Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to join my colleagues in thanking the Honorable Martin Sabo for his service to this House and for his additions of the things he has brought forth in this legislation, not only working in a bipartisan basis but also his leadership on behalf of making sure that the next generation understands things like port security and other things which the gentleman has specialized in. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank our Speaker, Dennis Hastert, and majority leader, John Boehner, for their vision and hard work to bring this bill forward today. They worked very closely with Chairman Hal Rogers and Chairman Jerry Lewis of the Appropriations Committee, Duncan Hunter of the Armed Services Committee, Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner of the Judiciary Committee, and certainly Steve Chabot of the Judiciary Committee. This bill we bring forward today is a negotiated product, one where we have worked hard with not only members of the administration, but we have taken, as Members of Congress, trips to see our borders wherever they might be, the northern border or the southern border. We have our appropriators, who have taken time to understand the intricate details and the needs of this great Nation. We have engaged with the Department of Defense to talk about those things that will be necessary to protect our men and women on the battlefield. We have taken time to make sure that we have talked to our CIA, Central Intelligence Agency, about the way that they need to do business and those attributes about who they engage across the world and how we can treat fairly, yes, but treat properly those who would engage in killing Americans and bringing down reigning terror in our cities. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this underlying legislation is very important to America's learning lessons from the prior years and bringing those lessons to bear to protect this great Nation. We will speak from a position of strength, not fear. We will not worry about the things that we cannot get done but the things that we can get done. We will learn from our mistakes, and we will learn that, as terrorism in the 21st century evolves, we will, too. That is what these bills are all about. I am proud of our country, and I say God bless America. Mr. Speaker, I ask for all the Members to support this bill.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in the month of August, I had an opportunity with several other Members to go to Laredo, Texas, to visit our border to see the border operations and to see the things that were happening there. I had a chance to run across Texas Army National Guard personnel who were attempting to not only work but work successfully with Border Patrol and other Customs and Immigration enforcement personnel. I wanted to draw attention to how important our National Guard has been from each of our States in protecting our borders, working on border security and doing those things that are necessary. This came as a result of a plan that happened with input from Congress, that happened through the great work that was done not only with the President but also with local Governors and people who are interested in doing this. I had a chance to go with the Honorable Jo Bonner from Alabama down to Laredo. And both he and I together had a chance to see firsthand how the Army National Guard worked with Border Patrol. We went out that night to see firsthand their needs. Mr. Speaker, that is what is in this bill, the ability that we have to protect our border, to provide the necessary resources, to make sure that our men and women who are with official law enforcement and also those who are with the Guard are able to make sure that this country is protected. That is what is in this bill. I am proud of it. I am going to ask for everyone's vote for not only the rule but also the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for bringing this up as an issue, because I think, once again, it shows clearly the differences between our parties and the way we think about this. It is true that the Republican Party would be accused of having a balanced approach not only to making sure that these chemical companies have taken care of their responsibility for security but making sure also that we protect the jobs that come with those and the security of the towns in which they are located in. We heard the gentleman use words like stronger, tougher, harder and making it more difficult. Everything he talked about was to simply make it harder for these companies to operate in America. Tougher sanctions, more rules, more regulations and being tough on the chemical companies. Yes, we get it, run them out of town. Run them out of the country. Take the jobs and leave. Mr. Speaker, we are not going to do that in this bill. We are going to bring a balance, a balance that says that these chemical companies are a natural asset to the United States of America. As a part of our ability not only to make sure that we can receive the things that we need, technology and these things which chemical companies provide, that make our lives better every day, we are not going to run them out of town and we are not going to run them out of the country. They have a responsibility to make sure that their internal elements are safe and the controls they put in place are doing the right thing. They want to take care of their responsibilities, and we are going to make sure that that is balanced. So we are not going to allow the tougher sanctions, the tougher things that our friends on the other side of the aisle want to do. We are going to strike a balance, a balance for safety, a balance for comprehension that what we want is to make sure that they are good corporate citizens and that they look closely at where their own frailties exist. That is why this bill is going to pass today, because we are not going to run them out of town. We are not going to speak from a position of weakness; we are going to speak from a position of strength. That is another one of the differences between the Republican Party. We are going to balance it out and do the right thing. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, as Congress considers H. Res. 1009 this week, I would like to highlight the outstanding efforts of an organization in my district, Promise House of Dallas. Since 1984, Promise House has served as a pillar of the Dallas community through its mission to serve the needs of runaway and homeless youth throughout our community. Promise House was originally established by Lovers Lane United Methodist Church to provide a 16 bed emergency shelter for teenagers. Today, this program provides over eight large programs for runaway, homeless, and at-risk students, and is supported by numerous churches, businesses, and individuals. At-risk youth and their families may access services ranging from food and clothing to counseling, education, transitional living arrangements, and parenting services. With communal support, the Promise House staff works endlessly to offer hope to youth and families in crisis. Promise House has helped countless youths pursue their hopes and dreams. When he entered Promise House, Justin was a 17-year-old young man who was physically and emotionally abused by his father. Between the abuse and family disarray, Justin turned to aggressive behavior and heavy drug usage. In a courageous and lifesaving decision, Justin came to Promise House for help. Promise House provided Justin with a safe environment and a variety of services, including shelter, counseling, intensive case management and life skills therapy. Through the support of Promise House, Justin turned his life around. Justin continued therapy services even after leaving Promise House and successfully graduated from high school. Today, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to say that Justin is a senior at the University of Texas at Dallas and a recipient of the Blake Davis Memorial Scholarship--established by Promise House to promote opportunities for higher education and a better life. Justin's story serves as an example of how Promise House provides youths with a safe haven to help meet their life goals. I am proud of Promise House's selfless efforts in reaching out with open arms to the needs of the children and teenagers in the north Texas area.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman, my friend, from Florida (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for purposes of debate only. This rule provides for 1 hour debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security. It waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and provides that the amendment printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution shall be considered as adopted. Finally, the rule provides the minority with one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 6061, the Secure Fence Act of 2006. This legislation, much of which has already been passed by the House as part of H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Anti-terrorism, and Illegal Control Act of 2005, is a positive step in regaining operational control of our borders and achieving broad reform of the immigration process. This legislation is the product of five formal hearings in standing committees during this Congress alone. It also draws on a number of hearings in past Congresses and a wealth of information learned through field hearings conducted over the August recess by Members of this Republican majority. Last month, many Members of this body, who were greatly concerned with addressing the problem of our porous borders, traveled across the country to determine what steps could be taken to harden our borders and ensure that those who would wish to harm us cannot exploit this well-documented weakness. Like many other Members, over August I traveled to our border. I traveled with Congressmen Charlie Dent, Henry Cuellar, John Doolittle, and Jo Bonner to meet with Border Patrol agents from Laredo, Texas, and to see firsthand the needs of our country as it relates to border protection. We discussed with these dedicated men and women on the front line of our border how best to address the rampant drug and human smuggling that occurs in an area along our southern border. We learned firsthand of the challenges faced by our brave Border Patrol agents in combating the flood of criminal activity that occurs along our southern border on a daily basis. The information we learned on this trip, and the information learned from dozens of other field hearings just like this from this past August, all have been incorporated in the legislation that we will hope to take up today. The Secure Fence Act of 2006 advances the rule of law and protects our Nation by providing our Border Patrol with the tools they need to achieve operational control of the border. The language closely mirrors sections 101, 1002, and 1003 of the border bill already passed by the House, and authorizes more than 700 miles of two-layered reinforced fencing along the southwest border with prioritized placement at critical, highly populated areas. It also requires an evaluation of infrastructure needs along the northern border of America. The Secure Fence Act also mandates that the Department of Homeland Security achieve and maintain operational control over the entire border through a ``virtual fence'' utilizing leading edge technology and through established best practices to create optimum results at the most efficient cost. This includes the deployment of cameras, ground sensors, unmanned aerial vehicles, and integrated surveillance technology. This legislation further requires the Department of Homeland Security to provide all necessary authority to border personnel to disable fleeing vehicles, similar to the authority already held by United States Coast Guard for maritime vessels. Finally, this legislation requires DHS to assess our Nation's vulnerability on our northern border and to address how they can be effectively and efficiently resolved. Mr. Speaker, this legislation represents a commonsense step that this Congress can take to deal with problems of alien smuggling, illicit drug running, and illegal immigration. The House has already passed a more comprehensive bill that enjoyed the support of 239 bipartisan Members. But because a broader package of reforms may not be enacted into law this year, our Republican leadership has decided to take the least controversial portions of this broader reform effort and to pass them in pieces that the other body can then take up and pass. I would like to commend Speaker Hastert and Majority Leader Boehner for their vision and leadership in bringing this commonsense bill to the floor today. I would also like to thank my dear friend, Mr. Sensenbrenner, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and Chairman Pete King, who is chairman of Homeland Security, and all the members of the Judiciary and Homeland Security Committees for their hard work in doing the research and hearings that were necessary to bring this bill to the floor. I encourage all my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation to provide operational control of our borders. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by the direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1002 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Fullerton, California, chairman of the International Terrorism and Nonproliferation Subcommittee, Chairman Royce.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Reyes, by the way, this entire body not only recognizes but appreciates your service to this Nation, not only for the professionalism that you continue to exhibit but that which you did for your 26 years. I would say to the gentleman two things, if I could politely suggest to him that he knows it is not truthful to say that we are going to have a 2,000-mile fence along the border. That has not been suggested. We have never talked about that, and to insinuate that would simply be untruthful. We have not suggested that, and this bill very specifically, and I would like to have the gentleman, if he would like to get a copy, relates to adding 10 miles of fencing that extends 10 miles west of the Tecate, California port entry to 10 miles east of the Tecate, California, port of entry; 10 miles west of Calexico, California to 5 miles east of Douglas, Arizona; 5 miles west of the Columbus, New Mexico, port of entry to 10 miles east of El Paso; extending 5 miles northwest of Del Rio to 5 miles southeast of Eagle Pass, Texas; extending 15 miles northwest of the Laredo, Texas, port of entry to the Brownsville, Texas, port of entry. This will be literally 100 miles worth of fencing. It will be 700 miles worth of fencing when you add up the total. What we are trying to do is to take the things that we heard firsthand that the men and women who work on the border said. This is the priority, not 2,000 miles.

Mr. SESSIONS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. SESSIONS. I would like to reclaim my time. We have talked about this since 2001. The fact of the matter is that this bill is very specific. It aims directly at where the problem is. I would like to also note that not one mile of fencing is in the Democrat plan, not even 15 feet worth of fencing. I don't know how you can have a comprehensive plan when you talk directly to Border Patrol agents who are in Laredo, Texas and other points along the border, and they say their number one concern, they are asked is the fencing, first of all, to allow them for their own safety, their own safety. The men and women of law enforcement who are down there have asked for, and, in the Republican bill, will get the fencing that they have asked for.

Mr. SESSIONS. I will not at this time, but I know that the gentleman has lots of time left to continue the debate. We need to make sure that we are doing what the men and women of law enforcement are asking for. What else are they asking for? They are also asking for, and I have seen firsthand, the need to better protect those people, the unassuming people, who illegally are entering our country, who do so at great risk and peril. These fences, which are in our bill, not their bill, not 10 feet of fencing that is in their bill, will allow our Border Patrol agents to effectively deal with this huge number of people who are coming here to wall off areas that are dangerous for our men and women, as well as people who are just dumped off on the border late at night and told, go that way. Mr. Speaker, we have taken time, Republicans and Democrats have taken time to come to our border and see what we need. It is the Republicans that heard from the Border Patrol agents and others. We need to help protect this country, yes, but we need to do it to protect people who many times get in trouble, many times who need desperate help, and it is to help save our agents as well as those people. I am proud of my bill. For the characterization that this is a do- nothing bill, I would say, I am sorry that you didn't hear what was said at these important hearings and did something about it. That is all this bill is. It is to take what we heard of the most immediate concerns. We know we have a debate with the Senate. We know we have got some problems trying to negotiate that through, but this should not be held hostage. I would like to go directly, Mr. Speaker, to H.R. 6061, which is what we are discussing here, but bringing in to incorporate the things that we know we have already done under our FY07 Department of Homeland Security appropriations. We are going to provide for $19.6 billion for border protection. What we are going to do, as I recall it is darn near September, and as soon as this month is over with we want to have new money. We are going to pay for this fencing. To assume or to say that it is not going to happen would really be, I think, less than honest. The administration is working with this body. We are opening up this information to the other party that had been a part of the hearings, and they know that we are going to have money that is available directly for the needs of what this bill is about. But what this bill specifically does is it says this is the priority at this time. We believe the fencing is there for good and intended purposes. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 8 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), the vice chairman of the Criminal Justice and Drug Policy Subcommittee. (Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. My colleagues and good friends not only from Texas, Mr. Reyes, but also the gentleman from Florida and the gentlewoman from Texas have spoken very eloquently about the needs of this great Nation. I have every reason to believe all three of those individuals joined many other Members of this body in hearing from people about the needs of the Border Patrol, the communities along the borders and the things which they would want and need. This bill is very specific. It talks about the types of things that would be necessary and needed on an interim basis. Both you and I, Mr. Speaker, understand that we have passed bills many times before this that are more comprehensive, that are larger, that contain money, that do a lot of things that will enable us to get closer. The bottom line is, we need this interim step to get done now. It comes as a result of the hearings, it comes as a result of feedback from the Border Patrol, it comes as a result of communities who have asked us to please help them. So we are going to do that. I am going to ask Members to vote ``aye.'' I am going to ask them to support this bill. And it is my prediction, Mr. Speaker, that this will be a bipartisan-passed bill today on the floor of the House of Representatives because it represents the balance and integrity of not only our Speaker, Dennis Hastert, but also John Boehner and our great chairman of Homeland Security, Pete King. The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows: Previous Question on H. Res. 1002, Rule for H.R. 6061 Secure Fence Act of 2006 In the resolution strike ``and (2)'' and insert the following: ``(2) the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in Section 2 of this resolution if offered by Representative Reyes of Texas or Representative Thompson of Mississippi or a designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order or demand for division of the question, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3)'' At the end of the resolution add the following new section: ``Sec. 2. The amendment by Representatives Reyes (TX) and Thompson (MS) referred to in Section 1 is as follows: Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 606 Offered by Mr. Thompson of Mississippi Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend the national Tourette Syndrome Association for their hard work to have Tourette Syndrome listed as a disability under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. On August 4, 2006 Margaret Spellings, the Secretary of the Department of Education, announced the final regulations enforcing Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act which now lists Tourette Syndrome in the category of ``Other Health Impaired.'' This new classification means that students with Tourette Syndrome will no longer find themselves in limbo--knowing that they are legally entitled to receive the necessary educational accommodations but unable to point to specific language in the law that would protect their rights. For years, many students with Tourette Syndrome who sought accommodations were labeled as having behavioral or emotional problems and not a neurological disorder. This incorrect designation sometimes placed students with Tourette Syndrome into classrooms with behaviorally or emotionally disturbed children. By including Tourette Syndrome in the law, the Department of Education is sending a clear message to schools across the country that Tourette Syndrome is a neurological disorder. The category is no longer a subject of debate and one more hurdle has been cleared for students with Tourette Syndrome. The Tourette Syndrome Association and its members have been steadfast in working with Members of Congress and officials from the U.S. Department of Education for this designation in ``Other Health Impaired.'' Over the years, they have held hundreds of meetings with many of my colleagues in this body and have sent us thousands of letters explaining the necessity and value of having Tourette Syndrome listed in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. This victory for the Tourette Syndrome Association and its members has been long overdue. Mr. Speaker, in closing I would personally like to thank my friend Jeremy Scott, the Tourette Syndrome Association's Director of Public Policy, for his dedication and leadership to ensuring that Tourette Syndrome be added to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. This accomplishment will positively impact the educational experiences of hundreds of thousands of children with Tourette Syndrome.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we think we got it right. We think we did the PATRIOT Act right. We think we did intelligence authorization right. We think we do a lot of things right around here. We are going to stand up for this country, Mr. Speaker. We are going to stand up for the men and women who protect our country. We are going to stand up and give the men and women of the intelligence community the things that they need. Today, it is right and fitting to say thank you; we will not forget and we will be vigilant to protect this country. That is what this resolution is about Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. King), the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 996 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from New York described his disagreement with the administration. I understand that. We had seen the administration before this President ignore, completely ignore, the advice from the CIA. As a matter of fact, I remember at least one CIA director resigned under President Clinton because he could not get President Clinton to pay attention to more than 3 hours in a month to the intelligence needs of this country. We have already talked about how vote after vote after vote by the Democrats that they choose to gut our ability, in my opinion, to effectively not only have law enforcement but to chase down those that may do harm against this country. Some choose to characterize that we are not safer today than what we were before the attack. I completely disagree with that. I would completely disagree with that because I think every single American that day learned of the tremendous forces that were aimed at the United States that we had really been completely unaware of before. So I think that we are better off today. Are we absolutely safe? No. Are we safer? Yes, we are, and we have a responsibility to maintain that line of defense. This resolution has nothing to do with that. It is a resolution, the force of this body, to say we respect the men and women who on 9/11 gave their lives; we are sorry for the men and women who have been injured as a result of that; we are going to support our military; we are going to support the families and we will never forget; and we are going to back up our allies; and we are going to make sure that we get it right. That is what this resolution is about. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' because it is the honorable and the right thing to do, to say thank you to the men and women who gave their lives, to say thank you to the men and women who were heroic in their efforts to try and save people, and it is the right thing to do to say to the men and women of our military and our intelligence communities that we believe you have not only done a great job but we thank your families also for those sacrifices. We believe it is the right thing to do to remember this event 5 years later. We believe it is the right thing to do to let the world know that the United States Congress, this body, in this House resolution, believes that we will stay strong not only in the war on terrorism but that we believe that fighting for civilization and peace and opportunity in this world is the right thing. We have heard from three of this Congress' greatest leaders, Phil Gingrey, Pete King, who is the chairman of the committee, and the young chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier, as they have spoken eloquently about not only what this country stands for but about how our respectfully saying thank you and remembering this day is a part of our job and is the right thing to do. I urge all of my colleagues to vote on behalf of this resolution The material previously referred to by Mr. McGovern is as follows Previous Question for H. Res. 996, the Rule for H. Res. 994 Expressing the Sense of the House of Representatives on the 5th Anniversary of the Terrorist Attacks launched against the United States on September 11, 2001 Strike all after the resolved clause and insert: ``Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the resolution printed in section 2 expressing the sense of the House of Representatives upon the five-year anniversary of the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001. The resolution shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and preamble to final adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except: (1) four hours of debate equally divided and controlled by the Majority Leader and Minority Leader or their designees; and (2) one motion to recommit.'' Sec. 2. The following is the text referred to in Section 1: Resolution ``A resolution expressing the sense of the House of Representatives upon the five-year anniversary of the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001. Whereas on September 11, 2001, terrorists hijacked four civilian aircraft, crashed two of them into the towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, and crashed the third into the Pentagon outside Washington, D.C.; Whereas the fourth hijacked plane, United Airlines Flight 93, crashed in Somerset County, Pennsylvania, near the town of Shanksville, after the passengers and crew of that flight struggled with the terrorist-hijackers to take back control of the plane, ultimately preventing the flight from reaching its likely destination in Washington, D.C.; Whereas the heroic actions of the rescue workers, volunteers, and State and local officials who responded to the attacks with courage, determination, and skill are to be commended; Whereas thousands of innocent Americans, and civilians from many other countries, were killed and injured as a result of these attacks; Whereas Congress declared, in the aftermath of the attacks, September 12, 2001, to be a National Day of Unity and Mourning; and Whereas there has not been a terrorist attack on the United States homeland since the terrorist attacks five years ago, but al Qaeda has perpetrated terrorist attacks throughout the world against United States persons, facilities, and interests, as well as United States allies during that time: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the House of Representatives-- (1) commemorates the life of each individual who died as a result of the attacks of September 11, 2001; (2) extends its deepest condolences to the victims of these attacks, as well as to their families, friends, and loved ones; (3) once again condemns in the strongest possible terms the attacks, the terrorists who perpetrated them, and their sponsors; (4) commits to support the necessary steps to interdict and defeat terrorists who plot to do harm to the American people; (5) recommits itself and the Nation to bringing to justice the perpetrators of the attacks, along with their sponsors; (6) honors and expresses its gratitude to members of the United States Armed Forces, law enforcement personnel, first responders, and others who have bravely and faithfully participated in the War on Terrorism since September 11, 2001; and (7) declares September 11, 2006, to be a National Day of Remembrance, in commemoration of the terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001.''

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey, 4 minutes.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman, my colleague, from Massachusetts does clearly talk about the differences of opinion that we have, and I respect that difference. I would also say that this body has an obligation to move forward and work on issues that we think are correct and right. And quite honestly, Republicans do see what has happened to this country, I believe, in a significantly different way than what my colleagues, the Democrats, see. Several months ago we had a vote, and we have done this several times, but a vote on the intelligence bill where the Democrat Party wanted and had a vote on the floor that would require law enforcement and intelligence to release every single name of every single person under investigation by the FBI and intelligence agencies to the Congress, to nonlaw enforcement officials. These are the kinds of ideas that Ms. Pelosi and the Democrats have about how we go about protecting this country. We politely disagree. The resolution here today is not about policy as it relates to what we are trying to pass today. It is about how this act that happened on 9/11 we will not forget. We will thank the men and women who protected us that day. We will stand behind the men and women of our military and intelligence organizations. We give thanks to the families who are here in this country whose loved ones serve on the front lines. And, lastly, we will let our allies know and the terrorists know that we will stay to the end. That is what this resolution is about. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the chairman of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier.