Virgil Goode

Mr. GOODE

Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).

Mr. GOODE

Mr. GOODE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado for his focus on this issue, for bringing it to the attention of this Congress, for bringing it to the attention of America. He has made many trips and seen firsthand the huge problem that exists on our border, the huge danger that it poses for all of us in the United States. He has been the head of the Immigration Reform Caucus; and he is awakening, I believe, in many of us the need to take action and to do more than we have done. We have one piece of legislation before this Congress, H.R. 277, in addition to a number of other measures, aimed at stopping or curtailing immigration. But H.R. 277 would authorize the utilization of U.S. forces on our borders. We have troops on the borders now, but they are not United States troops. Troops from Mexico frequently come to the border and have various activity and occurrences there, but they are not our troops. The focus of the 107th Congress in large part was on homeland security. A big focus of this, the 108th Congress, is homeland security. On the Committee on Appropriations we have a subcommittee devoted to appropriations matters related to homeland security. They are going to be in charge of billions of dollars. Working with the executive branch and the other body, they will craft a budget for that Department; and I can tell my colleagues when it is voted on here on the floor, it will contain, as I said, billions upon billions of dollars. But spending a huge sum of money in and of itself will not guarantee us homeland security. There may not be anything that can guarantee us 100 percent safety in the United States of America, but I will tell my colleagues one thing that can significantly enhance our homeland security, and that is having a troop presence on our southern border and on our northern border. We had a discussion in the 107th Congress on an amendment for troops on the border on the defense authorization measure. It passed the House. We debated that issue. A fear was voiced that the troops might shoot someone; and, in fact, years ago, that occurred, and that has some persons upset. But if we want a lifesaver, I would submit having troops on the border will be a lifesaver. Hundreds die every year trying to cross the border. Some suffocate, a few drown, others are lost, and some just die in the hot desert sun. Troops on the border would save those lives. We need a lifesaving position, and that is having troops on our borders. In World War II, prior to World War II, there was a book that received considerable attention after World War II. That was entitled ``Why England Slept.'' America is asleep today by not positioning and having troops on our borders. They are too porous. I was handed some information that appeared in Newsweek where the mastermind of the September 11 occurrence discussed bringing operatives through the Mexican borders. He indicated that officials were concerned that the United States remains dangerously unprepared for terrorist attacks on several fronts. The easiest way for them to come in would be across our porous northern and southern borders. If we are to get a handle on illegal immigration and if we are to prevent a situation which has millions of illegals in this country, we must start with troops on the border, and by adopting other measures of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus sponsored by the gentleman from Colorado and others. We also need to discourage those from coming to this country illegally. Under the laws of a number of States, illegals have the opportunity by one way or another of getting a driver's license. My home State of Virginia this year adopted legislation to prohibit those in the country illegally from having a Virginia operator's license. They also adopted legislation, and I was proud of this because this is a discouragement to illegals from entering the country, they adopted legislation to say that they could not get an in-state tuition rate at our community college system if they were here illegally. I would suggest that they should not even be at the community college system. However, the debate was over whether we should give someone in this country who either came across the border through no checks or overstayed their visas and were undocumented an in-state tuition rate. What they were saying with a policy like that is if you were from the State of Maryland and you wanted to go to Northern Virginia Community College, you had to pay one rate; but if you were here illegally and you happened to be in the State of Virginia, you got a lower rate. That is the type of encouragement for illegal immigration we need to do away with in this country. Another thing we cannot do again that we did in the past was adopt another amnesty. Millions that come across the border say, you know what, if I can make it across and not drown, if I can make it across and not die in the hot desert sun, and stay in America a few years and have an employer, I can get amnesty. We need to send the message loud and clear, if you are here illegally, you are not going to get amnesty, not now and not in the future. If we adopt that forthright position, we will not have between 9 million and 11 million persons in this country illegally. I will never forget a few months ago standing on the steps of the Cannon Office Building. There was a gentleman there. He had a son that was killed on September 11 at the World Trade Center. He said, if I had to pick out a fact that I think contributed a great deal to what happened to my son, it was the massive illegal immigration in the United States. He said, those 19 terrorists that were here on September 11, all illegal, they were swimming in a sea of illegal immigration. How could the officials ferret out 19 out of the millions and millions that are here that are not supposed to be in the United States of America? He was right on the money. We need to stop illegal immigration, and we can do that by adopting some of the legislation sponsored by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and others in the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, and we need to put troops on the border tonight.

Mr. GOODE

Mr. GOODE. Mr. Speaker, I too want to solute the Congressman from Virginia's Seventh District for crafting this bipartisan measure covering in a fine way the interest of all the stakeholders. The original Mint proposal was to remove both the current Thomas Jefferson and Monticello from the nickel. Needless to say, that proposal created an uproar in central Virginia, which is home to Thomas Jefferson and Monticello, the dwelling of our Nation's third President. Under this proposal the nickel will feature scenes from the discovery of Lewis and Clark and the Louisiana Purchase. That journey of Lewis and Clark which left St. Louis in 1804 had its beginnings in Charlottesville on January 18, 1803, when Jefferson requested funding from Congress for the Lewis and Clark expedition. In 2006 the nickel will return to its original front of Thomas Jefferson and the reverse of Monticello in a design similar to that which has been in place since 1938. I hope it will be the pleasure of this body to overwhelmingly pass this measure and lay the foundation for its enaction this year

Mr. GOODE

Mr. GOODE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time. I noticed that the clock is ticking past 12, and I shall remember the words of the country preacher who said, blessed be the brief, for they shall be invited back. I rise to support the resolution to respond to the threat that Iraq poses to us and to most nations of the world. If we adopt this resolution, the position of the President will be strengthened in dealing with foreign nations and those in the Middle East. If we present a strong front and indicate to Saddam Hussein that the United States is resolute in seeing the United States and other nations safe from attack by Iraq, then Iraq may recognize that further stalling and prevaricating are futile and open itself up for unfettered inspections. Appeasement and ignoring clear violations of past resolutions and agreements does not guarantee peace and safety. It will only lay us open to a sneak assault. As the President said, war should be the last resort.

Mr. GOODE

Mr. GOODE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution calling for the permanent end of the death tax. I come from an area that has been hard hit with loss of manufacturing jobs. An area that offers promise is in small businesses, small farms. The death tax is a job killer. Last week I was talking to a gentleman from Henry County that had a small business valued at about $4 to $5 million. He said, I would like to expand, get more equipment, buy more facilities, have more property and hire more persons. He said, ``I don't want to go down that road. The death tax will cost me too much, because I'm hoping to live past December 31, 2010.'' We need to end this job-killing death tax. We need jobs in America. One way to do it is kill this tax.

Mr. GOODE

Mr. GOODE. Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the chairman and the ranking member and all of the members of the Committee on the Judiciary for their effort on behalf of S.J. Resolution 13. Inspired by our cause for independence, the Marquis de Lafayette left his aristocratic life in France to come to revolutionary America. He landed in Charleston, South Carolina, and he was only 20 years old. One month later in Philadelphia, he volunteered to serve in the continental Army at his own expense. Congress gave him the rank of major general. Two months after his commission, Lafayette was wounded at the Battle of Brandywine. He spent the winter with George Washington at Valley Forge. The following summer, he served with distinction at the Battle of Monmouth, and then at the battle of Newport in Rhode Island. After going to France for 2 years, he returned to America in 1780 and was an invaluable aide-de-camp as General Washington and the French Commander-in-Chief planned a joint campaign. In 1781, Lafayette served in Virginia, concluding with our victory at Yorktown. He went back to France. Then in 1824, Lafayette returned to America and received a hero's welcome wherever he went. He spent over a year touring all 24 States of the Union. Many of my colleagues have noticed the portrait on the wall here in the House. It commemorates Lafayette's speech to an 1824 Joint Session of Congress, the first such address by a foreigner. In November of that year, Lafayette stayed with President Thomas Jefferson at Monticello in the fifth district of Virginia. At a banquet at the University of Virginia held in the Dome Room of UVA's Rotunda, the Marquis was seated between former presidents Jefferson and James Madison. There proclaimed Jefferson, referring to the American revolution, ``I merely held the nail; Lafayette drove it.'' I take these comments to mean that while Jefferson was a crucial figure in defining the ideals of representative democracy, Lafayette was a crucial figure in making our democracy politically possible through securing France's help and winning our independence from Great Britain. Let us now return Lafayette's inestimable favor. Let us concur on the Marquis de Lafayette honorary citizenship of the United States of America. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of S.J. Resolution 13.

Mr. GOODE

Mr. GOODE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo). First, I want to thank him for his tireless effort on behalf of reining in the huge problem of illegal immigration in this country. I also want to thank the Congressman from Georgia for pointing out the situation where four drunk driving convictions are insufficient for deportation. I would also like to thank the Congressman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) for pointing out the background of the killer of the three persons at Los Angeles Airport on July 4. He mentioned one cost and this gentleman has mentioned one cost, and that is the free medical treatment that illegal immigrants impose on the United States. I was just reading a letter from another Member of Congress in a Dear Colleague about a cost of a million dollars for treating immigrants in the State of Florida. In Patrick County, an illegal immigrant ran a citizen off the road in an automobile accident. That citizen had to go to Baptist Hospital in North Carolina, was in a coma, and the young man is still not recovered. And this treatment of him has been going on and that is a tangent cost. It is not a direct cost, but it has long surpassed the resources of that family. I also wanted to talk this evening a few minutes about the need for troops on our borders. This past week we celebrated Independence Day. And I think one of the best birthday presents this Nation could have would be secure borders. With secure borders we could greatly reduce or stop terrorism. We could greatly reduce or stop illegal immigration. And with secure borders we could greatly reduce or stop the illegal drug traffic. And I know that several of us with the gentleman's leadership have urged the administration to deploy the military on our borders; and we stand committed towards that end, either administratively or through legislation. In particular, the southern and northern borders of the United States are porous. Canada and Mexico are still not doing an adequate job of screening the immigrant traffic and cargo in and out of their countries. Aside from obviously being dangerous to the welfare of citizens in this country, the porousness of our borders adds an unacceptable burden on our already overworked border patrol. The Immigration and Naturalization Service is struggling to meet the demands of new threats, and it is in urgent need of the support of our military. Congress is working to give the administration greater authority to use the military on our borders. As the gentleman noted, the House adopted an amendment to the defense authorization bill that would allow the Department of Justice, if requested by the INS or the Customs Service, to utilize troops on our borders. This legislation would allow the direct involvement of the military in assisting Customs and our border patrol in preventing the coming into this country of terrorists, drug traffickers, and illegal aliens. If we really want to make our homeland secure, we have got to do more than reorganize homeland security. That is a good positive step. And we have taken other good and positive steps, but to have our borders secure we needs troops; and that will have a three-fold purpose of stopping illegal drugs, stopping illegal immigration, and stopping terrorists. And, again, I want to thank the gentleman for his tireless efforts on behalf of this.

Mr. GOODE

Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we do not know what terrorist event in the future may demand the need for the Secretary of Defense to have this authority. This is not a mandatory bill, this is just simply giving that authority where it is needed. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 8.

Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of amendment 81. Amendment 81 is a very simple amendment that would authorize the Secretary of Defense to assign members of the Armed Forces to assist the Immigration and Naturalization Service if requested by the head of INS or, if requested, the Secretary of Defense could also, if requested by INS, use the Armed Forces to assist in cases of drug trafficking and also, if needed, to deal with the illegal situation. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).

Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett). (Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watts).

Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we adopted this amendment last year. After September 11, the times demand that we adopt it even more this year. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODE

Mr. GOODE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1885. I supported H.R. 3525 when we focused on border security, but H.R. 1885, with its amnesty, reminds me of a bowl of ice cream, and I am an ice cream liker. H.R. 3525 was a bowl of ice cream. When they added the amnesty provisions to it, they rammed a hot poker into that bowl of ice cream, and it all melted and it was not fit to eat. H.R. 1885 rewards law-breakers. They can walk across the Rio Grande, they can walk across the Canadian border, and thousands who have waited in line, they should be told, You should not have waited. You should not have tried to follow the law. Avoid the interview in your native country, just walk on in. Breaking the law does not matter. If we pass this today and it passes the other body and becomes law, they will say, Uncle Sam is on our side. In the southwestern United States, there are some who take the position that, We did not cross the border, the border crossed us. I want to preserve our borders as they are today. I do not want to go back to pre-1845. If we pass legislation like this, the southwestern United States could become like Quebec. We do not need separatist movements in this country, we need to stand for the United States of America as it is today. I urge Members to defeat H.R. 1885.

Mr. GOODE

Mr. GOODE. I thank the gentleman from Colorado. I had not planned to come over to join you tonight, but I received this letter in the mail and it is right on the topic to which you have been speaking. I want to thank you on behalf of millions of Americans for addressing a topic that is so timely in our country and so important to the future of the United States of America. VF Netware in Martinsville, Henry County, employs over 2,300 persons. They announced the layoff in the coming year of nearly all of those persons. That is part of a 13,000 person layoff company-wide. On Monday there was a community meeting in Martinsville in Henry County, and representatives from the offices of the U.S. Senators from Virginia were there, the Governor-elect was there, a number of members of the State legislature, both branches, were there, and there was a discussion about jobs, and both the topic of amnesty and immigration arose. I want to share with you a letter written to me by Sandra Turner of Collinsville, Virginia. That is a community in Henry County so heavily impacted by the layoffs of VF Netware. Here is what she had to say. ``I watched enough of this town meeting to want to make a comment about illegal immigrants. I certainly agree with the comment about doing more to deter illegal immigrants and not allowing any amnesty. I also think,'' and she refers to a gentleman that was in the audience, ``had valid concerns and comments referencing immigrants in the workplace. ``Here is an area that has faced a tremendous downsizing of its workforce. We believe that long-standing United States citizens should have their jobs first.'' This gentleman rose and he spoke of how immigrants, probably some of which were illegal, were here competing and taking jobs that long- standing United States citizens do not have and will not have in the future. She continues: ``I have always felt that the United States has been too good for our own good. It appears we have always opened the door and welcomed any and all into this country. We are now paying for this with illegal immigrants taking our jobs, not to mention reaping other benefits from the system. And we certainly paid the price on September 11. Hopefully we have learned something from the loss of jobs in the September 11th tragedy. But I have my doubts. It is time to start taking care of United States citizens first.'' These are the words of Sandra Turner of Collinsville, Virginia. And I want to repeat that sentence. ``It is time to start taking care of the United States citizens first.'' She goes on: ``I live in an area where there are several apartment complexes. In traveling to and from work, shopping and so forth, I constantly see vehicles with North Carolina tags going in and out of these complexes. The vehicles are driven by those from other countries.'' She goes on and describes that situation. And then she closes with this: ``I could go on and on, but I will stop here. I just wanted to let you know that I agreed with the comments about deterring illegal immigrants at our borders, and definitely agree with not allowing any amnesty.'' Then she says, ``Now it is time to do something about this.'' The gentleman from Colorado has so eloquently focused on the legislation that will likely come before this House to extend 245(i). 245(i) is simply a reference to a statutory number that means, as he stated, we are going to reward those who have broken the law, who have come into this country illegally, and now we are going to say to them, you can stay here. Let me point out, the interview that is done under 245(i) is not going to be done by the State Department in the country from which these people came, where they know the most about those individuals. It will be done by INS, which is already overburdened and overworked and has had significant problems in a number of areas. That will be the entity that will do these interviews if 245(i) is extended. Now, some will cite specific instances of hardship or a trying situation where an amnesty should be granted. 245 is not a specific amnesty for a specific person because of a specific problem. It is a blanket, broad-based amnesty for anyone who wants to pay $1,000 and answer a few questions. We do not need this amnesty at this time in the United States. I hope we will follow the wisdom of the gentleman from Colorado in rising up in this body and opposing amnesty, whether it is a stand-alone bill or whether it is put into any other legislation. This is absolutely the wrong course of action for the United States at this time. We must remember the words of Sandra Turner of Collinsville, Virginia: ``It is time to start taking care of the United States citizens first.''

Mr. GOODE

Mr. GOODE. Mr. Speaker, I must rise in opposition to H.R. 3009. I have had hundreds of letters from textile employees and the plant managers from my part of Virginia. They are very concerned that this legislation, if passed and signed into law, will cost more jobs in southside Virginia. This week VF. Knitwear announced the termination of 2,300 persons in Martinsville and Henry County. This brings to a total of over 10,000 jobs lost in the past year and a half under the so- called free-trade benefits. This bill is a turkey. It would be an awful Thanksgiving present for the persons in my district if this bill were to pass. We need to kill this turkey, and we need to relegate it to a place where hope is a stranger and where mercy will never reach.

Mr. GOODE

Mr. GOODE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 981.

Mr. GOODE

Mr. GOODE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) so much for his leadership on the immigration issue and for his work in diligent, hard-working fashion in finding out so many statistics and facts that we need to bolster our argument to end illegal immigration and to curtail legal immigration. I wanted to share with you an article from the Arizona Republic that talks about the 19 terrorists that were involved in crashing the airlines into the Pentagon, the World Trade Center, and into the field in Pennsylvania. It appears that over half of those hijackers were illegal. There are no immigration records on six of them. And I will do the best as I can in reading their names. Fayez Rashid Ahmed, Satam M.A. Al Suqami, Hamza Alghamdi, Mohand Alshehri, Saeed Alghamdi and Wail M. Alshehri. Those six have no immigration records. And the gentleman was talking about the situation of walking in across the Canadian border or walking in across the Mexican border, and any of those six could have taken either of those routes into the United States. Then we go to four that were here at one time legally, but they were out of status and that means they were also illegal. They entered legally but overstayed the visa was Nawaf Alhazmi, admitted to the United States as a nonimmigrant visitor in January 2000. He appears to have overstayed his visa. Waleed M. Alshehri, admitted in June 2000 as a nonimmigrant; and on the date of the September 11 was in illegal status. Ahmed Alghamdi believed to have been admitted as a nonimmigrant student and appears to have overstayed his visa. The other, Hani Hanjour, admitted as a nonimmigrant student in December 2000. INS officials say they were unable to determine whether Hanjour was legal on September 11. Another issue in the area of immigration that I feel we need to focus on is H1-B visas. These are the high-tech visas, and we recently in a prior Congress increased the maximum number from 65,000 to 110,000. In my opinion and I know the gentleman has worked for this and others, we need a moratorium and H1-B visas. That is one thing that could help our economy now because American citizens need these jobs. I want to just briefly lay out the job layoffs in the fifth district of Virginia. In my home town of Rocky Mount, 500 jobs were lost at Lane Furniture. In Altavista, Virginia, 500 jobs were lost. In Clarksville, Virginia, I received a call from the Mayor today, 600 jobs at Russell Stover are lost. Last year, in Henry County, Virginia, we saw Tultex Corporation, which was the biggest sweat and fleece wear manufacturer in the country go completely out of business; JPS Converter, in Halifax County, 250 jobs, 2 months ago. And in Lunenberg, Mecklenberg, and Halifax Counties we have seen tobacco workers lose their jobs because of the change in climate in the tobacco industry. And there have been thousands of other textile workers. We need to be retraining these persons so that they can do the jobs in the high-tech industry instead of bringing in persons from other countries under H-1B visas. And if the gentleman will just give me a couple more minutes, one issue that is going to be facing us soon is going to involve an extension of 245(i).

Mr. GOODE. Well, 245(i) is a way for persons in this country illegally, who have been here for some time illegally, to go around the process and immediately get legal status. This is a real slap in the face to those from other nations that go through the process, that go through the interview process, that talk with the consuls, that talk with the INS people, who get fingerprinted, that wait in line for their turn. These people under 245(i) go around the line and get to the head of the line and they are immediately legal. We are going to be asked, I feel, on the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill to extend 245(i). The Senate passed it for, I believe, an indefinite extension; and that measure has not made it through the House, so they are going to attach something, I am fearful, on that appropriations bill. And the message would be clear: if you can get in here illegally, if you wait it out, you can get amnesty. We do not need amnesty at this time. An amendment putting forth 245(i) for an extension, even if it is just for 6 months or a year, would be the wrong message, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, on the wrong bill. And I hope our body will defeat it.

Mr. GOODE. Mr. Speaker, in town meetings and public forums, even before September 11, I saw in my district what the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Gutknecht) was describing in his district, grassroots America is fed up with massive illegal immigration, and they really want to see legal immigration curtailed, and that was that feeling in America before September 11 because these people are at the local level. They are in the counties and cities all across America, and they are seeing the impact in their communities. The gentleman talked about the INS officials that do not deport. A factor in that is once we deport them, if we send them north or if we send them south, they can make a U-turn and come right back in. I know the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) is the chief sponsor of the resolution focusing on the integrity of our borders, and I would like to see that resolution moved forward and get us tighter security on both the northern border and the southern border.

Mr. GOODE

Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula), the chairman of the subcommittee, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member, for all that they have done for IDEA. They have increased funding significantly in this bill, but more is needed. So I am very happy to rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Schaffer). In the fifth district of Virginia, school superintendents and school board members have addressed the issue of funding for special education more than any other school issue. These additional funds would bring so much more flexibility to jurisdictions in the fifth district of Virginia and across the United States. I hope it will be the pleasure of this body to support this amendment and to help IDEA funding get closer to the 40 percent.

Mr. GOODE

Mr. GOODE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Chairman Radanovich) and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen), for their support, and the support of the Committee on Resources for this legislation. H.R. 1456 would expand the boundary of the Booker T. Washington National Monument located in Franklin County, Virginia. I am a native and lifelong resident of Franklin County, so I have some personal knowledge and familiarity with the monument and the surrounding area. I can attest to the rapid growth that the area has experienced over the last few years. The proximity of the monument to Smith Mountain Lake poses a real threat to the rural character and pastoral nature of the Booker T. Washington National Monument. A 15-acre parcel of land adjacent to the monument has been put up for sale by the owner. The legislation would facilitate the purchase of this property and expand the monument boundary. It is important to note that 7 of the 15 acres were part of the original Burrough farm. With the encroaching development, I hope that we can act now to maintain the rural character of the Booker T. Washington National Monument before the opportunity is lost. If one drives down Route 122 in Franklin County where this monument is located, you can see the rapid growth and expansion on all sides of it. This 15 acres is in a high area which would preserve a good vista for the monument as it exists today. If we do not act right away, I am afraid the opportunity will be lost. The 224-acre park is comprised of rolling hills, woodlands, fields, the Burrough homeplace, and two slave cabin sites. The park portrays Washington's rural life on a small tobacco farm and what it was like, and the rural character is critical to the park's interpretation of the life on such farms during the period just prior to the Civil War. I hope that we can maintain the rural character of the Booker T. Washington National Monument. I believe that this is a worthwhile endeavor for the National Park Service, it is worthwhile for the memory of Booker T. Washington, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. GOODE

Mr. GOODE. Mr. Chairman, I hope it will be the pleasure of this body to overwhelmingly reject the Moran amendment. I heartily disagree with his assessment that law enforcement personnel need a 90-day rule to carry out their responsibilities. We are talking about law-abiding gun owners whose purchase was approved. Those records should be destroyed immediately. Please vote against the Moran amendment.