Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I had no intention of speaking, but I do think that some balance and reason needs to set in here. I hate to see people I respect on the other side of the aisle say things that have really dumbed down this entire debate because I will tell you what this rule and the underlying legislation actually represents. It represents a responsible way for us to address real problems in this economy when wages haven't gone up from the bottom in 9 years, with a strong economy.

I went to my conference this week, and I said to our conference that corporate leaders haven't been responsible enough and the economy is strong. And I will tell you one reason it's strong is because our tax policy has been good for America and the economy is growing. Just this week in my home city, record construction, strong economy, low unemployment. And so this is something we want to address.

The other side says all the time, Well, you run this place. You've got majorities in the House and the Senate. And I want to remind them that we do. And if we didn't want to do this, we wouldn't do it. But we are doing it this way because this is the better way to do it. Because the small businesspeople and the family farmers need certainty in terms of this estate tax. We eliminated it, but it comes back. It is an onerous tax, it is an unfair tax, and when you raise wages, which is a fixed cost in business, you have to compensate that with smart business investments through tax policy.

Our tax policy has been good for America. Our economic policy is good for America. And frankly this wage increase is a savvy way to put it all together and make this medicine for America go down smooth and keep our economy strong. Because this will force some fixed costs up in small business and you can't just throw it on them without some people losing their jobs, and this is a fair and responsible way to do it.

I know why you are so mad and why you say things you don't really mean, because you have seen us really outfox you on this issue tonight. That is what we are doing today, is bringing a very crafty, smart, good-for-America, good-for-the-economy package and still allow the minimum wage to go up.

I hope it passes this body, the other body, because it is going to be good for America in the aggregate, not individual pieces. Right now would be an excellent time to actually put this package forward together, and I believe the country will be much better off.

I am proud of this majority that we figured out the best way to do this and do it right now. It is an excellent time. I thank our leadership for bringing this to the floor tonight. And it is not in the middle of the night. As a matter of fact, it is broad daylight here in Washington, and it is going to be that way through this entire debate across most of America.

Mr. Speaker, before I get to the topic that I want to spend at least the lion's share of the next hour on, I want to respond somewhat to the commentary from my friends on the other side over the last hour and really agree with them on a whole lot of issues.

As the cochairman of the bipartisan Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus here in the House, which has over 218 members, a majority of the House belong to our bipartisan caucus. Congressman Mark Udall of Colorado is the Democratic cochairman, and I am the Republican cochairman; and we are working together to advance many of the initiatives that they have talked about as quick as we can.

I do think that tremendous energy now is put behind the goal of becoming energy independent as soon as possible in this country.

Last night, Congressman Udall and a bipartisan group that I participated in met for about 2\1/2\ hours with Vinod Khlosa about this issue of cellulosic ethanol and what potential it has in this country for transportation.

Earlier today I participated with Congressman Inglis of South Carolina, who chairs the Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Caucus here in the Fuel Cell event we had in Cannon Caucus.

Just a few days ago we had the Renewable Energy Expo here, which Congressman Udall and I participated in. Through all of these efforts, I would say that what we are doing is not this particular technology or that particular technology, because in many ways our free enterprise system is going to sort the winners and losers out.

But, really, our position is we have got to do all of the above. Time is of the essence. I don't think we can pick and choose right now. We need domestic capacity, so we have to go after new oil and gas resources. But we have to wean ourselves off foreign oil and move towards advanced transportation systems.

Clearly, hybrids are a bridge. We want to promote that. But we have got to move through all these technologies.

I think fuel cells have great applications but, frankly, so do the E85-based fuels.

So I just want to say that that is something that many Members from both sides of the aisle are doing an awful lot about.

Last summer the Congress passed EPACT, the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This President signed it into law. Today we hailed, many people in a bipartisan way, the successes that the tax incentives give to the renewable sector, to the fuel cell sector, to the advancement of hydrogen. I would argue that we need to go further because the production tax credits that are in that bill need to be extended for a longer period of time so that the industry out there has a definition. They know what to expect. It is not a 2-year thing that might or might not be renewed. So clearly, we need to do more.

But there is bipartisan resolve to advance all of our energy sources as rapidly as possible. And so I applaud them in a sense, but I would also say that there is no silver bullet. We need to do all of the above, and we can't just rely on particular fuels. We need to increase our domestic capacity.

Now, to lay the groundwork for what I am going to talk about, with the help of a couple of my colleagues, Mr. McCotter from Michigan has joined me already, and I think the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) will also join us.

I want to talk a little bit about world events, but then get to the meat of this hour, and that is the United Nations and whether or not it is living up to its original charter, whether or not it is a viable organization today, or whether or not, frankly, it has been corrupted over time, especially in recent years.

But I want to say, to begin with, that I think to define this war that we are in as a war on terror misses the point in many ways. Terror is a tactic that our enemy is using, but it is not really a war on terror. We need to be honest that we are at war with the Islamic jihadists. The jihadists are spreading their networks around the world.

A letter between Zarqawi and Zawahiri laid out specifically that they wanted to use our involvement in the Middle East as an opportunity to remove the infidels from Iraq, and then expand the califate, according to Mohammed, from Morocco in Northwest Africa, all the way into Indonesia. Clearly, aggression is part of the plan.

And the jihadists don't just surface through al Qaeda. The jihadists surface through Hezbollah, frankly, a seasoned terrorist organization that has now taken up a very important place of power in Lebanon, supported, without question, articulated last night on the floor of this House, by Iran and Syria.

Democrats and Republicans, over and over again, last night, as we debated the resolution in support of the State of Israel, talked about who is backing Hezbollah right now. Hamas, also elected to governmental leadership in Palestine, includes the jihadists, people who have declared war on the United States of America and its ally, Israel. And this really is a war of global proportions. And we need to be realistic about this and share with the American people the seriousness of the moment that we live in and rise to our generational call to address this issue and not just think that this is about Iraq.

If we pulled out of Iraq tomorrow, Islamic jihadism is on the rise. And they continue, as we see in Lebanon, to seek to destroy the State of Israel and seek to drive America back and bring us to our knees. We must stand tall and straight.

Now, the United Nations is an organization that I believe was founded with good intentions. As a matter of fact, a prominent Tennessean named Cordell Hull was very involved with it. And if you call the Congressional Research Service or look for the records of all this, and we did, you find out the history of all this, because Cordell Hull came out of the State of Tennessee. He was elected to Congress in 1907. He served here in the House until 1931. He was elected United States Senator, but

resigned upon his appointment as Secretary of State by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933.

Foreseeing danger to peace in the rise of dictators, he advocated rearmament, pled for the implementation of a system of collective security, supported aid short of war to the Western democracies, condemned Japanese encroachment into Indochina, warned all branches of the United States military well in advance of the attack on Pearl Harbor to prepare to resist simultaneous surprise attacks at various points.

Although Hull participated in some of the policy-making conferences of the allies, his major effort during the latter stages of World War II was that of preparing a blueprint for an international organization dedicated to the maintenance of peace and endowed with sufficient legislative, economic, and military power to achieve it.

Shortly after the outbreak of the war, Cordell Hull proposed the formation of a new world organization in which the United States would participate after the war. To accomplish this aim, in 1941 he formed an advisory committee on postwar foreign policy composed of Republicans and Democrats. Mindful of President Wilson's failure with the League of Nations, Hull took pains to keep discussion of the organization nonpartisan.

By August of 1943 the State Department had drafted a document, entitled ``Charter of the United Nations,'' which became the basis for proposals submitted by the United States at the 1944 Dumbarton Oaks Conference.

Poor health forced Hull to resign from office on November 27, 1944, before final ratification of the United Nations charter in San Francisco. President Roosevelt praised Hull as the one person in all the world who has done his most to make this great plan for peace, in effect, a fact.

Following nomination by Roosevelt, the Norwegian Nobel committee presented the 1945 Nobel Prize for peace to Cordell Hull in recognition of his work in the Western Hemisphere for his international trade agreements and for his efforts in establishing the United Nations.

Too ill to receive the award in person, Hull sent a brief acceptance speech that was delivered by the United States Ambassador to Norway, in which he wrote: ``Under the ominous shadow which the Second World War and its attendant circumstances have cast on the world, peace has become as essential to civilized existence as the air we breathe is to life itself. There is no greater responsibility resting upon peoples and governments everywhere than to make sure that enduring peace will, this time, at long last, be established and maintained. The searing lessons of this latest war and the promise of the United Nations organization will be the cornerstones of a new edifice of enduring peace and the guideposts of a new era of human progress.''

As a matter of fact, the U.N. charter preamble says this: ``We, the peoples of the United Nations, determine to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and reaffirm faith and fundamental human rights in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom. And for these ends, to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors and unite our strength to maintain international peace and security. And ensure by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods that armed force shall not be used save in the common interest, and employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples.''

Now, that is a bold plan for an organization, to secure international peace and guarantee international security. And I just want to say, fundamentally, a fair assessment of the United Nations in 2006 on its original mission is a low grade. If not an F, it has got to be a low D, because the United Nations today, as was written yesterday in a column by Norm Ornstein in Roll Call, is effectively impotent in certain areas of the world today.

Clearly, as we look at the observers in southern Lebanon and the U.N.'s role with peace keeping, we are facing the most difficult challenges of our generation with respect to war and peace, and the United Nations is not effective anymore. That is the sad truth today, and we are trying to change that.

Here in the House of Representatives, we passed the Henry Hyde United Nations Reform Act and sent that bill to the United States Senate, where we can't even get agreement on a conference report. As a matter of fact, that bill said that there were 38 recommendations for reforming the United Nations to clean up the graft and corruption, make it more efficient and accountable, have it live up to its original charter; and unless 31 of those 38 reforms were implemented, we were going to, the United States of America, withhold up to 50 percent of our dues to that organization. And we are, and will show later in this hour, by far and away the number one contributor to the United Nations in the world.

We were trying to bring some accountability to the United Nations, and I have to tell you that the resistance to that accountability not only comes out of the heart of the United Nations, but there is resistance even in this country for reforming the United Nations.

I have to say this Member of Congress from the State of Tennessee, much like the Member of Congress from Tennessee who received the Nobel Peace Prize for starting the United Nations, looks back on the legacy of Cordell Hull and, sadly, says that we need to reevaluate our participation in the United Nations as long as it is going in the direction that it is going in.

Before I yield to the gentleman from Michigan, I want to point to a book that has been written, called The U.N. Exposed, by Eric Shawn.

Eric Shawn is not an author trying to make money writing a book. Eric Shawn is a very legitimate journalist who has been incredibly effective over the years at reporting on the United Nations. It is very similar to a reporter covering city hall that sees so many things going on in city hall that, after a long period of time, they just kind of look themselves in the mirror and say, this stinks and somebody needs to write about it. And this book documents all of the graft, corruption, deals, inefficiencies, arrogance that exist at the United Nations. The U.N. Exposed. And I want to just read a page out of it in the introduction to set the stage and then yield the floor to the gentleman from Michigan.

In the introduction it says: ``Terrorism is not a United Nations priority. The majority of its members are focused on `development,' '' which is ``diplomat-speak'' for increasing the amount of money coming into their own nations. Terrorism, even though it should be the most pressing international issue of the 21st century, is simply not on most U.N. agendas.

``The United States is compromised. The United States funds a whopping 22 percent of the U.N.'s $3.6 billion budget, pays 27 percent of an additional $3.6 billion in peacekeeping operation costs, and provides billions more for the U.N. agencies and related operations each year. And yet the United Nations has become the coliseum for confronting and opposing the United States. With the end of the Cold War and the rise of one lone superpower, the United States' veto- wielding rivals press their agendas at our expense and maneuver for their own advantages, not ours.

``The United Nations Security Council guaranteed security for the Iraqis and an unstable and untenable environment for American and British forces attempting to enforce the Council's mandates from 1991, when Saddam surrendered in the Gulf War, to the 2003 invasion made necessary by the U.N.'s malfeasance. Had the Council and the United Nations held to moral principles and enforced their resolutions and requirements, the war could have been prevented. There would have been clarity, not confusion, regarding Saddam's possessions of weapons of mass destruction. His corruption and bribery of the Council created conditions of uncertainty that empowered his regime.

``The same mistakes are now being repeated elsewhere. The U.N. is incapable of effectively resolving the nuclear threats posed by Iran and North Korea, member states that have in some cases lied to U.N. officials, including those of the International Atomic Energy Agency, or, in other cases, ignored their request.

``While the U.N.'s humanitarian programs are rightfully praised for providing food, shelter, and medicine to millions of the world's needy, they have now also come under questioning and criticism. The U.N.'s own independent investigation, headed by former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker found that even the gems of the U.N. system, such as the World Food Program, the World Health Organization, and UNICEF, operated in Iraq with `little transparency and oversight' amid evidence of `gross mismanagement.' ''

A fair assessment says the United Nations is not effective at all in international peace and security and they do provide humanitarian assistance, but even their provision of humanitarian assistance is grossly mismanaged, and basically everybody involved in the leadership of the United Nations is, in one way or another, benefiting financially from the very programs that come through the United Nations.

We are going to document even more of that as we go on. But at this point I want to yield to the gentleman from Michigan, Thaddeus McCotter.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his commentary.

What is the United Nations? To a lot of people, they may not have been there, they may not realize it, but it is an 18-acre compound on the East River in Manhattan, in New York City. And that 18-acre compound, which is very much delineated, detailed in Eric Shawn's book, is basically a safe haven for everyone who operates there. They are immune from virtually everything. They do not even have to pay sales tax on the food that they eat in New York City. They do not have to pay their parking tickets. They operate with such impunity that they, frankly, have become incredibly arrogant toward our country.

The number two guy at the United Nations, Malloch Brown, recently just delivered a scathing analysis of the United States' position toward the United Nations as if we had no business whatsoever meddling in their organization, as if we should not in any way exert oversight when, again, about a fourth of all of their revenues come from us and they have this autonomy here in our country.

The Oil-for-Food scandal, which an investigation was ordered on here in the Congress, it showed such gross graft and corruption that it could very easily be the largest case of grand larceny in the history of our country in terms of the billions of dollars that were siphoned off and used to manipulate, to effectively bribe member countries; even, as one of the chapters in the book shows, the media, the press that covers the United Nations, setting up these organizations where reporters could actually draw income from outside of their work at the United Nations. Now, if that is not a conflict of interest for a journalist, I do not know what is.

But Saddam Hussein methodically set out to use the revenues from the Oil-for-Food scandal to keep the countries that could very well force the United Nations or hold the United Nations back from going in and enforcing their resolutions in Iraq. He used the money. It was a scheme. It was a scam, a multibillion-dollar scam. That has been documented here on the floor, but

I do not think the people in this country ever really got it. I do not think that they fully understood it.

A summary of the time line, after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, the United Nations barred him from profiting from sales of his country's vast oil supplies. The ban was meant to keep him from rebuilding his military and pursuing a nuclear weapons program. It also deprived the Iraqi economy of its main export, leading to hunger and deprivation among his people, according to him, a condition that Saddam both exacerbated by hoarding the wealth his country possessed, and then publicized to win international sympathy. Eric Shawn's book points to the fact that a lot of it was just propaganda coming out of Iraq by Saddam that, indeed, a lot of the children that he had claimed were starving to death because of the lack of oil revenues were not, in fact, starving to death. But he won a lot of international sympathy.

So support for the sanctions gradually eroded. And in 1996 the United Nations created the Oil-for-Food program through which Iraq could resume oil sales to pay for humanitarian goods such as food and medicine. Saddam exploited, though, the renewed oil flow in three ways:

First, he simply ignored the sanctions and illegally sold oil to Syria, Turkey, Jordan, and other countries with no U.N. supervision, which furnished him by far his biggest source of illicit income, about $13.6 billion, according to a Senate subcommittee investigation.

Second, Saddam and his loyalists used tricky pricing schemes, surcharges, and kickbacks to milk another $7 billion or more from oil buyers and sellers of humanitarian supplies as a result of Saddam's successful arguments at the United Nations, that as a sovereign nation Iraq should be allowed to negotiate contracts directly.

Legitimate Iraqi oil profits went to a U.N.-controlled escrow account, but kickbacks were secretly routed by complicit companies to hidden regime bank accounts.

And, third, Saddam bribed foreign officials and others. He oversaw a list of people who were given vouchers to buy Iraqi oil at below market price, essentially multimillion dollar buyoffs. Their apparent purpose was to win Saddam defenders in his fight to lift U.N. sanctions. Beneficiaries allegedly included oil company executives from Russia, China and France and prominent politicians from Russia and France.

There is documented evidence now that he systematically sought to use this revenue to buy basically the votes at the United Nations to keep the United Nations from enforcing their own resolutions.

So was the United Nations corrupted through the Oil-for-Food scandal? Absolutely it was. Over a period of a decade, it was corrupted in a gross way, so that the United Nations was never going to enforce their resolutions because basically everybody in the decision-making process had some obligation to Saddam Hussein because of where the money flowed.

Kofi Annan runs the United Nations. Thankfully, his term is going to end at the end of this year. His son, Kojo, his fingerprints are all over this stuff. Money flowed. Investigations have been run. People just looked the other way. Malik Brown then criticizes us for exerting oversight, saying that the United States has just become anti-U.N.

Listen, we all believed in the original legitimacy of the United Nations, the original mission, international peace and security. But I will tell you what, the United Nations is, if anything, not only not helping with international peace and security; the United Nations is in the way today sometimes of international peace and security if they are unwilling to enforce their own resolutions.

You might say, well, you know, if it is not the United Nations, then what? I got to say the coalition of the willing needs to reevaluate, in my humble opinion. The coalition of the willing means countries willing to fight Islamic jihadists, willing to stand strong against terror, willing to engage, to say we have to drive this threat back.

Then what do we do? Let's look at an expanded NATO. Let's look at a coalition of the willing. Or let's insist that the United Nations go back and meet its original charter. It is, frankly, not an organization worthy of this level of support by the American people today. That is the bottom line.

Now, I am prepared to yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina, if she is ready. Are you ready?

I yield to Virginia Foxx from North Carolina.

I thank the gentlewoman.

Put this in perspective: think like North Korea today. Kim Jong Il is defying the international will in terms of developing a nuclear program and nuclear weapons capabilities, so the world is rightly isolating him.

So back in 1990, Saddam Hussein invades his neighbor, and the world comes and drives him back and basically begins to isolate him and he can't sell his oil to the world.

So he comes up with a scheme. Hey, this is what we can do: we can claim that children are starving and that our country is experiencing all these humanitarian crimes, and, as a result, we have got to kick the oil revenues back in.

What happens is the $64 billion worth of oil revenues which Oil-for- Food was supposed to send through a New York escrow account and on back for humanitarian needs, and the administration associated with getting the money back there. And the way the thing ended up getting corrupted, it goes through Jordan and Lebanon and other countries and other accounts and back to Iraq, and this is what happens with the money: military equipment, weapons from Belarus, Bulgaria, China, France, India, Jordan, Russia, Poland, North Korea, South Korea, Syria, Ukraine and Yugoslavia. He bought with all that the military arsenal to put himself back on his feet in the nineties.

And who was co-opted into believing all that? The United Nations, very easily. How were they? Well, kickbacks. Bribes. A methodical effort to make sure that the very people that could expose this or stop this were all somehow on the payroll.

That is exactly what happened. It is one of the most outrageous stories in the history of the world, especially in an organization that most people have a good impression of. After all, when the light-blue flag of the United Nations shows up around the world, people think good thoughts. It is like the American Red Cross. They say, hey, that is nice, they are here. Little do they know, though, that there is this kind of fraud and abuse and corruption at the United Nations.

This is all documented now. We really need to evaluate how long this country is going to participate in a scam like this and then be criticized by the rest of the world every time we try to hold them accountable as being arrogant or too bossy, the things that they say.

Eric Shawn has done this country a service by putting all this in a document, his book, ``The U.N. Exposed.'' He really has. Again, he is just a journalist. He is just trying to show what he learned over the years reporting on the United Nations.

In an interview, they asked him about Iran, because we now know what a threat Iran is. Iran is backing Hezbollah. That is all about this war. And, frankly, Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, has denied that the Jews were ever put through the Holocaust. He says the Holocaust didn't exist, and he wants to end Israel. He wants to destroy Israel. That is a stated objective of the guy running Iran now.

All right. So they asked Shawn about the United Nations and Iran, and he says this: ``The United Nations has given Iran a 21-year head start in its development of nuclear technology, a country whose President now vows to wipe Israel off the map. It seems inconceivable, but the United Nations' own nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, didn't even know about Iran's nuclear facilities for 18 years. Then in 2003, after Iran's program was exposed, Iranian activists and the IAEA confirmed Iran's violations, it took another 3 years for the issue to even reach the Security Council. Russia and China served as Iran's linebackers on the governing board of the agency, refusing to allow Iran's infraction to be reported to the Security Council until earlier this year. The latest IAEA report details Iran's many violations, such as the existence of uranium metal designs that can only be used for nuclear warheads. Moreover, it also raises many unresolved questions about Iran's nuclear capabilities as a whole.

``Despite the crisis, Russia and China, whose economic interests clearly lie in protecting Iran, have already castrated the Security Council by declaring they oppose sanction, creating the impossibility of full council-backed action. Even a legally binding Chapter 7 resolution would not result in a vote for sanctions, a naval blockade or other action against Iran. It may require another coalition of the willing to effectively deal with what the Security Council is unwilling to achieve.''

He says in his book: ``It was not the U.N.'s effort that exposed the extensive global black market in nuclear technology peddled by Pakistan's Dr. A.Q. Khan. No U.N. committee ordered Muammar Qaddafi to surrender his weapons of mass destruction programs. Those successes are among the achievements of the proliferation security initiative, the brainchild of Ambassador John Bolton under the Bush administration. Compare PSI's actual achievements with the U.N.'s failure on the nuclear weapons front. Iran only has to look at Security Council's crippling by Saddam to understand why President Ahmadinejad calls the U.N.'s resolutions meaningless.''

That is the bottom line. Their resolutions are now meaningless. They have no credibility. Our enemies know that they have been co-opted and corrupted and bribed and that they are not going to enforce their resolutions. Iran now knows it. And so they just laugh off anything that the United Nations does.

How dangerous is that? Well, I would say the average citizen, not just in this country but around the world, they have confidence in the United Nations that the United Nations is going to somehow carry out its original charge of international peace and security.

I have been a Member of the United States Congress for 12 years. I am not an expert on these things, but I have studied them and I learned them. I have very little faith in the United Nations to do much of anything on international peace and security.

They do feed people that need to be fed. They do reach humanitarian needs. That is good. But that does not mean all of the other things that they do are good.

As a matter of fact, they are AWOL, AWOL, absent without leave, on the critical issues of terrorism and international security. They will not stand tall.

On the issue of human rights, what a disaster the human rights activities of the United Nations are today. They have put the fox in charge of the hen house. They have let some of the most egregious human rights violating countries play a prominent role in human rights decisions by the United Nations. How absurd is that? I yield to Mr. McCotter.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his participation and his contributions to our country. He is one of the most articulate Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, very bright man. I am grateful for his leadership. He talked about the U.S. paying 22 percent of the overall dues to the United Nations, and 27 percent of the peacekeeping operations around the world.

You know, China has the same Security Council power at the United Nations as the United States. China pays 2 percent of the United Nations dues. So at the very least, one of the reforms should be Security Council reforms on the balance of power.

Because, frankly, again I have been to the United Nations several times. They do not treat the United States well. And I do not understand why. I know there are a lot of excuses why. But I will tell you this. We are footing the bill and many other countries are not. And the ones that have the same kind of veto power through the Security Council need to be carrying more of the weight, especially when you consider the gross trade imbalance that our country now has with China.

It is not exactly like China needs a lot of help financially, they need to pull their weight. So I am prepared to yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for all she contributes here in the House of Representatives. Let me say in closing, this is not now a far-out wild kind of a position that we are taking.

You know, I am a very reasonable person, with friends all around the world. The last 12 years I have, through the National Prayer Breakfast and other ways, engaged friends all around the world. I am very much for us being engaged in the world, investing in the world. This is not a close-minded kind of a position. This is not a paranoid position. This is looking at the facts, really analyzing the bottom line of the United Nations. It is not meeting its mission. It has become ineffective, inefficient. It has lost credibility. The very people that are criticizing our country are enjoying the multimillion-dollar townhomes they live in in Manhattan. They enjoy the fruits of our free enterprise system, but they do not recognize the human rights and the responsibility.

The original charge of the United Nations was to ensure international peace and security. So I would just say if we want to be guaranteed international peace and security and sleep comfortably at night, we better not put our faith and trust in the United Nations. Put it in the men and women in the uniform of the Armed Forces of the United States of America and our allies who are willing to stand against tyranny and terror and destruction. That is the last best hope for freedom, not the United Nations.

I thank the distinguished majority whip.

Mr. Chairman, with respect, religion in the United States is rightly pluralistic. We are or in no way should we be theocratic at all. As a matter of fact, one of the great threats in the world today, jihadism, is born out of theocracy.

That doesn't mean, though, that this country should be godless. One of my greatest, one of the great sayings I love is if there is no God, nothing matters. But if there is a God, nothing else matters. We should remember that today.

Abraham Lincoln said we do not claim to have God on our side, but we strive to be on his. We should not and cannot rewrite history to ignore our spiritual heritage. It surrounds us. It cries out for our country to honor God and to seek and supplicate His will in our country's life.

Today the people from my State of Tennessee would listen to this debate, or even talk about a reference to God on our money or in the Halls of Congress or in our Pledge and say, please, let common sense and logic win the day and prevail versus legal mumbo jumbo.

In closing, let me just thank God, on the floor of the House, for not turning away from us even though we seem to be turning away from Him.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank both gentlemen, the gentleman from Arizona and the gentleman from West Virginia, certainly the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Pombo, the subcommittee chairman, the ranking member of the subcommittee as well, and everyone who has worked on this bill. I am very proud to be the lead sponsor of H.R. 3085. I think it is a very important issue for the Congress to take up, and I urge all of my colleagues to vote for it.

H.R. 3085, the Trail of Tears Study Act, is cosponsored by 20 of my colleagues, all from districts and States in which the additional components are located. I would also like to add that S. 1970, the Senate companion bill, is sponsored by Senator Tom Coburn and cosponsored by the majority leader, Bill Frist, and Senator Lamar Alexander.

As a consequence of the Indian Removal Act of 1830, a detachment led by John Benge traveled 734 miles starting at Fort Payne, Alabama, and continuing through Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas and Oklahoma.

The treaty party group, led by John A. Bell, traveled 765 miles, starting at Charleston, Tennessee, traveling through 10 counties in Tennessee, passing through Arkansas, and on to Oklahoma. Also included are 29 forts and immigration depots located near Fort Payne, Alabama; Ross's Landing, present-day Chattanooga; and Fort Cass, present-day Charleston, Tennessee, where the Cherokee initially were taken after being rounded up from their homes.

Consequently, the intent of H.R. 3085 is to study an expansion of the current Trail of Tears National Historic Trail, which Congress designated in 1987, to include these additional documented components into the National Trails System Act.

The proposed additions have been documented by the National Park Service historians, military journals and newspaper accounts. The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to complete within 6 months the remaining criteria necessary to determine the designation of additional routes to the Trail of Tears National Historic Trail.

Even today, many interpretation activities along the Trail of Tears seek to remember the historic routes taken by the Benge detachment and the Bell Treaty party as we are considering inclusion in the National Trails System.

I want to be very clear that it is my intent that this legislation respect private property rights absolutely. I believe the National Park Service has demonstrated strong partnerships geared toward respecting the private property of citizens and administration of the current Trail of Tears National Historic Trail and will continue to do so upon the addition of these routes.

The designation and interpretation of the sites and trails associated with the Cherokee removal will enhance public understanding of American history. Our greatness as a Nation is our ability to look at our own history objectively and in proper perspective, being mindful of the errors of the past in order not to repeat them.

Through this legislation, we will honor the historic footsteps taken by the Cherokee, document their courage, and highlight their character as a great tribe of strong people.

Finally, because of historical significance, H.R. 3085 enjoys broad support not only within Congress, but also with the Cherokee Nation, the Eastern Band of Cherokee and associated trail organizations such as the Trail of Tears Association. This legislation is a wonderful example of how Congress can better understand a national event through commemoration of the Cherokee story.

I believe the Secretary of Interior will find that the additional routes meet the historical significance, suitability, and feasibility required by the National Park Service for designation as part of the Trail of Tears National Historic Trail.

On June 29 of last year, I introduced H.R. 3085 at a press conference with Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation Chadwick Smith, the Vice Chief of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Nation Larry Blythe, the Trail of Tears Association, and many of the original cosponsors like Congressmen Charles Taylor, Jimmy Duncan, Tom Cole, Marion Berry and Lincoln Davis.

I would like to thank Rob Howarth and the entire National Park Service staff, the staff of the House Resources Committee and the subcommittee, and my legislative director, Melissa Chapman, for a job very well done.

I would also like to say anecdotally, in east Tennessee we are claiming the Trail of Tears as part of our heritage, as part of our strength. On the Tennessee River, we have the Moccasin Bend National Archeological District now being implemented by the National Park Service. We have the passage at Ross's Landing, which is an extraordinary waterfall leading down to the Tennessee River, which in Cherokee art tells the story of the Trail of Tears. Up river at Blythe Ferry we have the Cherokee Memorial Park under construction, where 8,000 Cherokee all crossed the Tennessee River at the same time, and now the Trail of Tears Documentation Act. So we are very grateful for the cooperation and participation we have had.

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage

I thank the gentleman. I am very grateful that he has come to the floor tonight to discuss these matters that are so important and even to respond to some of what has already been said here tonight. I think it is important for us, Mr. Speaker, to come and talk about what sacrifices are made on the other side of the world on our behalf.

British philosopher and historian John Stuart Mill once wrote this about war: he said war is an ugly thing, but it is not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A person who has nothing for which they are willing to fight, nothing they care more about than their own personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of ever being free unless those very freedoms are made and kept by better persons than himself.

Mr. Speaker, those persons are the men and women in the uniform of our Armed Forces. One thing I know, because I respect my friends on both sides of the aisle, is that the lessons of history, including the Vietnam lesson, taught America to support the troops, the men and women in uniform, regardless of how you feel about the mission, regardless of the decisions made by the Commander in Chief who is charged, as the gentleman from Iowa said, with making these critical decisions, duly elected, even re-elected, in the midst of this conflict.

Supported by a majority of the American people, and making these decisions with an all volunteer force, every man and woman in uniform, today, volunteered to serve. I have been with our President, with tears rolling down his face, talking about the sacrifices that these mostly young men and women are willing to make on our behalf, knowing that this call is a difficult call, knowing that the sacrifices are extraordinary, and, yes, we have lost over 2,500; many, many more have been injured.

But I have got to tell you, freedom is never free, and every time it has been handed from one generation to the next, it has been handed by the men and women in the uniform, and they are there making that sacrifice for us. I want them to look back in this interactive world we live in and see us standing behind them, not talking about leaving early, never retreating, always finishing what we start.

Let me tell you, I saw a Democratic Senator on television this weekend talking about what is happening in northern Africa, specifically Somalia. You and I were in Africa together a year and a half ago, talking about Sunni extremism that has spread around the globe and influenced the east coast of Africa. This is not because of what has happened in Iraq; it

is happening if we are not in Iraq. It is happening, and it manifested itself on September 11, 2001, no, 1993 is when they wanted to bring down the World Trade Center, but they didn't. Their engineering didn't work.

Did we pay enough attention then, or the other 30 times that our ships and our interests in hotels that we own around the world were bombed by terrorist extremist, from radical Islam? No, we didn't pay enough attention. We even retreated from human intelligence. We cut the budget.

Mr. Speaker, if we are not on the offensive today, freedom is at risk again for this generation. Man, I am glad that these men and women will stand in harm's way on our behalf and stand in the gap. Absolutely we hail them.

Iraq is difficult, but it is a decision that was made. Over half the Democrats in the United States Senate voted to use force to remove Saddam Hussein, and almost half the Democrats in this House voted to use force to remove Saddam Hussein. They thought it was important to remove this genocidal mass murderer, terrorist, and they said with weapons of mass destruction.

Now, sarin gas was found again. We know he used it on hundreds of thousands of people. We know he is a genocidal mass murderer, just like Slobodan Milosevic was, and President Clinton chose to remove him from Eastern Europe. But here we are today, frankly, second guessing, instead of standing together.

I have got to tell you, I believe deep in my gut, Mr. Speaker, that it is a matter of time till we are hit again. We cannot sleep. We cannot rest. We must be vigilant, and the Senator was right. Now, in northern Africa, what they are looking for is a vacuum, Mr. Speaker. They are looking for a sovereign nation from which to operate.

You cannot convince me Iraq was not right to be a sovereign nation from which to operate. You cannot convince me, and I am on the Homeland Security appropriations subcommittee, been there since we created the Department of Homeland Security. Briefed at a very high level, you can't convince me that there were not connections with al Qaeda operatives and Saddam Hussein.

Now all you hear about this rhetoric here is this November. It is not about what has happened or what is happening. It is about them retaking the majority in the Congress. So let us just call it what it is. While I am on my feet, let me say, Mr. Speaker, that we are blocking and tackling and trying to do the people's business in this House as the majority. I am encouraged.

Our economic policies are working, amazingly durable economy today. I am amazed at that growth that is taking place out there in America. I am amazed that unemployment is this low, virtual full employment. I am amazed that everything we have been through from Katrina and Rita to terrorism all around, that we are still this strong, and it is because we have enacted sound, economic policies.

Legislative line item veto passed the House last week. It is a compromise that we know the Supreme Court, or, we believe, will uphold this time. The President can eliminate unnecessary spending, something the people back home continue to want from this Congress.

We also came up with a compromise for the death tax, because you really shouldn't be taxed again when you die. Within 6 months, the IRS shows up. This is a compromise.

We are reasonable people, but we are going to continue to press the fundamentals of blocking and tackling and doing the people's business. I am encouraged that there is some momentum in this House again. I am encouraged by the leadership of this House.

I tell you what, I know this is the silly season. Next 4\1/2\ months you will hear all kind of rhetoric and all kind of talk. But America is too great to dumb it down to election-year rhetoric.

I have come to the House floor tonight to just try to rise above it. I rarely do this. I have tremendous friends on both sides of the aisle here, and I respect this institution so much. What a privilege it has been for me to be here for 12 years.

But I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker. When the going gets tough, the tough get going, and it is tough, if we left Iraq tomorrow with Sunni extremism, al Qaeda, Hezbollah.

Hamas was elected in Palestine, a terrorist organization was elected to the government, and now more people are being elected terrorists in Somalia. Terrorism is on the rise. We are on the offensive, or we are in retreat. Take your pick. Take your pick. You can't have it both ways.

I am glad this President has been strong and tough and consistent. The other people around the world are paying attention. Don't tell me Moammar Gadhafi turned over his nuclear weapons because we weren't strong. He turned them over because we were strong and consistent. He did not want to be on the list of countries that we were watching closely and concerned were aiding and abetting terrorist networks with weapons of mass destruction. So he turned them over.

This is a strong President, exerting leadership during very difficult times, extraordinarily difficult times. Because this war doesn't really have a front line, and there is no one to sign a truce or a treaty with at the end, because global terrorism now is spreading around the world through the Sunni extremism, this makes this the toughest of all fights.

It is the easiest to cast doubt about. It is the easiest to throw rocks at. There will be some rocks thrown in the next 4\1/2\ months. I think it is time for some people to come to this floor and speak out about what is at stake. Number one, the main thing that people expect of a President or this Congress is to protect them from threats.

If you don't think that Sunni extremism and radical terrorism is a threat, it is why we are working so hard in the House to secure our southern border, not come up with some notion of how to encourage other people to come here illegally, like we got out of the other body, but securing the other border, stopping the inflow of people into this country that can bring damage to us and bring harm to our people. Security is the main thing.

I tell you, in the wake of September 11, I know mistakes have been made, but I would rather be on the offensive, fighting them on our terms and their land rather than on their terms and our land. It really does boil down to that.

Again, I respect everyone who comes up with their open plan, and I believe the debate ought to come to this House for it, and we ought to do it in a civil way. But I tell you, I believe that those people that understand this threat and know historically what has been necessary to deal with these threats should come down here and defend, not only the men and women that are carrying it out, but the principle that says sometimes freedom comes with a price.

We have got to promote our way of life around the world, not be policemen around the world, but to promote freedom. Free countries do not war with one another. I believe in that. I think that is a Bush doctrine, and I believe in that. Twenty-two Arab League countries, none of them really have our form of government.

None of them really freely elect their leaders. None of them really respect the dignity of an individual. None of them really give women full rights and privileges. None of them really have freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of thought. Those are the kind of freedoms that will contain and eliminate terrorism over time.

This is a bold proposition. It is a world-changing proposition. I actually believe it is the right thing to do.

I think, Mr. Speaker, in all fairness, we should point to some successes by the Department of Homeland Security since last September in

changing the policy from catch and release to catch and return. As I tell people back home in Tennessee, that the policy really was, going back to 1986, that you would actually release people coming across the southern border that were apprehended, you know, pending a court date. And there is always a chuckle in the audience because they know that that illegal immigrant would not show up for court. And so effectively the policy allowed them to come into this country and disappear.

But I have just got to say, the folks that I represent, and this is really where we need to stay focused, the people back home, they know that we have a system in this country that people who are sick can walk into the emergency room of safety net hospitals and receive free health care, regardless of their ability to pay, regardless of their socioeconomic condition or even whether they are a citizen of this country. And as long as we have that system, then that system is very much at risk if we allow the continued increase of illegal immigration into this country.

Now, they also say all we really care about, you people in Washington need to know is that you secure the southern border and slow and hopefully stop the influx of illegal immigration across the southern border.

I had a person ask me this past Saturday, at home at a meeting, what about the Canadian border? Well, it is important, too, but that is not where the influx of illegal immigration is coming across. It is the southern border.

So you have got to go, you know, the hunters go where the ducks are. You know, if you are trying to stop the flow of illegal immigration, you go where it is happening. And the lawless environment on our southern border demands action.

People say, well, you can't build the Great Wall of China on the southern border. You don't have to. In this day and age, you can put a protective fence around your yard of your home to keep your animals from leaving that you can't see. If you can do that, you can have the technology with a protective barrier. Some of it is going to be a fence, literally. Some of it is going to be the latest in technology.

But, listen, and I know the gentleman who is sitting in the Chair tonight knows from his extraordinary service in Homeland Security, we have not deployed the technology that we have available to us in the area of homeland security. You talk about US VISIT. It is going fast now. But through biometrics and the latest in technology, we are actually going to be able to keep track of people from all around the world. We really are.

We are almost at 300 million people in this country. But in terms of our intellectual capability and the advancement of technology, we are so close to being able to keep track of these people coming across the border and also deploy systems, technologically, to detect people coming across the border, all across the southern border.

So job one is secure that border. The other thing my people are concerned about are illegal immigrants tapping into Social Security, which we already know is under great stress and duress, and Medicare. The greatest government expenses now are Social Security and Medicare. These are guarantees to people that reach a certain age in the work force or 65 for health care, and we cannot allow a system that invites people into that system that haven't paid into that system.

And I have got to tell you, the legislation we see coming out of the other body, it is a recipe for more Social Security deficits in this country, because it will invite illegal immigrants into the Social Security system. We cannot tolerate that. So if anybody thinks we are heartless, we are protecting, honest to goodness, we are protecting seniors by securing the border and not going for an amnesty plan to blanket people into this country.

Listen, I had a young lady come up to me a few years ago, not more than three, in Cleveland, Tennessee. She was from eastern Europe. She came up to me; and she, too, had a teary eyed, choking voice and said, Congressman, it took me over 5 years to become a United States citizen. I worked an hourly job, and it cost me several thousand dollars for a long period of time to become a U.S. citizen. And the day that I received my citizenship, she had a real strong eastern European accent, she said, it was the happiest day of my life. And her eyes gleamed, and she said, please do not dishonor my commitment by granting citizenship to people who came here illegally.

Let me tell you, that is something that is lost in this debate. What about the people who did go through the effort to do it right? What about the people who we, you know, we embrace immigration. The history of this country is embracing immigration. We want people to immigrate here; and, frankly, we want people to come here and work.

I have got to tell you, a lot of people that are coming across the southern border are hard-working people. No question about it. But just because they are hard-working people and just because they are providing a benefit to us doesn't mean we have to say, okay, we are going to stamp you as a citizen because you came here illegally.

No. That doesn't mean that. As a matter of fact, that means we are throwing the rule of law out the window. We are watering it down. Let me tell you, once you go down that slippery slope of not honoring the rule of law all the time, that is one of the things that on this floor is debated and frankly in strong support for making sure that everyone is held accountable under the rule of law and that no one is exempt from the rule of law. No one. No Member of Congress is exempt from the law. No one is. So why would we embrace this notion that illegal immigration is okay and that those folks too will become citizens? No. There is a process that you go through, and we want to honor that process and honor the commitments made by those who came here legally.

Another tough issue, no question, and we face many. I think the fundamentals are as challenging as they have been in 30 years right now in this country. But as I said earlier, when the going gets tough, the tough get going. It is time for us to step up. Every generation sooner or later is called on to meet these great challenges, and our generation is meeting those great challenges.

I have to say that I think the Greatest Generation, the World War II generation, from September 11 forward is looking at our generation saying, I will be darned, they do have what it takes. They have stepped up. I know that a lot of people say we are the ``me'' generation and that we are selfish. No. I see people giving back. I see a lot of our sons and daughters, every parent of a person in our military today, they are giving back. Our sons and daughters are giving back. They are stepping up to meet our generation's challenge. So we have got to pull together, Mr. Speaker.

And I thank the gentleman from Iowa for letting me weigh in.

Mr. Speaker, in the spring of 1906, veteran educators in Chattanooga, Tennessee--Tommie Payne Duffy, Eula Lea Jarnagin and Grace McCallie--boldly resolved to create an independent school to prepare girls for higher education. With indomitable fortitude and spirit, they committed their finances, time, and energy to establishing Girls Preparatory School, which they opened on September 12, 1906. This year, Girls Preparatory School celebrated its 100th anniversary, and the 2006 graduating class of 102 girls joined over 7,000 women as alumnae of the school.

In a modest, four-room schoolhouse, the three founders laid the foundation for what is now one of this Nation's great secondary schools for girls. Today, on a 60-acre site overlooking the Tennessee River, the school is an impressive complex of technology-rich academics buildings and superb athletic facilities that serves some 750 girls annually in grades 6-12.

With an honor code that provides an environment of trust, a community service program that teaches that service to others and by providing a superior education with opportunities for personal growth to students of diverse backgrounds from 40 communities in Tennessee, Alabama, and Georgia, colleges and universities across America have come to recognize Girls Preparatory School as among the best preparatory schools in the Nation.

Named the National School of Excellence by the U.S. Department of Education, the school has been honored by the national Character Education Partnership and received the Award of Excellence from the National Endowment for the Arts. Its students have been named Presidential Scholars, National Merit Finalists, and National AP Scholars.

I am proud to stand on the House floor today to say that Girls Preparatory School is poised for another 100 years of greatness, committed to graduating independent girls with a lifelong love of learning.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Louise McKown of Oak Ridge, Tennessee, who was recently recognized here in Washington by the American Bar Association. She received the Paul G. Hearne Award for dedicating her personal and professional life to improving the lives of people with disabilities in her community.

Thirteen years ago when she began to have trouble walking, Ms. McKown was diagnosed with a rare, degenerative neurological condition. It has grown increasingly worse over time and severely restricted her mobility, but anyone who knows her will tell you nothing can hold this very special woman back.

Paul G. Hearne, for whom the award was named, was born with a connective tissue disorder that limited his growth and restricted his movement. But with hard work and determination, he fought through it and created opportunities for himself and others. Like Hearne, Ms. McKown's life is marked by similar achievements despite daunting physical setbacks.

Since 1996, she has worked at the East Tennessee Technology Access Center in Knoxville as their public awareness coordinator and systems change advocate and analyst. The Access Center is the region's only nonprofit agency that helps people with disabilities gain knowledge of assistive technology. It serves people with disabilities in 24 counties--helping them learn, work, play, and lead more productive, independent lives.

A tireless spokesperson for the rights of people with disabilities-- whether they were born with a disability or became disabled through an accident, illness or old age--Ms. McKown has fought for their rights to live with dignity and choice. Her achievements on the behalf of the disabled are too numerous to list, but several deserve mention here on the House floor.

In Anderson County, where she lives, she has served on the County Commissioner's Americans with Disabilities Act Oversight committee since its inception in 1995 and now serves as its chairwoman. Ms. McKown has also provided her expertise to the Tennessee Disability Coalition, the lead agency for 35 disability-related organizations statewide. Through her work with the Coalition's Project Vote, Ms. McKown helped drive improvements to polling stations that increased voting access for disabled citizens of Anderson and Knox Counties.

Ms. McKown's energy and caring touch reached from Anderson County across the State of Tennessee. Because of her involvement with the Coalition, when the State rewrote the code governing the Department of Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities in 1999, she was asked to be one of five independent reviewers of the final draft. Her recommendation that group homes across the State for people with developmental disabilities should be less crowded was accepted. Now instead of eight people, they are only permitted to house half that many, greatly improving the quality of life for these physically challenged Americans.

Ms. McKown's life is an example for other Americans, showing that nothing and no one can hold you back if you put your mind to achieving what you want. In the words of her friends, she is truly a woman on a mission and I am proud to stand here on her behalf today.

Mr. Chairman, to review, the President of the United States rightly asked for $250 million for GNEP to help us stand the nuclear industry back up in this country. Decades after Three Mile Island, we need energy independence. The committee did not have enough money, so we appropriated $150 million at the subcommittee level. At the full committee, we accepted an amendment to reduce it to $120 million, and now they are wanting to cut it further.

France understands, as an environmentally sensitive country, that in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, you have to use nuclear. Seventy percent of their electricity is generated from nuclear power in France.

They do not get it in Massachusetts, apparently. The gentleman from Massachusetts has fought nuclear in every capacity, every time it has come to the floor the entire 12 years that I have been here. That is what this is really about.

If his amendment stands, it would leave spent nuclear fuel at reactor sites in Massachusetts at five places: at Pilgrim 1; Yankee-Rowe; research reactors at MIT; the University of Massachusetts; and Worcester Polytechnic Institute.

Defeat the Markey amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a strong cosponsor of H.R. 586, the Right-to-Ride Livestock on Federal Lands Act of 2005.

Pack and saddle stock animals were a critical element in many early Americans' livelihood. This bill will preserve their traditional, cultural and historic use of these lands and facilitate the continued access of pack and saddle stock animals on parts of National Park System, Bureau of Land Management lands, National Wildlife Refuge lands and the U.S. Forest System. This legislation will also ensure that any proposed reduction of these uses will undergo the full review process required under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

Defining managed recreation of this historical practice within our national forests is critical in recognizing the cultural contributions and precedent of pack and saddle stock in our public lands above simple recreational use.

In my congressional district in Tennessee, I have spoken with many of my constituents whose families have spent generations riding horseback through our National Forest trails. Especially in this age of the internet, television and video games, it is vital that we enhance opportunities for people of all ages to come and engage in outdoor activities in America's backyard.

I believe that horse and saddle stock hold a unique place in our heritage. We must pass this bill to ensure its historical preservation and continued enjoyment as a national pastime.

I want to thank the sponsor of this legislation for his support of this important issue and hope that all members can support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Everett Roberts from my home town of Chattanooga, TN, for his unending efforts on behalf of the Girl Scouts of Moccasin Bend Council, who, on Sunday May 21st, will be dedicating their building on Dayton Boulevard to him for his years of tireless service and devotion.

Everett has served on the Board of the Moccasin Bend Council for almost 40 years as a member and chairman, and has been a vital asset to the Council's growth and success.

As the first male president of the Council in 1972, he is described by both friends and colleagues as a very special person who dedicates all of his energy to the improvement of the world around him.

Everett has been instrumental in developing Camp Adahi, the Girl Scout resident camp on Lookout Mountain in Georgia to provide outdoor programs for tens of thousands of girls, and his selfless commitment to the Girl Scouts serves as just one example of his vigorous dedication to the people and city he loves.

I want to take this opportunity to express my sincerest appreciation and gratitude to Mr. Everett Roberts for all he has done and continues to do for both the Girl Scouts of Moccasin Bend and the overall community in Chattanooga. He serves as a shining example of integrity, loyalty and leadership and I am proud to stand here on his behalf today.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia, and I thank the chairman and Chairman Souder for not only bringing the PATRIOT Act reauthorization to the floor but including these important meth provisions in this legislation.

In rural east Tennessee, over 10 years ago meth production showed up in a real ugly way and spread like moonshine of 50 years ago, but 100 times more lethal, through the mountains and the hills. We attacked it with a comprehensive State-Federal-local partnership called the Southeast Tennessee Meth Task Force and that grew to the East Tennessee Meth Task Force, and now it is a statewide, state-of-the-art, frankly, national model for how to combat this problem; and we were second in the country last year in lab seizures.

One of the innocent results here, though, of fighting meth and the production of meth are the children that are left in these homes. My colleague from Tennessee, a Democrat from Nashville, Jim Cooper, wrote legislation, and I was the original Republican cosponsor, that creates a provision funded at $20 million a year for the next 2 years to deal with the children that come out of these meth homes.

Over 10,000 children nationally between 2000 and 2003 came out of these meth homes and became wards of the State. In my State, 750 alone so far are wards of the State. There was no social service network for these children. This creates that.

So we are not just attacking the problem, but we are dealing with the aftermath of this deadly plague on America called methamphetamine production. It is so responsible to include it.

A second on the PATRIOT Act. In ordinary circumstances, it might not be necessary. These are extraordinary circumstances, and it has been necessary. The facts do not lie. If you listen to the testimony of the attorneys general and the prosecutors and you hear the cases, you know the PATRIOT Act has definitely kept our country safer, safer, since September 11.

We need to reauthorize it. We need to be realistic. We cannot just pander or engage in mythological discussions. Deal with the realities. We have to do certain things and communicate better. The law enforcement personnel have to have the tools and equipment to safeguard our country from these terrorists. This is the reality that we face today. We can change this later if we need to. Today, we need to reauthorize it and keep the teeth in Federal law enforcement and keep the terrorists out of our country.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Dr. Jeffrey Wadsworth on his induction into the National Academy of Engineering. Election to the academy is among the highest distinctions that the engineering profession can bestow. I can think of no one more deserving of this honor.

Dr. Wadsworth is a world-renowned metallurgist. He became a United States citizen and has had a distinguished career at Lockheed, Lawrence Livermore National Lab, and Battelle Memorial Institute. He has devoted himself to finding ways of using science and technology to improve our Nation, compiling a stellar record of contributions and earning numerous awards.

Since 2003, Dr. Wadsworth has been the director of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Under his leadership, the lab has continued as one of the world's premier research institutions for material sciences and energy research. Dr. Wadsworth was elected to the academy in recognition of his research and leadership in national defense and science programs.

Congratulations to Dr. Jeffrey Wadsworth on his induction into the National Academy of Engineering and his service to Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

Jeff, thank you for your many contributions.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report with deep gratitude to the ranking member and the chairman and excellent staff work. I believe that Chairman Wolf, while he does not like for people to talk about him, is a man of conscience, and I believe that the God who created us speaks to us and through us through our conscience, and I am grateful that he is so sensitive to the needs of humanity.

We talk a lot about terror. There is terror in a lot of homes in this country because methamphetamine production has crept into our communities, particularly in rural America. It hit Tennessee really hard. And in this bill, the staff and the chairman and the ranking member have responded very well, and I am grateful for that because we have got to attack this problem. At a time of need to tighten our belts and get back towards a balanced budget, we have to do some things, or it is going to cost us a whole lot more later.

In Tennessee we started with a U.S. Attorney-led partnership of local, State, and Federal governments and a task force that has now grown to the whole State, and it is a model for the Nation on cooperation between local, State, and Federal governments so that they can interdict, they can actually get a conviction, not just an indictment but a conviction; and we now are second in the Nation in attacking this problem and busting these labs and running these people back into the woods.

We have got to change State laws and Federal laws, but it takes support; and this committee has been very responsive, and I am grateful for that; and I think the House should support this continued effort to fight methamphetamine production in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me and for her leadership and for all my colleagues on the floor tonight. I am encouraged as a member of the class of 1994, the class that came in with the new majority for the first time in 40 years, to see the passion and the focus that we now see again in the House with that same vigor for reform and responsibility that actually brought us here years ago. You can feel it every day here building steam, because the American people demand it, and we are carrying out an agenda now of reform and responsibility.

Interesting for me, I do not come to the House floor to speak much except for specific legislation, but today you kind of hear mixed messages on the minority side. Half of them say, you are spending too much and the other half says we are not spending enough. What we see over here now is a very consistent message that we cannot spend this much, that we have an $8 trillion debt.

Now, when we first came in in 1995 in the new class, our goal was to hold the growth of spending below inflation and let the economy grow, it was strong, so that revenues would surpass expenditures. And that happened and the budget got balanced. Seems like a long time ago, but it happened. For 3 consecutive years we held the growth of government spending below inflation, below the family's budget growth; and then revenues passed expenses.

Then we were dealt a difficult hand. September 11 happened, challenges beyond our control, and spending escalated. And for several years in a row, it averaged 6 percent growth per year in discretionary spending, which was twice inflation, and it started slipping away.

Sometimes it is easy to forget when something like Katrina happens, what was going on before Katrina hit, but we need to think back. I remember this spring I put out a press release after the House passed the budget and we then passed our 602(b) allocations for the appropriation bills to match that budget. I put out a press release that said, this is the most austere budget in the 11 years I have been in Congress, because it only grew nonsecurity discretionary spending by 1 percent. Well below inflation, this budget. Not only did we pass it, we passed all the appropriations bills out of the House within that agreement by July 4, the first time in a generation that that had happened. We were marching towards fiscal responsibility with vigor.

And then we went home for the August District Work Period, and Katrina hit towards the end and everyone focused on what the government did not do and we became insecure. But I think it is easy for some to forget how responsible we were going into that catastrophe.

A little primer on this whole process for folks that are outside the Beltway, because sometimes we forget their language, is that the budget is broken down between discretionary spending that the Congress annually appropriates and annually oversees and mandatory spending, sometimes called entitlements.

When my wife, sweet Kim, was born in 1964, two-thirds of all Federal spending was appropriated by the Congress with annual oversight, and one-third was mandatory, which is really made up of Medicare and Medicaid and pensions, mandatory spending programs, and interest on the debt, things that are fixed by previous law. And unless the Congress acts again, they automatically go out. They are indexed to inflation. People either qualify for them or they do not, but they automatically get the money. In 1964, that was one-third of all spending and appropriations was two-thirds.

Today, it is the other way around: Two-thirds is mandatory and one- third we still have discretion on. But if you take out national security and homeland security, the part of the discretionary budget that is left is only one-eighth of the $2.4 trillion annual budget that the gentlewoman referred to. So discretionary spending is now a small portion of it.

That is why it is so important to have this budget reduction act. Because the mandatory spending is where fraud and abuse and waste creeps in over time because the Congress does not annually oversee it. It sets in, and people back home do not like it when people are cheating the government. But if we fail to act and they win, the status quo has prevailed and it gets worse.

When we act, they say you are mean and cruel, but the people want us to tighten the belt of government, which creates efficiency. Any government program that has to tighten its belt will become more efficient because somebody has got their fingers on the buttons to make it more efficient to live with what they have.

We have done well on discretionary spending, but we can do more and we will do more. But I come as a member of the Appropriations Committee to say that this majority is doing it. We are doing it like we were when we got here, again with vigor and commitment. I am excited.

We have just been joined by another member of my class, and he was shaking his head as he walked across the

floor, because he can feel it. He knows it. We are focused on being responsible and reforming this government so that it works better and so that people can see us acting on what they would like to see us do.

So I thank all of my colleagues that have come to the floor tonight, and the gentlewoman for hosting this hour. It is important that we unite and we bring people to this most important cause at this critical time. And I yield back to her.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor C.J. Enterprises, Inc., for a successful 25 years of service to Tennessee's 3rd Congressional District and our country. Founded in 1980, C.J. Enterprises was created as a consultant service by Mrs. Carolyn Jones, who now serves as the President and CEO. Mrs. Jones is a product of Chattanooga, TN and a graduate of Emory University where she received her degree in health information management. Along with her husband Edward G. Jones, Mrs. Jones has dedicated her career to service in the field of records and information services.

Within its 25 year span, C.J. Enterprises has become one of the premier minority and woman-owned companies in the country providing records and information management services to health care facilities, government agencies, and commercial businesses. C.J. Enterprises has provided exceptional services to customers in over 30 states. The company's growth and success is evident through the numerous awards and accolades for its highly professional and effective services.

C.J. Enterprises is a true example of how dedication, hard work, and commitment can pay off in our nation. Congratulations to C.J. Enterprises, for 25 years of remarkable service to our region, state, and nation.