and the Army Service Ribbon. We thank you, Private First Class Riggs, for your service, your dedication and sacrifice to your country.

Mr. Speaker, due to other obligations in my district, I unfortunately missed the following votes on the House floor on Monday, May 23,2005.

I ask that the Record reflect that had I been able to vote that day, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 200 (On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended--the Internet Spyware (I-SPY) Prevention Act), and rollcall vote No. 201 (On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended--the Securely Protect Yourself Against Cyber Trespass Act). I strongly support these two bills because they take important steps to protect the identity and privacy of computer users.

I also ask that the Record reflect that had I been able to vote that day, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 202 (On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended--Recognizing the 57th Anniversary of the Independence of the State of Israel). As a cosponsor of this legislation, H. Con. Res. 149, I congratulate Israel on its 57th Anniversary of Independence and their allegiance to the principles of freedom and democracy. Israel has consistently been a vital and strategic ally to the United States in the Middle East.

Mr. Speaker, due to other obligations, I unfortunately missed a recorded vote on the House floor on Thursday, May 19, 2005.

I ask that the Record reflect that had I been able to vote that day, I would have voted ``yes'' on Rollcall vote No. 196 (On Agreeing to the Amendment--prohibiting the use of funds for the sale or slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and burros.)

Mr. Speaker, due to other obligations, I unfortunately missed the following vote on the House floor today, Tuesday, May 24, 2005.

Had I been able to vote, I would have voted ``yes'' on rollcall vote No. 203 (On Ordering the Previous Question--Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2419) making appropriations for energy and water development for FY 2006).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss national security and public safety for our country and who is responsible for that duty.

Public safety, that is the first duty of government. Local security, local public safety goes to local cities and local law enforcement. National security, national public safety is the responsibility of the Federal Government.

But there is an unfunded public safety mandate that is affixiating an already struggling industry: our airline industry. The airline industry is an important sector of the American economy. With increasing fuel costs and taxes, the industry lost $9 billion last year alone and has lost $32 billion since September 11, 2001. Presently, taxes and fees comprise 26 percent of a $200 airline ticket. The flights seem to be at near capacity, yet some airlines are losing money, and I want to mention just one reason why.

Although the Federal Government has taken over much of the security for air travel after the terrorist attacks of September 11, airlines are still paying for national security and public safety. The airline industry forks over $777 million a year out of their own pockets for an unfunded Federal security mandate such as catering, security, security for checkpoints and exit lanes, and first class, or first flight cabin sweeps.

Specifically, the people who load the peanuts on the airplanes, for example, the airlines are forced to expend $81 million, not only on their salaries, but the security checks on these caterers.

The people who match your ticket with your driver's license, and then mark it up with a red Crayola at checkpoints and exit lanes, airlines, not the government, dispense roughly $80 million on these people.

And the first flight cabin sweep crew that inspects the plane prior to boarding, the people who check for bombs in the bathrooms, airlines pick up a $26 million tab for them.

But perhaps the largest unfunded security mandate is the Federal Air Marshal Service, the one which costs the airlines $195 million every year. Under current law Federal air marshals are permitted to fly without a cost to the Federal Government or the air marshals.

They sometime fly in pairs, and sometime sit in first class seats to allow them to better protect the cockpit. But they can bump off the plane a paying passenger as well. The Air Transportation Association estimates that airlines are losing $195 million a year in opportunity costs by losing these seats.

Continental Airlines, a carrier based ought of Houston, Texas, part of my Congressional district, loses $7 to $9 million a year because they cannot sell the seats used by Federal marshals to the public.

I say again, national security and public safety are the responsibilities of the Federal Government. If the Federal Government wants air marshals on our airplanes, the Federal Government should pay for this service.

The Federal Government should shell out the money to pay for the travel of Federal air marshals, because this is a law enforcement expense, instead of saddling the expenditure on the airplanes.

Mr. Speaker, we want the Federal air marshals on our planes, and while many of their accomplishments remain below the radar, their presence on thousands of domestic flights since 9/11 have helped to maintain the safety of our skies, but the Government should pay their way.

Mr. Speaker, some may argue that it is the airline's responsibility to provide for some reasonable security. Well, the airplanes already cough up scores of dollars to comply with Federal regulations. For example, the Federal Airline Administration reports that full deployment of hardened cockpit doors meeting outlined specifications have been implemented on about 10,000 airliners and foreign aircraft flying to and from the United States.

Who paid for most of this, Mr. Speaker? The airlines, because the Government, our Government told them to.

Still, airlines face additional expenditures in the name of safety. Video monitors and other devices to alert pilots of cabin activity as well as guns in the cockpit are just a few of the other efforts being undertaken by the industry, all of which, Mr. Speaker, cost money.

If the Government does not offer financial assistance to implement these technologies, who will? Once again, it is the airlines. When will we be substantially decreasing the hundreds of millions of dollars they incur in unfunded Federal security mandates?

Mr. Speaker, we must bring some relief to these carriers by reducing these unfunded mandates that they are expected to pay.

I urge my colleagues to help preserve this vital industry and start imploring

our Government to pay for the security of this Nation.

When you are spending taxpayer money for bridges that go nowhere, funding fish hatcheries and wasting precious dollars on foreign give- away programs, we must be responsible to the country by securing the air. That is the first duty of government.

Mr. Speaker, when the next airline files for bankruptcy, we will all bemoan the tragic news, but unless we change our policy the Federal Government will be responsible for putting an institution, the airline industry, on the road of economic ruin, and then we will ask the question what happened to the airlines in our skies.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to honor Sergeant Mike Lane, a lifelong Texan, member of the Beaumont Police Department for 33 years. Each day a person who wears the badge walks the thin blue line between life and death. Their spouses wonder when their police officer mate reports for duty if that person will return safely home. Last year, 156 of them did not return home to their families. Texas, along with California, each led the Nation last year with 14 police officers killed in the line of duty. Sergeant Mike Lane was one of them.

Mike Lane graduated from Beaumont High School in 1969 and received his pilot's license even prior to high school graduation at the young age of 17. He attended Lamar Tech, now Lamar University, until he decided to answer the call of law enforcement. In 1972, Sergeant Lane joined the Beaumont Police Department where his lengthy legacy began. He spent 32 years with the same police department in southeast Texas, fighting crime, helping people.

A son of a retired Air Force member, Mike Lane was raised in airplane hangars all over the world from Japan to the United States. He had the passion of the Wright brothers for flying. He had aviation in his Texas blood. In the mid-80s, the Beaumont Police Department seized a plane used to smuggle drugs from Belize to Texas. After acquiring the plane, they began using it for local missions. Sergeant Lane immediately jumped at the chance to get in the pilot's seat for the citizens of Jefferson County. He was one of the two designated pilots for the Beaumont Police Department.

Just as policemen are drawn together by common goals, pilots seem to congregate together as well. His partner in the sky was another pilot in the police department, Deputy Chief Weldon

Dunlap. Deputy Chief Dunlap recalls, ``Mike had an amazing wealth of knowledge about aircraft. He literally ate, drank, and slept airplanes.''

When the Army gave the Beaumont Police Department two helicopters, it was only natural that Lane would be heavily involved in the helicopter operations that would come up. Any time there was a mission or training, Lane was the first in line to take part in it.

On the evening of September 15, 2004, the neighboring Port Arthur Police Department reported a boat fire on Sabine Lake. Lane was one of two pilots who was called to duty for the search and rescue mission that took place that moonless night, a night that Deputy Chief Dunlap recalled was extra dark. During the flight, Lane was tasked with shining the spotlight on the large, murky, marshy Sabine Lake near the Texas-Louisiana border while the other officer maneuvered the helicopter through the intense, immense darkness that surrounded them.

Flying a mere 6 feet above the lake in an effort to get closer and look for people or debris in the water, Sergeant Lane was once again fulfilling his oath to protect and serve the people.

Sergeant Lane and crew made last contact shortly after 10:30 p.m. and after that, there was only silence, silence in the stillness of the damp, dark, dreary night. A helicopter search team spotted the wreckage almost 4 hours later at 2 o'clock in the morning. Jefferson County Sheriff's Deputy Jeremy Battenfield, who was piloting the helicopter, survived the crash with minor injuries; but in the line of duty, doing what he loved and what he did best at the age of 54, Sergeant Mike Lane lost his life in the stillness of that September night.

Hundreds of law enforcement members from across Texas and Louisiana traveled to South Park Baptist Church in Beaumont to pay their respects to a unique and talented officer and pilot that will never be replaced. He was laid to rest in the same church where he served as a deacon and a mentor to kids.

Mr. Speaker, this past weekend, I had the opportunity to participate in the Fraternal Order of Police's 24th annual National Peace Officers Memorial Service here on the Capitol grounds to remember those police officers killed last year. I was honored to join the multitude of officers and surviving family members who traveled to Washington to assure their comrades that they never walk alone. I spent time with Sergeant Lane's wife, Renee; his son Ben; and his two sisters; and I was moved by the memories they had of their husband, their father, and their brother.

Mr. Speaker, there are more than 800,000 members of the law enforcement community in this Nation. They wear the badge, and with that badge they become a cut above the rest of us. They do what most of us would not do. They watch out for our country, our kids, our family and our great land.

In 2004, 156 officers were killed in the line of duty. Last year, our military lost nearly 900 of its band of brothers during operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. And while we often pay daily tribute to our fallen military who have been combating outlaws across the sea, these warriors against domestic outlaws, our police officers, often remain nameless, statistical heroes.

When President Bush spoke this last weekend, he stated that every generation of Americans has produced men and women willing to stand in watch over the rest of us. They are peace officers. When Sergeant Lane lost his life on the Sabine Lake that night, he did not die alone. His conviction, courage, and character live on and his spirit watches over his friends and family and the citizens of Jefferson County, Texas, that he devoted his life in protecting.

Thank you, Sergeant Mike Lane.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I applaud the chairman for this bill to better protect America. I would, however, like to highlight an unfunded Federal security mandate on the already struggling airline industry. The airline industry is an important sector of the American economy, with increasing fuel costs and taxes, though the industry lost $9.1 billion last year alone and has lost $32 billion since September 11, 2001.

Currently taxes and fees comprise 26 percent of an average $200 airplane ticket. While the Federal Government has taken over much of the security for airlines after the terrorist attacks of September 11, airlines are still paying $777 million annually out of their own pocket for unfunded Federal security mandates, such as catering security, security for checkpoints and exit lanes, and first flight cabin sweeps.

The people loading the peanuts, for example, the airlines are forced to expend $81 million on not only their salaries, but the security checks on these caterers, the people who mark your ticket up with the red crayon at the checkpoint and exit lanes. Airlines, not the government, dispense $79 million on these folks, and the first class cabin sweep crew that inspects the plane prior to boarding, the people who check for bombs in the bathrooms, airlines pay $26 million for them. Perhaps the most and largest unfunded mandate, however, is the Federal Air Marshal Service, which costs the airlines $195 million each year.

Under current law, Federal air marshals are permitted to fly without a cost to the Federal Government or the marshal. Air marshals fly to better protect the cockpit. The Air Transport Association estimates the airlines are losing $195 million a year in opportunity costs by losing these seats.

Continental Airlines, for example, the carrier based out of Houston, Texas, part of which is in my Congressional district, loses between $7 and $9 million in displaced revenue annually. This estimate reflects losses not from being able to sell the Federal air marshal's seat at full fare. Moreover, Continental will pay the Department of Homeland Security $239 million in taxes in 2005 and is currently paying another $312 million in unfunded security mandates.

So my amendment would simply prohibit funds being spent in the bill to support this unfunded Federal security mandate that allows the Federal Air Marshal Service to fly for free. The Federal Government has deemed aviation security a national security issue, as it is. It is only fair that the government fully assume these costs, and not saddle them on the airlines.

In fact, at least two laws signed in the past two sessions have provisions that support Congressional intent for the Federal Government to reasonably pay for aviation security costs. Both the Aviation and Transportation Security Act and Vision 100, the Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act, authorized funds for reimbursement of airport security mandates.

The Poe amendment preserves the ability of Federal air marshals to fly on our airlines, protect our passengers and crew, but it would allow the carriers to charge the government a fare. Airlines like Continental support this amendment because it would enable them to collect a minimal fare, the government fare or the lowest fare available upon booking for Federal air marshal seats.

Mr. Chairman, some may argue that it is the airline's responsibility to provide for security, and they are partially correct. Already airlines cough up scores of dollars to comply with Federal regulations. The Federal Airline Administration reports that full deployment of hardened cockpit doors meeting outlined specifications have been implemented on about 10,000 passenger airlines and foreign aircraft flying to and the from the United States. Expenditures on video monitors and other devices to alert pilots to cabin activity as well as guns in the cockpit are just a few of the other efforts undertaken by the airline industry, all of which are in addition to the hundreds of millions of dollars they incur in unfunded Federal security mandates.

We must bring some relief to these carriers by reducing these unfunded Federal mandates that they are expected to pay out of their pocket. I urge my colleagues to help preserve this vital industry and start by supporting my amendment to allow airlines to collect the minimal government fare on seats filled by Federal air marshals.

We want to keep the airlines flying and help them before they are in a situation of bankruptcy.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my demand for a recorded vote on my amendment No. 10 to the end that it stand rejected by voice vote thereon.