Howard Coble

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Madam Speaker, many towns, states, schools, conferences, or leagues try to lay claim to be the ``home of champions.'' But really, can anyone make a better case than Thomasville High School in Thomasville, North Carolina? The fact that the mighty Bulldogs reside in the Sixth District of North Carolina does nothing to dissuade me that Thomasville High School truly deserves to be called the home of champions, or perhaps, be renamed Title Town High! Allow me the opportunity to make the case for Thomasville High School. On March 10, 2007, the Thomasville Bulldogs captured the North Carolina High School Athletic Association (NCHSAA) 1-A men's basketball championship with an 86-76 win over North Edgecombe High School. This win was the fifth state basketball championship in the last 10 years. On December 9, 2006, Thomasville won its seventh state football title with a 13-7 victory over James Kenan High School in the NCHSSA 1-AA championship contest. This was the seventh football crown in the school's history, the third consecutive state championship, and the 37th straight win dating back to the 2004 season. So, that is 12 state titles from just two sports, football and men's basketball. Space and time do not permit us to list all of the titles--such as the men's soccer team in 2005 and the women's basketball team in 2004--we could go on and on, but for argument's sake, let's stipulate that Thomasville High School is truly the home of champions. Permit me a moment to detail the two most recent titles in men's basketball and football. In the middle of March Madness, the Thomasville men's basketball team won the NCHSSA 1-A championship. Thomasville defeated North Edgecombe 86-76 in a game that saw nine lead changes and seven ties. The win capped a remarkable season for the Bulldogs in which they finished 24-2 and were perfect following back-to-back losses at a tournament in December. Head Coach Woody Huneycutt told the Thomasville Times that the title win came against a strong opponent. ``I am really proud of this group,'' Coach Huneycutt told his hometown newspaper. ``They did a heck of a job today. North Edgecombe was an extremely quick, physical, hustling team. They put everything I thought they had on the floor, and I thought our guys did the same. Of course, we had to, to be successful.'' And successful they were thanks to a complete team effort. Congratulations are in order for Coach Huneycutt and his assistant Lacardo Means. In fact, Coach Huneycutt told the Thomasville Times, ``One of the main reasons we are here and we do as well as we do year after year is Lacardo Means. He is very instrumental to us being successful.'' Both men will be the first to tell you that most of the credit goes to the players on the court. Those who contributed to the title run included Donald Sims, Justin Moore, Bud Ray, Jeremy McKiver, Alex Perry, Zach Perry, E.J. Abrams-Ward, Evander Davis, Dominique Pickett, Trey Ray, Chris Woods, Michael Byrd, and Ari Foust. The team was ably assisted by scorekeeper Connie McLendon, statisticians Willie Green, Quan Warley and Demajio Lawson, and videographers Quiana Mock and Felicia McFadden. Several seniors on the basketball squad also play football for Thomasville and they are leaving high school with five championship rings. On December 9, 2006, the Bulldogs completed a perfect 16-0 season with a third consecutive NCHSSA 1-AA football championship. Thomasville defeated James Kenan High School 13-7 at aptly-named Kenan Stadium in Chapel Hill to cap an incredible run to the crown. Head Coach Benjie Brown, who has led the Bulldogs to the three straight titles, told the High Point Enterprise at the end of the game that meeting everyone's high expectations does take a toll. ``When you get to this point,'' he told the newspaper, ``it's so taxing and so tiring, it won't set in for a day or two. The emotions and effort that goes into it, the length of the season, it's wearing on players and coaches. It'll take a little while to really sit back and enjoy it, but I am happy for those kids out there.'' Now that some time has passed, I am sure that Coach Brown is very happy and proud of the hard work that went into completing the quest for the Bulldogs third straight state football championship. The perfect season was thanks in no small part in Coach Brown and his assistant coaches Stan Baranowski, Allen Brown, Roger Bryant, Sam Captain, Danny Medlin, Matt Pugh, Brandon Staton, Nick Sweitzer, Jaz Tate, and Tyler Tobin, along with community coaches Vince Brown, Ed Courtney, Kemp Harvey, and Don Osborne. The entire roster contributed to Thomasville's latest football triumph. Members of the team included: Najee Brown, Jeremy McKiver, T.J. Steele, Willie Green, Bradley Watkins, E.J. Abrams-Ward, Justin Moore, Chris Woods, Quinton Lindsey, Scott Hines, Quan Warley, Mose Jones, Rashad Whitaker, Chris Webber, Brad Wilkes, Bud Ray, Arsenio Hudson, Dujuan Ingram, Lawrence Jackson, Heath Stroud, Kirk Yarborough, Martez Wilson, Demagio Lawson, Brandon Moss, Jaquane Mouzone, Mark Green, Lorenzo Cannon, Logan Barnes, Jerrell Wilson, Marcus Bratton, Courtney Henry, Avery Hudson, Ari Foust, Akeim Rainey, Quentin Long, Preston Atwood, Tommy Green, Cornelius Davis, Trey Ray, Evander Davis, Jameson Donnell, Willie Cannon, and Michael Byrd. Those who didn't wear a uniform, but contributed in so many other ways can equally share the accolades coming to Thomasville's champions. We congratulate trainers Kenny Coker and Byron Lattimore, team doctors David Williams and Rob Williams, statistician Barry Tucker, film crew members Travis Leanord, Wade Loflin, Casey Medlin, and Adam Oakley, middle school head coach Eric Rader, gym maintenance staffer Bill Moore, and team managers Ryan Hanner, Luke Williams and Antwon Simon. Congratulations to Principal Dick Gurley, Athletic Director Woody Huneycutt, the faculty, staff, students, and families of Thomasville High School on another outstanding athletic season. Madam Speaker, I feel I have made a compelling argument to christen Thomasville High School as the ``home of champions.'' Even if others disagree with our assessment, I am sure that everyone in the Sixth District of North Carolina does agree that the Bulldogs' collection of state championships is mighty impressive.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 137, the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007, creates Federal felony penalties for animal fighting. The distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly) is the lead sponsor of this bill with over 300 cosponsors from both sides of the aisle. The Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act increases criminal penalties for illegal dog fighting and cockfighting. The act, furthermore, imposes penalties for the interstate promotion of animal fighting and the interstate transportation of animals for use in an animal fighting venture. All 50 States, Mr. Speaker, prohibit dog fighting, and 48 States prohibit cockfighting. Louisiana and New Mexico, the two States that do, in fact, allow cockfighting, may take up legislation to ban the practice as early as this year. According to the Humane Society, animal fighting, particularly cockfighting, has become an interstate venture with small syndicates of cockfighters moving across the country staging these different fights. Animal fighting is also linked oftentimes with other criminal conduct such as drug trafficking, illegal firearms sales, and gang activity. By raising this offense from a misdemeanor to a felony, we are more likely to deter illegal animal fighting and increase the likelihood that Federal prosecutors will pursue these cases. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly), member of the House Judiciary Committee and original sponsor of this legislation. (Mr. GALLEGLY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I am advised the distinguished gentleman from Virginia would like me to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) which I am pleased to do.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in mild opposition to H.R. 580, primarily against the process rather than substantively. Scrutiny over the dismissal of several U.S. Attorneys in recent days may have triggered this legislation. While we are still learning the facts surrounding those dismissals, it does remain clear that the U.S. Attorneys do indeed serve at the pleasure of the President. Some are calling for oversight investigation because of the political appearance surrounding those dismissals, and this is fine; but amending the appointment process for interim U.S. Attorneys I believe is the wrong response. Prior to 1986, the district court appointed interim U.S. Attorneys to fill vacancies until a Presidential appointee had been nominated and confirmed by the Senate. In 1986, the process was changed to authorize the Attorney General to appoint an interim United States Attorney for 120 days, at which time, if the Senate had not confirmed a new United States Attorney, the district court would then appoint an interim to serve until a new permanent United States Attorney was indeed confirmed. This process was not infallible. Some said authorizing the judiciary to appoint the prosecutors before their court created a conflict of interest, and I think a good argument can be made for that. Others said the Executive could maneuver the Constitution by terminating a court- appointed interim by repeatedly substituting its own interim for 120- day stints. A good argument could well be made for that as well. In 2005, the process for appointing interim United States Attorneys, however, was changed once again. This was an amendment to section 546 of title 28, which eliminated the 120-day time limit for an Executive- appointed interim to serve and eliminated the authority for the district court to appoint an interim. Unfortunately, one of these responses to the recent dismissals had been H.R. 580, which would return the process of appointing interim United States Attorneys for 120 days and authorizing the judiciary to appoint interims if a permanent United States Attorney is not confirmed prior to the 120-day passes. The bill, H.R. 580, was accelerated through the Judiciary Committee. Only one hearing was held on the bill. That hearing focused mostly on the current U.S. Attorney controversy, not the bill itself. It was then heard by the full committee, but there was no opportunity for the Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial Administrative Law markup to therefore improve the bill. Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, many of us, would have liked to have worked with the Democrats in a bipartisan fashion more thoroughly, and I think we may have come at the finish line with a more favorable finished product. Given more time, we might have considered some promising ideas. For instance, this bill does not address the problem of appointing and confirming United States Attorneys in a timely fashion. Senators Kyl and Sessions introduced amendments in the Senate proposing several other responses to inherent conflicts created by United States Attorney vacancies and possible ways to provide for interims. In these times of the war on terror, Mr. Speaker and colleagues, and the continuing age-old war on crime, the service of the United States Attorneys, indeed the front line of Federal law enforcement, is more than ever a matter of first importance to the Nation. Their appointment is serious business. We should not have rushed to judgment in attending to this business, but instead have given the legislative process more time to work. I think we missed an opportunity to improve the bill as a result. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Washington referred to it as scandal. It may well end up being a scandal, but I think to use that word today might well be premature. But, meanwhile, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1130, the Judicial Disclosure Act. The distinguished gentleman from Michigan and the distinguished gentleman from Texas, Chairman Conyers and Ranking Member Smith, should be recognized for their leadership and efforts to shepherd this bipartisan legislation. Mr. Speaker, this is commonsense legislation that was unanimously approved by the House Judiciary Committee. It reauthorizes the Judicial Conference to redact certain personal and financial information that judges and judicial officers are required by the Ethics in Government Act to publicly disclose each year. The authority was originally granted in 1998 and was subsequently renewed, but expired on December 31, 2005. This legislation extends the authority until 2009. Under H.R. 1130, Mr. Speaker, Federal judges and judicial officers are still required to submit information required by the Ethics in Government Act. The Judicial Conference would be permitted to redact personal and sensitive information from public disclosure to protect the safety of our judges, judicial officers and their families. Examples of the information that may be redacted include where they reside, where their spouses work or where their children attend school. The Judicial Conference reported in 2005 that 3,942 Federal judiciary employees filed financial disclosure reports. Only 177 reports were partially redacted prior to release. Four redacted reports were based on specific threats, and another 137 reports were redacted based on general threats. We know these threats are real, and it only makes common sense to ensure that we do not needlessly expose personal and sensitive information of the judiciary's top officers. Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to support H.R. 1130, and hope that the other body will provide for its expeditious consideration.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. I thank the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I oppose deploying 20,000 additional troops to Iraq. Oh, if you oppose the surge, the troops will be demoralized, we are told. The five ``d'' words will be prominently exposed this week as my friend just mentioned: debate, dialogue, discipline, deliberation, and democracy. The troop morale will be adversely affected because we are involved with these disciplines? I think not. I believe they would more readily be demoralized if we were willy-nilly rubber-stamping every issue confronting us. I approved of removing Saddam Hussein because it is my belief, and I continue to believe it is the general consensus of this Congress, that Saddam was indeed an international terrorist. I regret that we were inept in formulating a post-entry strategy. I am not convinced that any particular strategy was ever in place. It is unfortunate and, yes, unfair, that many people, strike that, some people, perhaps many people, are blaming President Bush, the United States, Great Britain, Australia, and our other allies for the civil unrest in Iraq. Saddam was removed and a free election was conducted, so the Iraqi people were given a choice between freedom and civil war. Unfortunately, they chose the latter. They rejected freedom and chose civil war. And the longer we maintain a presence there, the more they will rely upon us. The time has come, in my opinion, for the baton to be handed to the Iraqis. Finally, permit me to discuss cutting and running. Oh, you cannot leave; you will be accused of cutting and running, we are told. If we had removed Saddam, which most Iraqis wanted, and then withdrew 4 or 5 weeks later, or even 4 or 5 months later, that would have constituted cutting and running. But we have been there for years, Mr. Speaker. Over 3,100 of our troops have given the ultimate sacrifice, in excess of 25,000 have suffered injuries, many permanent disabling injuries. This is sacrifice, not cutting and running. And I insist that we do not maintain an eternal presence in Iraq if for no other reason than the cost to the taxpayers, which has been astronomically unbelievable. In excess of 2 years, Mr. Speaker, I have stressed the importance of retaining troop withdrawal as a viable option. Early on, virtually no one was even remotely considering withdrawal. I believe withdrawal is not unsound for the reasons I have previously cited. Some Americans and perhaps some in this body oppose the Iraqi operation because they dislike President Bush. I, however, do not march to that drum. I am personally very high on President Bush. But on the matter of troop escalation, I am not in agreement. The noted British statesman Edmund Burke, while addressing Solicitors at Bristol many years ago said, ``As your representative, I owe you my industry, but I also owe you my judgment. And if I sacrifice my judgment for your opinion,'' he said, ``I have not served you well.'' Some of my constituents will embrace my vote as demonstrating sound judgment. Others will likely reject my vote as a result of flawed judgment. Not only do I owe my best judgment to my constituents, but to our troops as well, who we continue to remember in our thoughts and prayers. I thank the Speaker and I thank the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, thank you, sir. I represent Pinehurst, North Carolina, the golf capital of America. And when I would say that, Charlie took great umbrage, he being from Augusta. On one occasion, Charlie overheard someone ask me to describe my district. I replied, ``I represent High Point, the furniture capital of the world; I represent one of the finest zoos in the country near Asheboro.'' And knowing that Charlie was listening, I said very condescendingly, ``And, of course, the golf capital of America in Pinehurst.'' Charlie jumped up from his chair, this is the sanitized version. He said, ``Now, you son of a gun,'' he said, ``I will let you have the furniture and zoo, but you ain't taking golf.'' I told that story, Mr. Speaker, to the Southern Pines North Carolina Rotary Club, and within one week that story was personally delivered to Doc Norwood. And Charlie said to me, ``Howard, don't ever talk about anybody. It will come back to bite you.'' Charlie Norwood, as has been said many times on this floor today, one great guy, one great Congressman who will be sorely missed. Charlie, I won't even say Pinehurst is the greatest golf capital of the world at least for a day or two in remembrance of you. And condolences to Gloria and the entire Norwood family.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Texas for yielding. And I probably won't use 5 minutes, but, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 34, a bill to establish a pilot program in certain United States district courts to encourage enhancement of expertise in patent cases among district judges, is a bill that deserves the continued support of the Members of the House. As has been indicated both by Mr. Berman and Mr. Smith, drafted by Representatives Issa and Schiff, this bipartisan legislation was passed unanimously by the House last year, but due to the press of time the other body did not consider the measure. With House action early in this Congress, we will be able to ensure our colleagues on the other side of the Hill have maximum opportunity to fully and fairly consider this legislation. Mr. Speaker, it is no secret that our Nation's patent laws have become the subject of much scrutiny and debate. Indeed, Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Lamar Smith and the chairman of the Intellectual Property Subcommittee, Representative Howard Berman, with whom I look forward to working this Congress, have been leaders in developing substantive and comprehensive reforms to our Nation's patent system. The further consideration of these proposals is the IP Subcommittee's highest priority this Congress. I am encouraged and hopeful that we will be able to look back at the end of the 110th Congress satisfied that we ran the course and completed this important task. But there is related work this House can complete immediately that will serve as a step in the right direction. By passing H.R. 34, a commonsense and narrowly tailored measure that will provide designated Federal district judges the opportunity to improve their expertise in the handling of patent cases, the House will be taking an early, positive first step along the road to comprehensive patent reform. Mr. Speaker, a typical Federal district judge may preside over no more than three or four, five at the most, patent cases which are litigated to conclusion during the course of his or her career. Patent cases comprise only 1 percent of cases filed in Federal court, yet they make up nearly 10 percent of complex cases. The timely and appropriate resolution of these cases is vital to uphold the rights of individual litigants. But it also serves the larger interests of consumers and the economy. Patent litigation, Mr. Speaker, is characterized by disputes that involve the interaction of numerous parties, the integration of sophisticated technologies, and the application of technical aspects of substantive patent law by judges who are rarely presented with such cases. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 34 is a modest bill that will enable a small number of these district judges to be designated to gain additional experience and resources in handling these cases, the outcome of which is so crucial to our economy. This legislation also includes safeguards to prevent these districts from being used to promote ``forum shopping'' as well as provisions to ensure that the Congress is provided with useful periodic reports on the progress of this new initiative. Again, I thank the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), and Representatives Schiff and Issa for their work. General Leave

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Madam Speaker, 5 months ago a constituent came to me back home and said, Oh, Howard, who is the most eloquent Member of the Congress? Without hesitation, I replied, Henry Hyde. She then asked, Well, who is the most eloquent Member of the Senate? I said, Oh, when I answered you, I was including the Senate. Henry Hyde is the most eloquent Member of the entire Congress. I told Henry that story on the floor this week, and he said, Howard, that is why I am going to miss you. Henry Hyde appointed me to Chair the Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property, which I did for 6 years, for three terms. During that time, the ranking Democrat was the distinguished gentleman from California, Mr. Howard Berman, and as far as I can recall, Madam Speaker, neither Howard Berman nor I ever had a cross word with Henry Hyde, nor did he have a cross word with Mr. Berman or me. I will always remember that, and I thank Henry for having named me to chair that subcommittee. Madam Speaker, I asked him on the floor this week what his plans were. Henry replied, I plan to have C-SPAN nearby. Well, he may have C- SPAN, but C-SPAN will never be the same, Madam Speaker and colleagues, without the presence of Henry Hyde, the distinguished gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin, chairman of the full committee. Mr. Speaker, this bill has been mischaracterized in many ways since its inception. The distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Bobby Scott, and I cosponsored this bill. We have attracted 152 cosponsors, including 32 Democrat Members. I regard this bill, Mr. Speaker, as a streamlined management tool for ATF. It, furthermore, creates a revenue stream. When gun dealers are in fact found guilty of violations, fines may now be imposed, creating an incentive, if for no other reason, to comply with the law at hand. I have had some calls from gun dealers around the country complaining about the bill because they say it opens the door for them to be the beneficiary of fines to be imposed against them. Well, if they commit violations, I think fines are appropriate and in order. I think this is a good bill, as evidenced, as I said before, by 152 of our colleagues who obviously believe it is. It establishes graduated penalties for civil violation by Federal firearms licensees, it imposes graduated civil penalties, and it includes fines, suspensions and/or revocation against licensees who violate gun laws. The penalties are graduated based on whether the violation is a serious or a non-serious violation. The nature and the severity of the violation, the size of the firearms business and the prior record for compliance by these dealers are considered in determining the civil penalty imposed. I think, on balance, it is long overdue. This addresses an issue that should have long ago been addressed. Under the law today, the ATF, in response to a gun dealer having committed a violation, has one of two choices: He either does nothing or he revokes. By the way, Mr. Scott and I conducted at least three hearings on this matter. At one of the hearings, we learned that a purchaser of a firearm in response to an answer, and I don't recall whether it was yes or no, but let's assume for the sake of discussion it was no, the purchaser inserted the initial ``N'' rather than spelling out no. Well, this was deemed to be a violation. Technically, I guess it was a violation, but it was an accidental, incidental violation. Obviously, there was no willfulness involved, nothing for which the door should be slammed upon a dealer. I think this bill will provide this sort of latitude and enlarge the parameters as the ATF goes about its business of enforcing the laws of our land. Finally, I don't mean to speak for Mr. Scott, but I think neither Mr. Scott nor I are interested in hamstringing the ATF. I am pro-ATF, but I know for a fact that in some instances the ATF agents have become heavy-handed, maybe even unruly, particularly in the Virginia situation. So I think this will address that problem. I find it very interesting, Mr. Speaker, and I have told the chairman this earlier, the silence has been deafening as far as response from the ATF. Gun owners of America, they have not come to me in opposition to this bill. So I want to thank my good friend from Virginia, Mr. Scott, Mr. Vassar and our very able staff on our side, Michael and his assistants. We have put together a good piece of legislation. I urge its passage

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, this body has deliberated the role of Federal Prison Industries for several years. In 2003, the House approved a version of the vote by a decisive vote, and while that bill was not enacted, the House Judiciary Committee has continued to deliberate on reforming FPI. I want to applaud the diligence of Chairman Sensenbrenner and Chairman Hoekstra, the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member of the full committee, and even though my good friend from Tidewater, Virginia, is misguided on this bill, we continue to be good friends. We have all worked together, and I think it is a good bill. I supported FPI reform in 2003, Mr. Chairman. While I still support this reform today, I am pleased with the changes in the bill to ensure that FPI will not be discouraged by its implementation of the bill before us. I have always argued that the sole source rule was really not justified and worked inevitably to the detriment of the private sector. Office furniture is an enormous business, as we all know. H.R. 2965 will balance the playing field in the market for supply furniture to the Federal Government. Furniture manufacturing is an economic engine in the Sixth District of North Carolina, which I represent, and would welcome the opportunity to compete with FPI. Mr. Chairman, recidivism in our Federal penitentiaries is of grave concern. H.R. 2965, it appears to me, should not be construed as a movement away from inmate training. And, finally, the Second Chance Act, which Mr. Scott and I have nurtured through the House Judiciary Committee, is another example of this new trend regarding incarceration and, of course, that bill will be examined at a subsequent date.

Mr. COBLE

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) who sits on the Judiciary, Agriculture and Small Business Committees.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 994. I will never forget, and neither will you, the sense of helplessness as we watched the events of September 11 unfold before our very eyes. As the entire world witnesses the unthinkable, we in the United States could only look to one another and pray for the strength and courage to cope with what was happening. I don't know if there is anything that the Congress or the President could do short of capturing Osama bin Laden that everyone would agree was an appropriate response. Our critics claim we are no safer now than before the attacks of 9/11. Although there is no measure to evaluate our efforts in the war on terrorism, I do suggest that the absence of additional attacks in the United States and the apprehension of would- be attackers throughout the world bodes well for the actions we have taken. Mr. Speaker, the legislative effort by the Committee on the Judiciary and the Congress to secure our Nation and prevent another attack on our homeland is unparalleled during my tenure in this House. Unfortunately, we know weaknesses exist. Our borders are porous, and my Coast Guard instincts fear that the enemy may be focusing his next attack on one of our ports. I have repeatedly expressed concern about overcrowding in our prisons which may be a ticking bomb waiting to explode. Recent media reports detail that our prisons may be fertile ground for terrorist groups interested in recruiting new members. The plot to blow up jetliners recently prevented by British authorities underscores the urgency of this situation. I fear there are many other security gaps that terrorists have already planned to exploit. We have to stay one step ahead of those people who would do us harm. This is like no other challenge this country has ever faced. These enemies would like to walk into this Chamber today, destroy all of us, and at the same time destroy themselves in an activity that would be generously laced with evil. The only way we can defend ourselves is to improvise and continue to adjust to their changing threats. I support this resolution and I thank my Republican and Democratic colleagues for their work to defend our homeland. I also want to express thanks to our constituents for their patience and understanding with our shortcomings and their recognition of our successes in our war against terrorism. After all, Mr. Speaker, it is they who we are trying to protect. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), who sits as a member of the Judiciary, Resources and Small Business Committees.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), a member of the Judiciary Committee and Chair of the House Agriculture Committee.

Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), who sits on the Energy and Commerce Committee. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), and that he may yield time to Members seeking to speak.