John Carter

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, it is my honor and privilege to yield 7 minutes to an American hero, a hero of the State of Texas, a pilot in Vietnam, one of the longest serving prisoners of war of the Vietnam era and a personal hero of mine, Mr. Sam Johnson.

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

Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the minority leader.

Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers).

Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the minority whip.

Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam).

Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor), the deputy whip of the minority.

Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 5 minutes to Mr. McCotter from Michigan, the chairman of the Republican Policy Committee.

Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, at this time, I would yield 5 minutes to Mr. Hunter of California, ranking member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra), the ranking member on the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 6 minutes to Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to recognize Mr. King from New York, the ranking member of Homeland Security, for 7 minutes.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I spent many years of my life being a trial judge in the beloved State of Texas, and as we are trying to make these decisions here today, I think there is a good parallel to be struck between the decisions that this House is going to make and the decisions that a jury gets asked to be made in the courtroom. The process always begins with pleadings, and I have here in my hand the pleadings of the majority party of the House of Representatives, pleading for relief from this body. They begin by section 1, the Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving and have bravely served honorably in Iraq. Well, they are not really pleading for any relief there. They are not actually asking us for anything, other than stating this is what they stand for. So we have to kind of fall back on our experience and what we have experienced recently. We have just experienced a continuing resolution, as they called it, which cut the military over $4 billion. But that is okay, it is going to be put back in the supplemental, we are told. Yet in the argument in this case, I have heard many folks that step up there and start talking about they are part of the Out of Iraq Caucus and they wish to defund to get the troops back home. So if they are going to defund, when are they going to put that money back? They say they support our troops. They, this Congress, has elected by its vote, General Petraeus, an expert in counterinsurgency, to give us a plan. And he has. He has told us, I need more boots on the ground to back up the Iraqi troops as they go in and clean out these militias and give some stability to Baghdad. That is what he has asked us for. And he has also told us that this type of action by Congress will discourage his troops. Secretary Gates has told us in his opinion this will encourage our enemies, just this statement, this kind of thing that we are doing here today. And yet we hear arguments that is just not true. Yet I don't know, I have got a little note here that ABC News, certainly nobody's conservative press, reports that they talked to some Army sergeants in Ramadi. First Sergeant Louis Barnum says, ``It makes me sick. I was born and raised a Democrat. When I see that, it makes me sad.'' Sergeant Brian Orzechowski says, ``I don't want to bad mouth the President at all. To me, it is treason.'' Then in this morning's paper, in the Washington Times, Cal Thomas' column, Army Sergeant Daniel Dobson, 22, of Grand Rapids, Michigan, in his second tour in Iraq, says, ``The American military has shown a stone-cold professional veneer throughout the seething debate over Iraq. Beneath that veneer, however, is a fuming visceral hatred. We feel as though we have been betrayed by Congress.'' So the evidence seems to be that this does seem to discourage our troops. And how will it encourage our enemies? Let's think about that. If the majority gets its way and we pull out of Iraq, the enemy will be able to say, the jihadists of whatever faction they may be, will be able to say, ``We defeated the Russians in Afghanistan; we defeated the Shah and the United States of America in Iran; we have now defeated the United States of America and its coalition partners in Iraq.'' Won't this make a great recruiting poster and slogan for those who seek further jihadists who wish to do us harm? So although their pleadings don't call for anything other than a statement of what they stand for, the consequences may be dire. Then we go on to see what also they are telling us that they want to do. They are just telling us that Congress disapproves of the decision of President George Bush, that President George Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 22,000 additional United States troops in Iraq. Okay. What does that tell us? That tells us they don't like what the President's decision was. That is what it tells us. Does it tell us why? Well, we have heard a lot of people tell us why. So I guess that is what we have to rely upon. Has it told us what alternative they feel like we are going to have? Does what they are asking us to do today give us an alternative? I find nothing else in this piece of paper that says that. I don't find any solution proposed. So what should Americans expect from what is being asked for here today? I think they should expect discouraged troops. I think they should expect an encouraged enemy. But, more importantly, I think we as we make this decision should realize that what we may be doing is bringing this fight to the very people we are here to represent, so that when we stand in those metal detector lines at our malls we will know it all started with H. Con. Res. 63. Now we live in the unsafe world that the Israelis deal in every day. Mr. Speaker, the relief sought here today is minimal, this action does nothing to help our troops or help our effort, and the only solution, if it goes bad, is prayer. We have a chance to have a solution here today, and I would submit that that solution is vote against House Concurrent Resolution 63.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. I thank you for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak about my friend, Charlie Norwood. I have prepared remarks, but I would really like to just relate like others have. The first time I ran into Charlie I was a new freshman in this body. He sat behind me. And when you are brand new here, you are listening and you are trying to figure out what is going on. And when Charlie Norwood opened his mouth, he was saying things sometimes that others were not, and stood his ground to those things, even though they might be in conflict with both the other side and his party, both. Charlie had a way of standing up for his principles. I also want to talk about Gloria, because Gloria took my wife under her wing and was kind to her. And I can tell you for this last year and a half, literally every week that I have served in this Congress, my wife has asked about Charlie's health because she fell in love with Gloria Norwood. Everyone in this House sends out their hearts to Gloria at the loss of her beloved husband. We were proud to serve with him. He was a great American. Today I rise to honor my friend and colleague Mr. Charlie Norwood from Northeastern Georgia who passed away yesterday morning. As a man of strong character and unwavering convictions, his passing is surely a saddening loss to the American people. Charlie Norwood served as a brave soldier during Vietnam as part of the Army Dental Corps in the 173rd Airborne Brigade. He was honored for his courageous service with the Combat Medical Badge and two Bronze Stars. Elected to Congress in 1994, Charlie was the first Republican to represent his Northeastern Georgia district since Reconstruction. During his time in Congress he was known for his endless fight for the patients' bill of rights and his fight for stricter immigration policies. Charlie bravely battled cancer and lung disease, and in his final days he returned to Augusta to be with his family. The Norwood family will be in my thoughts and prayers. Please join me, Mr. Speaker, in expressing our deep appreciation for the lifetime of service by Charlie Norwood and extending our sympathies to his wife, Gloria Wilkinson Norwood, and their family.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the outstanding achievements of Copperas Cove High School in Copperas Cove, Texas. Copperas Cove High School has long been recognized as an institution that places a premium on academic success. Recently, Copperas Cove added to their successes with a commendable performance by the Bulldawg football team, who advanced to the state championship game in 4A Division I. This marks the first time Copperas Cove has played for a state championship in any division and is the fruit of a season marked by hard work and dedication. Copperas Cove High School has shown what a school can achieve with no small amount of persistence. I am sure that in addition to the achievements of this season they will have an even brighter future. I admire what they do both athletically and academically; I am proud to represent such a fine institution and wish them the best in their future endeavors. I would like to congratulate them on their efforts this season, and their well-deserved success.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the success and achievements of Liberty Hill High School in Liberty Hill, Texas. In particular, I would like to extend my sincere congratulations to the Liberty Hill High School Panthers football team, who were the Division II, Class AAA champions this year. Winning the championship was an appropriate end to a great year for the Panthers and was very much deserved. Liberty Hill has long been recognized as a school dedicated to academic success, and with this feat they have shown that their prowess extends to the athletic fields as well. Liberty Hill High School is an example of what a school can achieve with hard work and dedication. I admire what they do to positively mold their student-athletes into model citizens. I am very proud and honored to represent the Panther football team and all of Liberty Hill High School. I wish them congratulations and continued success in their future endeavors.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the high level of success achieved by Temple College located in Temple, Texas. The Texas Bioscience Institute established by Temple College recently garnered the highest award offered by the Community College Futures Assembly, the distinguished Bellwether Award. The Bellwether Award is given to the highest achieving institute in workforce development. This award is given to only one community college each year, effectively recognizing the Texas Bioscience Institute as the finest workforce development institute at any community college. One chancellor from a California community college was so impressed with TBI he plans to emulate the institute at his school. This award not only recognizes TBl's success; it is an indicator of the bright future of Temple College and the Texas Bioscience Institute. With this award comes the opportunity to apply for grants from the state and federal governments, ensuring the means for further successes from this institute. Not satisfied to rest on their laurels, the institute plans to increase the number of students by 50 percent to 150 and maintain the high level of teaching achievement they are known for. I am very proud of their work and am honored to represent such a fine academic institution as Temple College and their award-winning Texas Bioscience Institute.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Madam Speaker, I have here a copy of three letters that I have received out of 500 letters I have received on this bill that we are addressing today, from my constituents in my district in central Texas. They are raising a lot of issues that they are very, very concerned about. The trend of the letters is, we were promised a 50 percent reduction in interest rates for the money that we borrowed to go to school or that we are going to borrow to go to school and we are not getting that. The only subsidized loans for undergraduates fall in the category of this bill. They are concerned about that. They are unhappy and mad about that. Then the cost of this bill comes out of the Federal Family Education Loan Program, those other loans that are not being addressed in this bill, to reduce the interest rate which was promised to the American people by the other party. This is a concern for people in my district because many of those people are going to school with the same financial burdens that they thought that were going to be addressed by the bill, that are not being addressed; and the programs that they work through are going to bear the cost, which is going to make that market weaker and less available for those students who have to go to that market so they can go to school. Quite frankly, these letters are very concerned about that. And then I have letters from people who work in the FFELP program, who are concerned about the fact that what this bill is going to do is put them out of work. Eight hundred people in my district work in the student loan program and have expressed a concern that this bill will put them out of work because it actually puts the burden of taking care of the subsidized undergraduate students on all the other Federal programs in fees and taxes that are added on. So I have 500 letters in my office expressing concern, three of which I have with me. When we tell the American people we are going to do something, we ought to do it. This bill would be much more acceptable, I think, to these people who have written me from my district if we were meeting the promise that was made to the American people, and, more importantly, to our college students, and addressed lowering interest rates for everyone. So I rise today on behalf of the 500 letters that I have received in my office since this bill came on the radar screen, and I rise on behalf of those of us who wish we could have had some input into this bill so that possibly we could have addressed these issues and possibly we could have come up with better solutions that would not deprive others of the ability to go to school. Finally, nothing is done here to address the real costs of education for our American students, which is also a promise broken. So I rise here on behalf of the people of central Texas to express our concern about promises broken I must oppose this legislation because of the negative effects this program will have on the Federal Family Education Loan Program, FFELP, program. The new taxes and fees imposed by this legislation will devastate the FFELP industry--an industry that has been proven successful by any imaginable measurement. FFELP makes higher education more affordable by using market forces to provide borrowers with the most competitive rates. FFELP also works with students to manage their debts, an effort that has led to record-low default rates. By attacking the FFELP industry, this language will cause decreases and lender competition and affect the ability of families to choose the lender that best suits their needs. I wholeheartedly support attempts to lower the costs of higher education, but the unspoken consequences of the bill will result in less competition and fewer options for these students. That is a consequence I cannot support. December 21, 2006. Hon. John Carter, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Representative: I have worked at Sallie Mae for 17 years and am a supervisor in Killeen, Texas. Sallie Mae does a great job helping students and parents get the loans they need for college. Sallie Mae also works hard to help make our community a better place and just received an important award from the President for its community service. Please continue to support the Field Program that has worked so well. Thank you. Sincerely, Don McCannell.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the efforts and accomplishments of the Nelson Tennis Foundation and support the eighth annual Nelson Scholarship Tennis Classic which will be held in Georgetown, Texas, on October 20-22, 2006. This nonprofit foundation, named in honor of Jane and Charles ``Coach'' Nelson was established to support the game of tennis in the community of Georgetown, Texas. Charles and Jane exemplify a love for the game of tennis and a dedication to education. Combining these two passions, the Nelson Foundation has helped eligible high school seniors in the Georgetown Independent School District pursue their dreams for a college education. Since 1999, the Nelson Foundation has been able to award scholarships to 17 deserving student athletes through the proceeds from the tennis classic. The Nelsons are retired educators with over 35 years of teaching and coaching experience in public schools. Both Charles and Jane began playing the game of tennis as teenagers in Huntsville, Texas. After several years of teaching and coaching in both Texas and New York, the Nelsons returned home to central Texas where Charles took over as head tennis coach at Round Rock High School for 4 years. This was followed by 3 years as the head tennis coach at Westwood High School in Round Rock and 7 years working with the Southwestern University tennis program. Both Jane and Charles are active in playing tournament tennis and remain outstanding contributors to their community. Through the years, they have been teammates, tennis partners, and friends to so many in the Georgetown and Williamson County area. The Nelsons have been members of the Berry Creek Racquet Club in Georgetown where they have been involved in the club's Pro-Am Annual Tennis Tournaments. After several years, this tournament was renamed the Nelson Tennis Scholarship Classic for which the Nelson Tennis Foundation was established. The Nelson Foundation embodies community, fellowship, and a love for the game of tennis. All of these are at the heart of Charles and Jane Nelson and typify the generosity and character of Georgetown, Texas.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, on September 21, 2006, I inadvertently failed to cast my vote for rollcall vote 468 due to the shortened period (2 minutes) between votes that evening. On rollcall vote 468 (H.R. 6095), had I cast my vote, I would have voted, ``aye''.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the successes and achievements of the Round Rock Christian Academy located in Round Rock, Texas. Established in 1975, the Round Rock Christian Academy exemplifies excellence in education and moral character development. It continues to produce outstanding young adults imbued with the high Christian values through active participation in intellectual, physical, spiritual, and social activities. The Round Rock Christian Academy maintains a low student-to-teacher ratio and demands significant teaching experience and high standards from its teachers. As evidence to the impact of its high teaching and moral standards, since its inception, the academy has produced numerous National Merit Scholars and its students consistently test two grades above the national average. The academy possesses a strong parent education program and ranks among the very best in athletics and fine arts programs. In fact, as testimony to the success of the Round Rock Christian Academy's faculty and family support, 100 percent of the graduating seniors of the Class of 2006 are college bound. This is truly a commendable achievement for any school and speaks volumes of the dedication that the Round Rock Christian Academy has toward the future of its students and the future of the next generation citizens of America.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments. At this time I will yield to my colleague from Tennessee, Mr. Zach Wamp.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Wamp, and I thank him for sharing that letter from that Navy captain. I think that was very well expressed by that captain in the Navy. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of rhetoric going on. What we really need is we need, as Mr. Wamp has so very accurately described, we need to meet on the water's edge. We are waiting to hear plans for solutions. Mr. Speaker, if we do not stay the course, as hard as it is, whether it is hard politically, whether it is hard socially, whatever, if we do not stay the course, Mr. Speaker, I honestly think, as Mr. Wamp said, all the investment in freedom that we have made in the past will pale to the surrender that follows. I thank you for your time, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for allowing us to share this concern and this little bit of history. I yield back.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, we have had a month here in August where we have gone back home and talked to folks back home and visited with them, and we are moving forward on issues that are vital to America. But nothing is more vital to the United States of America than its national security. So I rise this evening to discuss with my colleagues and my neighbors the view that I am a little concerned about and want to talk about on the issue of national security. National security, the term itself, has a broad umbrella. It has an umbrella that we have a lot of historical experience to look at. I am an old history buff. I like history. I study history. I think we learn lessons from history. I think when we forget history, we forget lessons we have learned, sometimes the hard way. So, tonight, I want to talk a little bit about the national security of the United States today and compare that national security to a little bit of our history, and then also to discuss a little bit about what our response is, how we are now viewing our lives that we live in this country in light of national security. Now, national security means, are we secure as a Nation in the scope of our world, which means we have to think about our own common defense, promoting our own general welfare, the things that our founders talked about. That is part of it. National security is securing our Nation's borders, and this debate has been ongoing now in this Congress for quite some time concerning our Nation's borders, and we may talk a little bit about that tonight. But I think that anyone who establishes a nation, and of course I believe with my whole heart our Founders, when they established our Nation, had in mind securing our lives in the United States of America by protecting the life, liberty, and property of Americans. And they had in mind when those who would do us harm would put the life, liberty, or property of Americans at risk, that we would have the resources with which to protect those citizens and their holdings. In our recent memory, and I was actually born 1 month, I am going to show my age here, 1 month before the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, so I am a prewar human being by 1 month. Almost 1 month to a day. I want to look at that event and how our Nation responded to that event. On December 7, 1941, the Imperial Navy of Japan attacked the United States of America basically from the air. They killed 2,402 Americans, 57 of them were civilians and 2,345 were Americans who were in the service. They attacked our military with their military all in uniform. It was a dastardly sneak attack. The American citizens were irate. But what is kind of interesting, that particular day my dad tells the story, that was the first day under the way doctors looked at babies that people could visit the new baby. So on December 7, 1941, a group of friends came to my house to see me as a 1-month-old baby. When this was announced on the radio, the first question they asked was, where is Pearl Harbor? When they found out American citizens were attacked, American soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines were attacked, the American public was irate. The next day we went to war with Japan by declaration of this Congress. We followed that by going to war with Germany and Italy, supporters, allies of Japan, people who had the same agenda. The American public went wholeheartedly into that war. They suffered things on the homefront. A whole lot of women had to take men's jobs on the assembly line so men could go to war. They rationed gasoline and food. They rationed sugar. They rationed lots of things. The American public saved scrap iron and they got involved in selling war bonds. They supported our soldiers as our soldiers went to war. On the 11th day of September, 9/11 as we call it, 2001, a group of people attacked the United States of America again. These people didn't wear uniforms. These people didn't attack a military target. Well, sort of. Their last attack was on the Pentagon, but their initial attack was a civilian target, a symbol of international freedom and economy. The total number of United States citizens killed that day was 3,025, the vast majority of whom were civilians, not military soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines; and they were not attacked by someone's army. They were totally and completely sneak attacked on 9/11 to kill innocent American civilians who had done absolutely no imaginable harm to the people who attacked them. You know, this Congress gathered on the steps of the Capitol in a very touching moment and sang ``God Bless America,'' Republicans and Democrats alike. For 48 hours this country was united, and we sit there and say that is when it all started. Actually, that is not when it all started. Actually, if you want to go back a little bit, you can look at this same ideology, if you will, related groups of people attacked the embassy in Baghdad in 1983, attacked the Marines barracks in Lebanon in 1983 killing an additional 242 and 120 in those two attacks; hijacked a TWA airplane, the Pan Am 103 bombing; the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993; attempted assassination of President George H.W. Bush; the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996; the embassy bombing in east Africa in 1998; and the USS Cole bombing in 2000, followed by an attack on our country for a total of American citizens killed of 4,037. And we were really upset about it. But who sacrificed? Where are we in the support of enemies who would bring down our Nation? That is something I find very curious. Tonight I heard some of my colleagues, my Democrat colleagues over here, saying the Iraqi war is wrong. They had nothing to do with 9/11. Well, the first people we whipped in the Second World War were the Italians. They had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor. And the second group of people we whipped in the Second World War was the Germans. They had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor by their definition, but they lent allied support to the country that attacked this country. How can they argue when Saddam Hussein paid $25,000 to every terrorist family that attacked the United States of America? How can they say they were not aiding and abetting our enemies? The President of the United States said something I thought was right. He said: Folks, you are either with us or you are against us. If you are helping our enemies, you are our enemies. Now, sort of like the Monday morning quarterback at a football game, and I know about that, it is fun to sit in the stands and watch everybody second-guess your kid, all of a sudden we have people who knew all along, even though President Clinton thought they had weapons of mass destruction and said so publicly, those in his administration said the same thing, all indications were that they did, and the British intelligence, along with others around the world confirmed that they thought that they had the potential to get to the hands of terrorists weapons of mass destruction. But in addition, they aided and abetted through at least a $25,000 reward to aid the terrorists who attacked us, our enemies. The Germans didn't do that and neither did the Italians, and yet we had to take care of those who would bring down our Nation. This Congress, the government in 1941, recognized the threat to the United States and knew that national security required us to get rid of the evil that was coming after our Nation. Mr. Speaker, that evil is still out there in this war we are fighting right now. You know what, we have been successful, very successful in taking down an awful lot of evil people. And we have used tools that are constitutional and legal to maintain our national security. Our intelligence network had been gutted in the 1980s and in the 1990s. And all of a sudden we are all very critical of our intelligence network. But if you go back and look at the history of our intelligence network, we basically took the on-the-ground resources out of the hands of our intelligence people. We have had to replace those. We have had to do a lot of hard work communicating. We have the best electronics in the world, but our human resources were lacking. But that doesn't excuse the fact that we have an enemy who as recently as about 3 weeks ago was planning on blowing up, the estimate is nine or ten, airplanes headed to the United States with American citizens on board, with us the target, with our airline industry the target. And thank goodness for good British intelligence and information-gathering by the Brits that they were able to stop this from happening. But it tells us something. I am not trying to scare anybody. It tells us commitment counts. Here tonight we have heard some of my Democrat colleagues say we need a new strategy in the Middle East. We need to pull our troops out of Iraq and do it today. A passionate plea to the President, Mr. President, pull back the troops. You know, if you read about the battles, and I use as an example the Civil War, sometimes those people bashed each other for 3 or 4 days to a bloody pulp. But when one army left the field, the other side was the victor. The Battle of Gettysburg, which was probably the turning point in the war, when the Confederate Army left the field, the Union Army was the victor. That is the definition. I would propose, we are talking about a battle in Iraq and Afghanistan. The war is worldwide, but the battles are in Afghanistan and Iraq. Hopefully, that is the only place we will have to fight. Mr. Speaker, if we retire from the field, it is a victory for evil, evil that wishes to bring down the United States of America. It is the wrong thing to do. I hesitate to talk about this, but it is something that concerns me. We are constantly examining ourselves and looking at our warts, but whenever evil is defined by our enemies, we say it is just too bad to talk about. Has anybody thought about the fact that American guys who were just working for a living trying to help rebuild Iraq got kidnapped and their heads sawed off with an 8-inch knife? Has anybody thought about that? Because it was so gruesome we didn't see it on television, thank God. That horrible incident alone ought to inflame Americans against our enemies. Don't we care any more about the safety of American citizens around the world? Aren't we willing to stand up and say we are not going to tolerate this? We have some fine people in this country who are willing to do that. God bless each and every one of them. That is the American soldier, sailor, airman, marine and Coast Guard. It is unsafe right now. Because of kidnappings and decapitations and murder and terror around the world, it is unsafe for Americans. We have a bunch of people walking around Afghanistan and Iraq flying the American flag on their shoulders. They are not afraid. They are standing up for what it takes to win the war on terrorism, the war on Islamic fascism. And even a better definition, the war on evil. When you do what they did to these contractors, when you do something like that to a human being, the whole world, but especially the United States of America, ought to be fighting mad. Mr. Speaker, I think that in our hearts we know that we have to confront evil where it is and we have to do hard jobs. You know, somebody said in 3 years there has been no progress. Once again I went back to my thoughts about history. I said, okay, we were bombed in 1941 and we landed on the beaches at Normandy on June 6, 1944. So that very argument could have been made in this House on the Second World War in the spring of 1944. We have been fighting 3 years, and we have made relatively no progress because we haven't gotten after the Germans where they are. We had to fight the Italians, we had to fight in North Africa, and we had to fight the Japanese. We were still fighting the Germans, and we have made no progress against the people who attacked us. But that is not how our fathers and grandfathers and great grandfathers felt about this country. They were in it to get it done. That is why they are the Greatest Generation. That is why we talk about them as the Greatest Generation. You can sit around and make excuses, and you can get in folks' faces on things, and you can put politics before country. But, Mr. Speaker, this is not about politics. This is about the safety of this country. I think we have got a lot to be proud of. I think we have done a lot of good. We have revitalized an intelligence group that is doing the job, accomplishing the mission, getting us good intelligence. It is substantially, substantially better than what we inherited and what we started with. But I think that there are some fuzzy thinking people out there that have got strange ideas about what entitles our enemy, for instance, to sue us in court. That is fuzzy thinking. The American people know what is right and what is wrong. The American people do not need to be scared because they know whatever the United States of America sets its mind to it gets done. And I think that is really the message that we have got. We have increased funding for our intelligence community. We have got all of our law enforcement communities talking to each other now and sharing information. We have poured $30 billion into our first responders so that we are ready to protect our homeland. This House has passed a bill to address the border, and hopefully, we will get that bill passed and written into law, and we will work out all of the issues that involve immigration and work them out in a way that they will be manageable and we can do what is right for all the people of the United States. But we first have got to defend our borders. Mr. Speaker, this is national security. It is a big picture. And it is one we have to be concerned about. We have to realize that the only realistic thing for us to do is to continue to support our soldiers as they do a very tough job. I have the only two division posts in the entire world in my district. No one has more compassion for those young men and women that go to war, on their third rotation now. We are getting the 4th Infantry Division back early this fall, and we have got the 1st Cav going back again. And it is hard. But do you know what? Those soldiers know that they are doing their duty, and they are doing what they have to do and they are doing what it takes to keep our Nation secure. I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that we will examine each and every day in light of protecting the American citizen wherever he may be, and that is what national security is all about. I am confident the American people will give us the resources. I am confident that this government will do the right thing to protect Americans. I have got colleagues here that have joined me, and I am going to ask Mr. Gingrey from Georgia, one of my best friends in this Congress, to talk to us a little bit about this issue. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. CARTER

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Speaker, on July 24, 2006, I was unavoidably detained due to inclement weather prohibiting my travel. On rollcall vote Nos. 394, 395, and 396, if present, I would have voted ``yea.''