Floor Statements

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution that calls upon all people in the United States to conduct appropriate ceremonies, activities and programs to demonstrate support, thanks and appreciation for the estimated 1.5 million very special members of the Armed Forces, past and present, who have been awarded the Purple Heart.

The Purple Heart is awarded only for those who are killed or wounded in action against the United States of America. So it is fitting that we honor and recognize their sacrifices on National Purple Heart Recognition Day, as well as recall GEN George Washington's order 225 years ago on August 7, 1782, that established the Badge of Military Merit, the predecessor of the Purple Heart.

In 2001, in connection with the announcement of the creation of the National Purple Heart Hall of Honor, my former colleague, Ben Gilman, a New York Representative, a World War II veteran of the Army Air Corps, made the following statement. It is a statement that for me helps to put in context why we should make a special effort on National Purple Heart Recognition Day. Congressman Gilman said: ``The Purple Heart is probably the most recognizable military award in the United States. Every school child knows the medal is awarded to our brave American military who are wounded in the line of duty.''

If we are to ensure that Americans, even down to every school child, continue to recognize the significance of the Purple Heart and the sacrifices of the men and women who earned it, then we must make the effort to commemorate and educate this and future generations. Support for this resolution is one way to begin that effort.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Guam for her very kind remarks and comments.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of my resolution that honors the Military Order of the Purple Heart on its 75th anniversary. The Purple Heart was originally conceived as the Badge of Military Merit by GEN George Washington on August 7, 1782. However, it had fallen into disuse after the Revolutionary War.

The practice of awarding the Purple Heart was revived in 1932, as the gentlewoman said, at the 200th anniversary of George Washington's birth. The organization now known as the Military Order of the Purple Heart was also formed in 1932 for the protection and the mutual interest of all who have received the decoration. This year will mark the 75th anniversary of fostering an environment of goodwill and comradery among combat-wounded veterans.

The Purple Heart is a combat decoration awarded to Members of the Armed Forces who are wounded by an instrument of war wielded by the enemy and posthumously to the next of kin in the name of members who are killed in action or die of wounds received in action.

Over 1.5 million Purple Heart medals have been awarded to members of the Armed Forces fighting in defense of freedom and democracy. Today, more than 500,000 recipients of the Purple Heart are still living.

By this resolution, Congress congratulates the Military Order of the Purple Heart on its 75th anniversary as a national organization whose goals are to preserve and sustain the honor of the Armed Forces. It strongly commends all recipients of the Purple Heart for their courage and sacrifice. Americans should take time to learn about the Purple Heart and the honor, courage, and bravery it symbolizes

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

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

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution and commend the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Braley) for introducing it. This specific resolution honors and expresses gratitude for the service in Iraq of the 1st Battalion, 133rd Infantry, known as the ``Ironman Battalion'' of the Iowa Army National Guard. Their service has been long and honorable.

The soldiers of this battalion mobilized in the fall of 2005, deployed to Iraq in the spring of 2006, were due to come home in April of this year, but had their tour extended until July of 2007.

For 15 months, their ``boots on the ground'' made a difference in the al-Anbar Province, one of the most dangerous areas in Iraq. They completed more than 500 convoy security missions, logged over 4 million mission miles, and delivered over one-third of the fuel needed to sustain coalition forces in Iraq.

The battalion came home to Iowa on July 25 to welcoming and thankful families and communities, completing a 22-month mobilization. That period of honorable service made the battalion the longest serving Iowa Army National Guard unit since World War II.

While serving in Iraq, two members of the battalion were killed in action in September of 2006: Sergeant First Class Scott Nisely and Sergeant Kampha B. Sourivong.

For their ultimate sacrifice and for the service and sacrifice of the members and families of the 1st Battalion, 133rd Infantry, the Nation owes a debt of gratitude. This resolution helps to remind us of that debt. Today, Congress, by this resolution, honors and thanks the men and women of this unit and their families for their dedication and selfless service to the people of America.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, today is day 181st day of incarceration for two U.S. Border Patrol agents.

Agents Ramos and Compean were convicted last spring for shooting a Mexican drug smuggler who brought 743 pounds of marijuana across our border into Texas. For almost a year, thousands of American citizens and dozens of Members of Congress have asked President Bush to pardon these agents. Many Americans are outraged by the President's decision to commute the sentence of White House aid Scooter Libby, while at the same time he refuses to pardon Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean.

Scooter Libby, an attorney who understands the laws of this country and should know right from wrong was convicted of perjury, obstruction of justice and lying to investigators. Mr. Libby, who should have served his sentence, did not spend one day in prison.

Yet two Border Patrol agents with exemplary records who were doing their duty to protect the American people from an illegal alien drug smuggler are serving 11 and 12 years, respectively, in prison. By attempting to apprehend an illegal alien drug smuggler, these agents were enforcing our laws, not breaking the laws. There are legitimate legal questions about how this prosecution was initiated and how the U.S. Attorney's Office proceeded in this case.

I am extremely pleased that Senator Dianne Feinstein will be presiding over a full committee hearing tomorrow to examine the details of this case. This hearing will provide U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton an opportunity to explain to the Senate Judiciary Committee and to the American people why this U.S. Attorney's Office in western Texas chose to go after law enforcement officers while protecting illegal aliens who committed crimes and gave the illegal alien immunity to testify against the border agents.

I want to thank Senator Feinstein for her interest in this case and for her leadership in holding hearings to look into this injustice.

I am also grateful to Chairman John Conyers, who I hope will hold a similar hearing on the House side sometime this fall.

Before I close, I want to say to the families of Border Patrol Agents Compean and Ramos that we, the American people, will not forget your husbands, your fathers, your brothers, and we will do everything we can to see that justice will prevail over an injustice.

I thank the chairman for this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2956.

For more than 4 years, our men and women in uniform have faithfully, skillfully served in Iraq. This legislation makes clear that the Government of Iraq must now be responsible for Iraq's future.

Mr. Speaker, when Marine General ``Jack'' Sheehan, a former top NATO commander, declined to serve the White House as war czar for Afghanistan and Iraq, he stated his reasons for not accepting this position: ``The very fundamental issue is they don't know where the hell they're going.'' That is what Marine Corps GEN Jack Sheehan said. General Sheehan's statement is why the Congress and the administration need to work together to develop an end point to the war strategy in Iraq. It is time for Congress to meet its constitutional responsibility by defining what victory in Iraq will look like.

Stay the course is not the answer. As Colin Powell said last week, ``We have to face the reality of the situation that is on the ground and not what we would want it to be. It is not a civil war that can be put down or solved by the Armed Forces of the United States.'' Colin Powell, I quoted him. That is his statement.

We are now in the 5th year in Iraq, and 3,611 Americans have died in the war. Mr. Speaker, to this date I have sent over 6,400 letters to the families and extended families of our men and women in the military who have lost their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq, and every time I sign a letter, my heart aches.

Chairman Skelton's plan provides a comprehensive strategy to maintain and advance the diplomatic, political, and economic components of United States national security interests in Iraq. It has taken this country in a direction that it needs to consider.

Mr. Speaker, I close by reminding this Congress what Rudyard Kipling said in his writings known as ``Epitaphs of War,'' and we need to all be responsible for this, and this is my quote from him: ``If any question why we died, tell them because our fathers lied.''

Mr. Speaker, many Americans are outraged by the President's decision to commute the sentence of White House aide Scooter Libby, while at the same time, he refuses to pardon former Border Agents Ramos and Compean.

Scooter Libby, an attorney who understands the laws of this country and should know right from wrong, was convicted of perjury, obstruction of justice, and lying to investigators. Mr. Libby, who should have served his sentence, did not spend 1 day in prison. Yet, two Border Patrol agents with exemplary records, who tried their best to do their duty to protect the American people from an illegal alien drug smuggler, are serving 11 and 12 years in prison today.

Today is the agents' 176th day in Federal prison. Two heroes sit behind bars while a guilty man walks free. Again, I say, where is the justice? By attempting to apprehend a Mexican drug smuggler who brought 743 pounds of marijuana across our borders, these agents were enforcing our laws, not breaking them. For almost a year, thousands of American citizens and dozens of Members of Congress have asked President Bush to pardon these agents. The President repeatedly responds that there is a pardon ``process'' and ``a series of steps'' to be taken by the Justice Department, ``to make a recommendation as to whether or not a President grants a pardon.'' Yet, Mr. Speaker, the President did not consult the Justice Department in Mr. Libby's case.

Mr. President, if there is a process, why did this process not matter when you commuted Mr. Libby's sentence?

The President has the power to immediately pardon agents Ramos and Compean, two heroes who were unjustly prosecuted for doing their job to protect our border. I have written the President and called on him to correct a true injustice by using his executive authority to immediately pardon these men.

Mr. Speaker, I will submit for the Record the entire text of the letter that I have written to the President.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Chairman John Conyers, who I am sure at some point in time will hold a hearing to thoroughly review the prosecution of these agents. Tonight, I especially want to thank Senator Dianne Feinstein, who has shared my concerns about the unfairness of this prosecution. I am extremely pleased that she will be presiding over a Senate hearing next Tuesday to examine the details of this case. There are many questions and concerns about the actions of the U.S. Attorney in this case that need to be answered. I am hopeful that justice will soon prevail for these two men.

Mr. Speaker, before I close, I want to say to the families of Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean that this House of Representatives will not forget your loved ones. We will not forget that an injustice has prevailed. We will seek justice for your husbands and your fathers and your relatives. I hope and pray that the President himself will pray about this and grant to these two men justice instead of injustice.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the letter referred to earlier.

July 3, 2007.

Hon. George W. Bush,

The White House, Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC

Dear Mr. President: In light of your recent commutation of

I. Lewis ``Scooter'' Libby's prison sentence, I am writing to

express my deep disappointment that U.S. Border Patrol agents

Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean remain unjustly incarcerated

for wounding a Mexican drug smuggler who brought 743 pounds

of marijuana across our border.

While you have spared Mr. Libby from serving even one day

of his ``excessive'' 30-month prison term, agents Ramos and

Compean have already served 167 days of their 11- and 12-year

prison sentences. By attempting to apprehend an illegal alien

drug smuggler, these agents were enforcing our laws, not

breaking them.

Mr. President, it is now time to listen to the American

people and Members of Congress who have called upon you to

pardon these agents. By granting immunity and free health

care to an illegal alien drug trafficker and allowing our law

enforcement officers to languish in prison--our government

has told its citizens, and the world, that it does not care

about protecting our borders or enforcing our laws.

I urge you to correct a true injustice by immediately

pardoning these two law enforcement officers.

Sincerely,

Walter B. Jones,

Member of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, the House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing this week to examine mandatory minimum sentencing laws. Included in this hearing will be the opportunity to examine the issue of mandatory minimum sentencing in the case of U.S. Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean.

As the Members of this House well know, in February, 2006, the two agents were convicted in a U.S. District Court in Texas for shooting a Mexican drug smuggler. They were sentenced to 11 and 12 years in prison respectively, and today is the 160th day since the agents entered Federal prison.

The law that the agents were charged with violating, 18 United States Code, section 924(c)(1)(A), carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years. As enacted by Congress, the law requires a defendant to be indicted and convicted either of ``using'' or ``carrying'' a firearm during and in relation to the commission of a crime of violence or ``possessing'' a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence.

However, neither Mr. Ramos nor Mr. Compean were ever charged with specific elements of the crime. Instead, the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Western District Court of Texas, Mr. Johnny Sutton, extracted from the U.S. Criminal Code a sentencing factor, ``discharging'' a firearm, and substituted that sentencing factor for the congressionally defined elements of the offense. Ten years of each of their sentences were based on an indictment and conviction for a Federal crime that does not exist. The law they were charged with violating has never been enacted by the United States Congress but rather was fashioned by the U.S. Attorney's Office.

In this case I can imagine how difficult it would be to obtain an indictment and conviction for ``using,'' ``possessing,'' or ``carrying'' a firearm when the Border Patrol agents were required to carry firearms as part of their job. That difficulty may well explain why this U.S. Attorney's Office unilaterally changed Congress's definition of a crime to a definition that would be easier for the prosecution to prove.

When this issue was brought to my attention and to the attention of my colleagues Virgil Goode and former Texas State Judge Ted Poe, we were pleased to join forces with the Gun Owners Foundation, U.S. Border Control, U.S. Border Control Foundation, and the Conservative Legal Defense & Education Fund to file a friend of the court brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The brief urges reversal of these unjust convictions and 10-year mandatory minimum sentences by spelling out how charges contained in two counts of the indictment against the agents are fatally defective. I want to thank Chairman John Conyers for scheduling a hearing on this issue, as well as the Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism and Homeland Security for its willingness to investigate the injustice committed against these two border agents.

I encourage the chairman and the committee to take a thorough look at the action of the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas and his aggressive prosecution of law enforcement officers like Ramos and Compean.

Mr. Speaker, as I close, I want to let the families of Compean and Ramos know that we are not going to forget these two border agents. They are heroes and should never have been sent to prison.

Madam Speaker, as of today, H.R. 346, my legislation to redesignate the Department of the Navy as the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps has 60 cosponsors. Although the language of this bill has already been passed by the full House last month as part of the Defense authorization bill, I want to encourage my colleagues on the floor of the House to join in cosponsoring this legislation. When the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act goes to conference in the fall, a large number of cosponsors of H.R. 346 will show the Senate the House strongly supports this change in name.

This is the sixth year in a row that the House has voted to support this change. This year, I hope the Senate will support the House position and join in bringing the proper respect to the fighting team of the Navy and Marine Corps. I am thankful to the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Carl Levin, who has said publicly that he will ``keep an open mind'' on this issue.

Changing the name of the Department of the Navy to the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps is a symbolic gesture, but it is important to the team. This change is about recognizing the true meaning of the department. The Marines do not serve beneath the Navy. They are co- equal partners.

Madam Speaker, there is no cost to this change. It is the right thing to do for the Marine Corps and the Navy. This legislation has received the support of numerous military leaders in both the Navy and the Marine Corps.

Madam Speaker, let me quote the Honorable Wade Sanders, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Reserve Affairs during the years of 1993 and 1998, who voiced his support for the change. I quote the Honorable Wade Sanders: ``As a combat veteran and formal Naval officer, I understand the importance of the team dynamic and the importance of recognizing the contributions of team components. The Navy and Marine Corps team is just that, a dynamic partnership, and it is important to symbolically recognize the balance of that partnership.''

I further would like to quote General Carl Mundy, the 30th Commandant of the Marine Corps. He stated, ``I believe the changes you propose will do much to clarify the relationship, responsibility and functions of the appointed civilian authority over the United States naval services. I believe that any Secretary, present, past, or future, will be proud to bear the title `Marine,' as well as `Navy.' ''

Madam Speaker, I have beside me, and I would read very carefully, ``The President of the United States takes pleasure in presenting this Silver Star posthumously to Sergeant Michael Bitz, United States Marine Corps.''

Madam Speaker, the reason this is important, this Marine gave his life for his country. He left a wife and three children, twins hat he never saw that were born after he was deployed to Iraq. And yet, as you can see in these orders for the Silver Star, there is the Secretary of the Navy, Washington, D.C., and the zip code and Navy flag. There is nothing in the heading that says ``Marine.''

Madam Speaker, what this bill will do, if the President should sign it, is to say that this Marine who died for this country, that the orders for the Silver Star clearly state the team's name. The name of the team is the Department of the Navy and Marine Corps.

But what the heading would say in this order for the Silver Star is the Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps, Washington, D.C., with the flag of the Marine Corps and the flag of the Navy.

Madam Speaker, I hope that my colleagues in the House this year will join me, and let's get over 150, maybe 200 of my colleagues in both parties, to sign this legislation so we can say to the Senate in the fall of this year, it is time that the Marine Corps be recognized as an equal to the Navy. They both are equal in the services, and it is time that the Department of the Navy carry the name Marine Corps.

Madam Speaker, I ask God to please bless our men and women in uniform, and may God continue to bless America.

Mr. Speaker, as of today, H.R. 346, my legislation to designate the Department of Navy as the Department of Navy and Marine Corps, has 60 cosponsors.

The language of this bill has already passed the full House of Representatives last month as part of the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act. This is the sixth year in a row that the House has voted to support this change.

As a Member of Congress, I have heard for 14 years that the Navy and Marine Corps are one fighting team. If this is true, should not the team carry the name of both the Navy and the Marine Corps? The Marines do not serve beneath the Navy, they are coequal partners.

I was very pleased to read a comment by the new Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Carl Levin, in an article by The Hill newspaper last month, May 24, 2007, and I quote, ``When asked, Levin said he would 'keep an open mind' on whether to support [language in the House bill to change the name of the Navy to the Department of Navy and Marine Corps].''

Mr. Speaker, there is no cost to this change. Renaming the Department is a symbolic gesture, but is very important to the team. It is the right thing to do for the team.

Let me quote the Honorable Wade Sanders, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Reserve Affairs between the years 1993 and 1998. He voiced his support for this change, and I quote, ``As a combat veteran and former Naval officer, I understand the importance of the team dynamic, and the importance of recognizing the contributions of team components.

``The Navy and Marine Corps team is just that, a dynamic partnership, and it is important to symbolically recognize the balance of that partnership.''

I will also quote Admiral Stansfield Turner, United States Navy, Retired, former Director of Central Intelligence, who said, and I quote, ``I think this change in title enhances the prestige and pride of the people in the Marine Corps. And it does not necessarily take away anything from the Navy in that process.''

Mr. Speaker, last year, an editorial in the Chicago Tribune on April 21 of 2006 also supported the change stating, and I quote, ``No service branch shows more respect for tradition than the United States Marine Corps does, which makes it all the more ironic that tradition denies the Corps an important show of respect: Equal billing with the other service branches.''

That again, Mr. Speaker, is from the Chicago Tribune.

Mr. Speaker, to further state the importance of this, I have beside me an enlargement of the orders for the Silver Star for a Marine from Camp Lejeune who was killed in Iraq. It says, ``The Secretary of the Navy Washington, DC., Navy flag, the President of the United States take pleasure in presenting the Silver Star to the family.'' I will not read in its entirety.

But Mr. Speaker, I'd like to show you what, if the Senate will accept the House position, what this does. With the same orders for the Silver Star for this brave Marine who gave his life for this country, it says, ``The Secretary of the Navy and Marine Corps, Washington, DC.,'' with the zip code. It still has the Navy flag on one side and the Marine flag.

Mr. Speaker, it is time that the Senate accept the House position. This is the right thing to do for the fighting team. The team is the Navy and Marine Corps fighting team. And I hope that the Senate, and I'm very encouraged by Chairman Levin that he said, ``I'm open to the thought of this possibility.''

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I ask God to please bless our men and women in uniform and to please bless the United States of America.

Mr. Speaker, as the Members of this House well know, in February 2006, U.S. Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean were convicted in a U.S. District Court in Texas for shooting a Mexican drug smuggler. They were sentenced to 11 and 12 years imprisonment, respectively, and today is the 153rd day since the two agents entered Federal prison.

What Members of this House may not know is that 10 years of each of their sentences were based on an indictment and conviction for a Federal crime that does not exist. The Federal crime they were convicted of does not exist.

The law that they were charged with violating has never been enacted by the United States Congress but rather was fashioned by the Office of the United States Attorney for the Western District of Texas, Johnny Sutton.

The law that the agents were charged with, 18 United States Code section 924(c)(1)(a) as enacted by Congress, requires a defendant to be indicted and convicted either of using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to the commission of a crime of violence or possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence.

However, neither Mr. Ramos nor Mr. Compean was ever charged with the specific elements of the crime. Instead, Mr. Sutton's office extracted from the United States Criminal Code a sentencing factor, discharging a firearm, and substituted that sentencing factor for the congressionally defined elements of the offense.

In this case, I can imagine how difficult it would be to obtain an indictment and conviction for ``using,'' ``possessing'' or ``carrying'' a firearm when the Border Agents were required to carry firearms as part of their job. That difficulty may well, very well, explain why this United States Attorney's Office unilaterally changed Congress's definition of a crime to a definition that would be easier to prove by the prosecution.

Any change in the elements of a crime amounts to the seizure of legislative authority by a Federal prosecutor. When this encroachment upon the legislative power of Congress was brought to my attention and to the attention of my colleagues, Congressmen Virgil Goode and former Texas State judge, Congressman Ted Poe, we joined forces with the Gun Owners Foundation, U.S. Border Control, U.S. Border Control Foundation and the Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund to file a friend of the court brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Court.

The brief urges reversal of these unjust convictions and 10 year mandatory minimum sentences by spelling out how changes contained in two counts of the indictment against the agents are ``fatally defective'' because they fail to charge an offense as defined by the statute.

Mr. Speaker, many of my colleagues and the American people have been greatly concerned about the denial of due process of law to Agents Ramos and Compean. The American people must be confident that prosecutors will not tailor the law to make it easier to convict in a particular case. Federal prosecutors take an oath to enforce the law, not to make the law.

It is my understanding that the House Judiciary Committee will soon hold hearings to examine the prosecution of this case, and I want to thank Chairman John Conyers for his interest in investigating the injustice committed against these two Border agents.

I encourage the chairman and the committee to take a thorough look into the actions of the Office of U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas and its pattern of aggressively prosecuting law enforcement officers, including Ramos and Compean, former Border Patrol Agent Aleman and Deputy Sheriff Gilmer Hernandez. These are legitimate legal questions and concerns about this prosecutor's office, and they need to be answered.

And again, I thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for his interest and concern about justice to right an injustice.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Democratic side and the Republican side and my dear friend, Mr. Butterfield, for bringing this resolution to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I join my friend, Congressman G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina, and many of my colleagues to support H. Res. 329, a resolution to congratulate the Barton College men's basketball team for winning the 2007 NCAA Division II men's basketball national championship.

Years ago, I attended Atlantic Christian College, which changed its name to Barton College in 1990. Mr. Speaker, I, like many of my colleagues in Congress, have had the fortunate opportunity of playing on a championship team. More than 40 years later, I can still vividly recall in my mind the wonderful memory of the night my prep school basketball team at Hargrave Military Academy won the military league championship. No matter what level, winning a championship is something an individual will remember all of his or her life. My prep school basketball team claimed its championship with a final score of 81-79, so I know the firsthand experience of a close game.

How exciting it was to see Barton College basketball make a miraculous comeback from seven points behind in the final 40 seconds to defeat Winona State University of Rochester, Minnesota, an undefeated team and last year's Division II champion, by a score of 77-75. Senior All-American point guard Anthony Atkinson scored the Bulldogs' final 10 points, including a layup at the buzzer; but I am sure that Anthony Atkinson would tell you that the win was a team effort.

In David and Goliath fashion, Barton College, a school with just 1,000 students, defeated teams during the Elite Eight from schools with much larger student bodies, Grand Valley State, Michigan, 23,000 students; Cal State San Bernardino, 17,000 students; and Winona State University, 8,000 students, to claim the school's first NCAA championship in any sport. Again, a student body of 1,000.

The team's confidence and calm under pressure helped it play and win nine overtime games during the 2006/2007 season to finish the season 31-5 and break a school record by winning its last 21 games.

Barton College is located in Congressman Butterfield's district, yet I share part of the county with Congressman Butterfield. I join him in congratulating the coaches and all the members of the 2006/2007 Barton College men's basketball team.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I will submit for the Record the names of the coaches and the players.

coaches

Ron Lievense (head), Joel Zimmerman, John Skinner, Mark

Pounds.

players

Sam Pounds, Jerrett Eason, Brandon Barton, Isaiah Cromwell,

Errol Frails, Anthony Atkinson, Bobby Buffaloe, Spenser

Briggs, Jeff Dalce, Brandon Raffel, Travis Johnson, Charles

Gamble, Darrius Lee, Bobby McNeil, Brian Leggett, Alejo

Barovero, David King, Mark Friscone, L.J. Dunn, Mike Flowers.

Mr. Speaker, Barton College is proud of its college basketball history. Now, Barton College is part of North Carolina's rich basketball heritage.

I close by asking my colleagues to support this resolution. And I again congratulate the Barton College Bulldogs for this great victory.

Madam Speaker, only those who have been to war can truly understand the hell of war. I have not been to war, but I have spoken to those who have served our country in both Iraq and Afghanistan. I know enough to understand that those who serve in harm's way face grave dangers, and they are under extreme pressure.

Most of us cannot imagine the stress that those in uniform undergo when they have to make a split-second decision whether to fire or be fired upon, to kill or be killed.

In June 2006, seven Marines and one Navy corpsman from Camp Pendleton were charged with murder in an April 2006 incident involving the death of an Iraqi man. The troops were staking out an intersection while looking for insurgents placing explosives along the road.

The squad of eight is accused of kidnapping the Iraqi man from a nearby home, killing him, and then staging the scene to frame him as an insurgent planting a bomb.

Four of the troops struck plea deals and received sentences of 21 months or less in exchange for their testimony against their squad mates. One of the troops also pled guilty to lesser charges but received an 8-year sentence. The three remaining Marines all face courts martial this summer and life in prison if convicted of premeditated murder.

One of these three Marines is a constituent of Congressman Bill Delahunt, who brought the details of this case to my attention.

Madam Speaker, 3 years ago, I came to this floor night after night to speak about what I felt was an unfair prosecution of Lieutenant Ilario Pantano, a Marine who was charged with shooting an insurgent in Iraq. Not because of my concern, but because the charges against Lieutenant Pantano were not justified, the Marine Corps dropped the charges.

Because of my great respect for the men and women who serve in the United States Marine Corps, it is my hope that these Marines will receive the due process and justice they deserve as American citizens and as heroes.

President Teddy Roosevelt once said, ``A man who is good enough to shed his blood for his country is good enough to be given a square deal afterwards. More than that no man is entitled, and less than that no man shall have.''

The same men and women who risk their lives to preserve the rights of all American citizens deserve the protection of those same rights. Those who fight for justice deserve justice in return.

Madam Speaker, our military servicemembers, the military family, and certainly these Marines, deserve no less.

And Madam Speaker, with that, I close by saying, God, please continue to bless our men and women in uniform and their families, and please, God, continue to bless America.

Madam Speaker, I do want to commend Congressman McIntyre for his labors of love and his efforts to bring this to the floor and his support for this.

I happen to oppose him on this for several reasons, and I want to say that I'm from North Carolina, as well as Mr. McIntyre. This has been an ongoing issue, as he made reference to in his comments, for years and years. But this issue of the Lumbee should be allowed to go through the existing Federal process. And I believe sincerely that Representatives Shuler and Shays offered an amendment in the Rules Committee to allow this to happen, but sadly, it was rejected.

The BIA process allows non-biased experts to objectively examine historical evidence and make decisions based on seven strict criteria. If there are problems with the process, then we should fix the process; ``we'' meaning the Congress. But Congress should not start down this slippery slope of hijacking the objective BIA process and start recognizing tribes on its own. This is and would be a serious mistake.

Madam Speaker, roughly 250 native groups have applications pending at BIA, Bureau of Indian Affairs. If we pass this bill, all of these groups will come knocking at the door of Congress seeking Federal recognition, and it will be impossible for those of us in Congress to say no.

Lumbees' tribal origins are suspect, at best. Over time, they have self-identified themselves as four different tribes: Cherokee in 1924; Cheraw in 1933; Siouan in 1934; and now they are Lumbees. This makes it all the more important for experts to determine their eligibility, not subjective Members of Congress.

Madam Speaker, the CBO says Federal recognition of Lumbees would cost $489 million in the first 5 years; $489 million in the first 5 years. I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, who maybe support this legislation, would allow this Congress, on such an important issue, to debate it, to debate amendments, and let's see how we can at least let the American people know that this is an open process and not a closed process.

And, Madam Speaker, I will tell you again, in closing, that many people in North Carolina are familiar with this issue and the history of the Lumbees. And their heritage is in question.

With that, Madam Speaker, I hope that my colleagues will vote against the rule and the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 424 I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, today is the 128th day since two U.S. Border Patrol agents entered Federal prison. Agents Ramos and Compean were convicted in Federal courts for shooting a convicted drug smuggler who brought 743 pounds of marijuana across our border into Texas.

These two law enforcement officers, who have each given years of their life in service to this Nation, never should have been sent to prison. By attempting to apprehend an illegal alien drug smuggler, these agents were simply doing their job to protect the American people.

Although it is clear that the agents fired in self-defense, the U.S. Attorney's Office prosecuted the agents and granted fully immunity to the drug smuggler, who claimed he was unarmed.

This case is a black mark on the American judicial system. Despite countless pleas from the American people and Members of Congress, the President has refused to pardon these men. Every day and every hour that these agents spend behind bars is a travesty of justice. Instead of crafting deals to grant mass amnesty to illegal aliens who have broken the law, our government needs to get serious about border security and get on the right side of the law.

The prosecutor of this case gave an illegal alien drug smuggler immunity

for his crime, free medical care and issued him a border crossing card to enter the United States of America. The two agents received sentences of 11 and 12 years in prison and now spend 23 hours a day in isolated prison cells. These men are not criminals.

Our government needs to wake up and stop sending the wrong message to our Border Patrol agents and law enforcement officers who face bullets in the line of duty and risk their lives to protect the American people.

Many of us in Congress are concerned about the Federal prosecutor in this case and his decision to bring criminal charges against these border agents. There are legitimate legal questions about how this prosecution was initiated and how the U.S. Attorney's Office proceeded in this case.

I am hopeful that this Congress will soon hold hearings to investigate the prosecution of these agents, because it is time for justice to prevail over injustice.