Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the distinguished public service of Mr. Neely Moody, who until recently, served as Inspector General of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA).

Throughout his 43 years as a public servant, Mr. Moody has distinguished himself as a dedicated leader, one who faced challenges with determination, persistence and balance. This was true early in his 20-year U.S. Air Force career, and remained true throughout his 23-year DIA career.

From the time of his March 2003 appointment as DIA Inspector General until his retirement, Mr. Moody capably led the Office of the Inspector General in promoting the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of DIA and defense intelligence programs and operations.

Prior to his appointment as DIA Inspector General, Mr. Moody served as the Chief, Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity, where he effectively led the effort to develop and implement DIA employment opportunity, and diversity management policy and procedures. During his tenure as Chief, Personnel Security Division, DIA, he effectively managed the agency's personnel security program and promulgated Director of Central Intelligence personnel security policies within the Department of Defense.

During his military career, Mr. Moody served in diverse career specialties of security, counterintelligence, law enforcement, munitions maintenance, aircraft maintenance, and special investigations. He distinguished himself throughout his active duty career, including in his final assignment as a Chief in the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations.

Mr. Moody's service to our nation has been recognized for his service and achievements in a host of ways. He is the recipient of the Presidential Rank Award for Meritorious Executive in the Defense Intelligence Senior Executive Service, the DIA Director's Award for Exceptional Civilian Service, the Director of Central Intelligence's Meritorious Unit Award and the NAACP Award of Recognition for EO, Affirmative Action, and Public Service. His military service recognition includes the USAF Meritorious Service Medal and Air Force Achievement Medal.

Mr. Moody is widely respected as leader, mentor and confidant. He has made a difference to countless individuals in the Intelligence Community and military. Moreover, he is admired for his commitment to continuing to make a difference in the lives of others in his retirement endeavors.

Mr. Moody's lifelong dedication and selfless service to our nation are an inspiration to all. I am proud to honor him on this day which also marks the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007.

Mr. Speaker, I am so glad my colleagues on the other sIde of aisle feel that they can look the American people in the eye and say ``we have done enough for you this session in Congress, we have earned a vacation. It is high time for us to adjourn.''

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me translate what the Republicans are actually saying: ``We choose rather to go on vacation then to attend to the needs of the American people.''

It seems the Grand Old Party's leadership had a grand old time this year, deciding to recess after having spent the fewest number of days in session in our lifetime.

Pitifully, in comparison to the typical American worker who spends approximately 247 days a year laboring, Congressional members will have worked less than 100.

Mr. Speaker this is not simply a ``do nothing Congress'' as so many of my colleagues have said before me. This is just as much a ``do nothing right Congress.''

And the American people understand this reality all too well. Remarkably, a recent CBS News/New York Times poll found 75 percent of voters can't name one thing Congress has accomplished this session.

Well my friends, I can't really either. Republican priorities rolled out this session were strictly those that helped them advance politically. They chose to fritter away scarce time debating frivolous proposed constitutional amendments banning flag burning and gay marriage instead of real issues Americans at home are concerned with.

As we end this session, Republican leadership has only passed 2 of the 11 required spending bills--quite a feat when you consider that both chambers of Congress are of the same party.

If this Congress were a school, students here would certainly receive an ``F.''

The list of their failures reads like a laundry list almost too long for me to recount right now:

In a gross display of negligence, Congress has failed to enact an annual budget this year.

Even though for nearly a decade the federal minimum wage has remained stagnant, Congress this year has again failed to negotiate a pay raise for working class Americans. And Congress also failed to negotiate deals on vital tax breaks for college tuition costs or research and development tax credits for businesses.

In response to the profusion of the Republican culture of corruption this year, Republicans have decided to do . . . zilch. Add Congressional failure to enact lobbying reform this year to the list.

Congress has failed to achieve health insurance reform and failed to finalize nuclear negotiations with India.

In response to sky high gas prices, increased signs of global warming and even President Bush's admission that America is far too reliant on foreign oil, Congress has failed to produce a real energy plan this session. Congress packs its bags to go, refusing to mandate higher levels of fuel efficiency standards or propose incentives for consumers or product makers to utilize alternative energy sources.

Congress leaves while nearly 12 million undocumented workers are hiding in the shadows of our society. After all the hype and rhetoric of passing an immigration bill, no true immigration reform has been realized this Congress.

Is the list of things left undone too lengthy, too repetitive, and too tiresome? Am I boring this Congress? There are still many more demonstrations of what little progress this Congress has made.

And what little has been done has been done badly! Important bills are being rushed through to secure a Republican majority in the next Congress. The latest example being the tyrannical anti-terror law, allowing Congress to reinterpret international law to authorize torture. A law that despite its name, nonetheless makes our troops less safe, leaves our Nation unprotected, and successfully damages our international credibility.

Of all the bills that have actually passed this Congress, how many of them have actually improved the lives of Americans?

What do have to show our constituents back home in our districts? An unstable economy, ridiculously high health care costs and gas prices, a loss in life abroad and a loss of our basic freedoms here at home.

More than 5 years after 9/11, numerous reports have shown that the war on Iraq is hurting our Nation in the war against terrorism. Our borders still remain exposed and our first responders still lack adequate resources to respond to either another 9/11 or another Katrina.

While we spend approximately $2 billion a week on defense, Osama bin Laden is still alive and well, and Al Qaeda is resurging in Afghanistan stronger than ever before. Iraq is engulfed in sectarian violence and civil war and has become the breeding ground for a new generation of terrorists.

The war in Iraq has stretched our resources and troops thin, leaving us exposed to potential global terrorists and nuclear threats from nations such as Iran and North Korea.

Americans, I insist that you ask this question to yourself before you go to the ballot box this November:

What has the Republican Congress done for me these last 2 years? If you can not think of a single thing, you are not alone. Please think of a new Congress that would attend to your priorities here and overseas before you select your next elected official.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, as has already been pointed out, today, at least tonight, we consider the conference report for the major security legislation for this year. I voted for this bill in May, and I likely will vote for this conference report.

I point out, however, that this bill could have and should have been much better. If the majority really cared about safety and security and if they cared more than they do about naked partisanship and political advantage, this would be a bill that we could all be proud to pass.

For example, Mr. Speaker, when the bill was considered this spring and again now, we were prohibited from considering a Democratic amendment offered by Representatives Nadler, Oberstar, Markey, and others which requires that every shipping container be scanned and sealed before being loaded onto a ship destined for the United States. The scary fact remains that less than 5 percent of all containers coming into the United States through our ports are scanned.

Mr. Speaker, as someone who represents a district which depends greatly upon three major international ports for economic activity, I took considerable umbrage with the majority's not allowing this amendment to be considered. I take issue with your conscious decision to block the House from considering proposals which would have, without a doubt, made my constituents and the American people safer.

Moreover, the rule this past spring prohibited the ranking Democratic member of the Homeland Security Committee, an expert in this field, Bennie Thompson, from making constructive changes to the bill. Ranking Member Thompson's changes address the fact that we cannot continue asking Customs officials to do more with less. His amendment authorized funding for U.S. Customs and Border Patrol to hire 1,600 more officers at seaports.

Mr. Speaker, as I previously mentioned, I am proud to represent a region in our country which is home to some of our largest international seaports. Port Everglades in Fort Lauderdale, Port of Palm Beach in Riviera Beach, and the Port of Miami, each within or just minutes from the district I am privileged to represent, have led the way in security improvements in America. The three, Port Everglades in particular, have all enjoyed national and international best practices recognition.

So when I come to the floor today and consider the underlying legislation, I have to ask does this legislation get our ports to where they need to be regarding security. The answer is it gets us closer, but we can and must do better.

Mr. Speaker, we had an opportunity in May to do something about a real problem which we all know exists at America's seaports. We will accomplish some with the passage of this bill, but we must return to this topic when the new Congress convenes next January after a new direction. We can do better and we will do better for the American people. When we come next year, Democrats will give our Customs and Border Patrol officers the necessary tools and directives to do everything that they can possibly do to stop attacks from happening here in the United States. Until this time we have this bill, which is a first step, and that is all it is, a first step.

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

I heard that the conference was a farce. My colleague from Texas said we are headed in a new direction.

People don't need no new direction. What people need is an absolute destination. And the fact of the matter is

there were people who could have made this bill better and we are shut out of the process the same as we have been all the way down the line.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my very good friend, the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that instructs the enrolling Clerk to modify the conference report and add important provisions from the Senate version of this bill. These provisions are virtually identical to those in the motion to instruct that the House overwhelmingly adopted just 24 hours ago by a vote of 281-140.

Any Member who supported that motion last night should support my amendment today.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, when the House passed this bill in May, it passed by a wide bipartisan margin and focused exclusively on port security issues. When the Senate took up this bill, however, it broadened the scope of this legislation to address the gaping security holes in our country's rail, subway, bus and trucking system.

Secretary Chertoff and the House Republicans called these new sections ``goulash.'' I think they are good policy, and I think they should be part of the bill we send to the President today. If we can stick unrelated gambling legislation into this conference report, Mr. Speaker, why cannot we include legislation that will improve our mass transit and rail security?

Mr. Speaker, the 9/11 Commission noted in its final report that our surface transportation systems such as railroads and mass transit remain hard to protect because they are so accessible and extensive. We all know that Congress has not done enough to address this problem. So let's take this final opportunity to make some progress by including the Senate language.

Mr. Speaker, I want to stress that a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not stop consideration of the port security conference report, but a ``no'' vote will allow the House to include in the conference report the critical Senate provisions that were contained in yesterday's motion to instruct that passed this House by a bipartisan and overwhelming vote.

Again, vote ``no'' on the previous question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, my friend from Florida, for the time; and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong option to this closed rule and the underlying legislation. First, let me say that I really am pleased that Congress belatedly sees a need to address the President's unconscionable, declared by court, unconstitutional domestic spying program.

Unfortunately, we are considering a bill today that was primarily drafted by the White House. I do not relish the notion of criticizing this bill; but because what it does to the Constitution, however, and I am sworn to uphold, as are all of the Members of this body, to uphold and defend that Constitution, I am not going to sit idly by and watch people trample on it.

Now, I have lived and seen how unchecked power in the hands of bureaucrats can be used to squelch legitimate first amendment exercises. We have seen monitoring of students, preachers and housewives.

I have seen what happens when government protectors think they answer to no one. And, frankly, it is not pretty. I just implore you all to think back to the 1970s,and Americans were shocked to learn about President Nixon's unchecked spying for political advantage.

Americans were similarly dismayed over the legendary J. Edgar Hoover's listening in not only on Dr. King, but many other targets. Those illegal surveillance scandals were, in part, what led to the creation of the select committees of intelligence.

It is our job, Congress's job, to ensure that we effectively oversee the activities of the NSA, the FBI, and the CIA. To the point. This White House bill really does scare me. We would be giving not just President Bush's administration, but every subsequent administration a blank check.

This bill does so much to chip away at the civil liberties and privacy protections built into the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, you will hear it referred to often as FISA, that it could, if passed, have very disastrous effects.

It redefines the definition of surveillance in an irresponsible way. The effect is that the NSA, the FBI, would be able to listen to any call or read any e-mail that comes into or goes out of the United States. So if a soldier overseas calls her husband, NSA can listen in. If a little girl in my home town of Mirimar, Florida, sends an e-mail to her grandmother in Israel, NSA can read it.

If a student at Florida Atlantic University is studying in France and calls her father at home in Ft. Lauderdale, NSA can listen in. Now, that soldier putting her life on the line in Iraq is not a terrorist. The little girl in Mirimar and her grandmother I think we can all assume are not plotting to overthrow anything.

The student at Florida Atlantic and her father I am just guessing have likely not sworn their lives to overthrowing the United States Government.

At the risk of being trite, the White House-drafted bill has more holes than Swiss cheese. Maybe we ought to just call it the Swiss cheese bill. It throws out some pretty broad terms and never defines them.

What is an armed attack? What is an imminent threat or imminent attack? They are not defined in this bill. Yet, the President has broad authority under this bill to do whatever he pleases under these conditions. Footnote right there. Let's make this very clear, not just this administration but succeeding administrations would have this power.

Arguably under this bill, every single day since September 11, 2001, we have been under the imminent threat of a terrorist attack. And if the mover of this bill and the White House get their way, every call and every e-mail, even domestic ones, would be subject to warrantless surveillance.

Allowing this President or any President to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance under these vaguely described circumstances is, simply put, dangerous. You never know how the next President might use or abuse her power when she gets it.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I am fond of quoting Ben Franklin, and so I am going to do it again today. The legendary Ben Franklin said: ``Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.''

This is what we might do today again. This piece of legislation may be one of the most important bills that the House will consider this year or any year, and not one Member of the House, not one, will be able to offer an amendment. That bothers me generally, Mr. Speaker. Today it bothers me specifically.

There was an amendment rejected at the Rules Committee offered by our colleagues, Mr. Schiff and Mr. Flake, that was similar to an amendment that I offered at the Select Committee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives. My amendment simply would have made the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act more transparent to the people who depend on it most. It was legislation more or less drafted at their request to clear perceived ambiguity in the current law.

My language would have made it clear, even to the people in President Bush's administration, what constituted domestic spying and what was foreign-based. Yesterday, the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, my friend, David Dreier, when he did not permit amendments on this floor said: ``Well, Democrats did not have a substitute.''

Well, today, we have one. And what is your excuse now, Mr. Chairman? Not to worry, it is a rhetorical question. The answer I well know is to squelch democracy here in the United States House of Representatives.

You beat with rulemaking that which you know you cannot beat with reason. And what message does that send to those that would follow our lead, those we are trying to teach our Democracy Assistants Commission? I know what you say: do as we say, not as we do. For today, in the people's House, democracy is being eviscerated by those who recommend it to others.

I have said it before: the way the majority runs the House is shameful. It is hypocritical. It is un-American, and it is undemocratic, and it happens every single day that we have a closed rule, and in other circumstances as well.

Could it be any clearer that America needs a new direction? Stopping, thwarting the will of those of us in the House of Representatives who have a different point of view, or at least should have an opportunity to have discussed a different point of view and have the will of the body make the decision as to whether or not that point of view or the one offered by the majority ought prevail, should be what we should be about in democracy.

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this closed rule and the White House legislation which brings it to the floor.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, when we were in the Rules Committee in those hours of debate, how fast after that discussion when these people presented themselves did the rule come to the floor? In short, was there any deliberation?

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), my good friend.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 5\1/ 2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), my friend, who offered an amendment that I offered in the Select Committee on Intelligence.

My good friend, the distinguished gentleman from California, has cited again Franklin and those three other persons. But I would remind him that they did not yield all of their power to the President. They did consider that separation of power.

And Mrs. Wilson stated a minute ago that this bill puts in place rules of the road. The problem is that the rules are optional and the President gets to ignore them essentially whenever.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 1 minute to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I have some suggestions about implementing every tool at our disposal. The 9/11 Commission would be one.

I would urge the gentleman not to lecture us regarding our commitment. We offered a measure to improve this measure. Everyone wants to catch the same people you are talking about catching. There is no problem in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), my colleague on the Intelligence Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1\1/ 2\ minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to provide that the House will immediately consider legislation that implements the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, bipartisan commission, that this Congress has ignored up to this time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, we have spent the past few days debating constitutionally suspect bills that are designed, in my opinion, to advance the Republican midterm election political agenda rather than make real progress in the serious war on terror.

The 9/11 Commission gave Congress failing grades for good reason; we have failed to do all we can to protect our citizens. Why don't we take a few hours to debate the proposals that this bipartisan panel of experts has advised would actually make our borders more secure and help us stop the next terrorist attack? A debate like this may not fit into the majority's midterm election strategy, but it might actually lead to some good policy.

Again, I urge a no vote on the previous question, so we can have a debate and vote on the recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission. Please vote ``no'' on this closed rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, according to the majority leader, the House will adjourn 2 days from now and take a political vacation for 6 weeks. We will do this despite the fact that we will leave 300 million Americans less safe than if we stay here and implement the recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission.

Continuing to do nothing in the face of continued threats to our people and our way of life is hardly what the American people elected us to do. The 9/11 Commission focused their recommendations into three broad areas: We need to attack terrorists and their organizations; we need to prevent the continued growth of Islamist terrorism; and we need to protect against and prepare for terrorist attacks.

It pains me to say, though the American people must know, this administration and this Congress have failed miserably on all three of these counts. Instead of going after terrorists, we invaded Iraq and have caused an all-out civil war there that costs American lives on a daily basis.

The war in Iraq has not prevented the growth of terrorism. We are learning now that it has actually enhanced the growth of terrorism. Instead of protecting and preparing for the next terrorist attack, we busy ourselves building partial ``let's pretend'' fences. I recommend and unanimously request that we consider the bipartisan recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, less jaw jacking and more action.

The able Chair, who is so articulate and capable, also is the master of immediate revisionist history. As he cites the whole set of events that have brought us here, he ignores the fact that over the weekend all of the negotiations were with the administration and with the Republican majority.

Go to the record from yesterday's Rules hearing, and you will find that Duncan Hunter, the Chair of the Armed Services Committee, said no Democrat was involved in those negotiations.

So how disingenuous can you be?

Mr. Chairman, I don't have sufficient time. If your body will give us time, then I will be happy to yield to you.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

No one really disputes whether or not this legislation is needed. In fact, all of us are acutely aware that it is imperative that we establish the legal parameters needed to properly apprehend and prosecute villains who act against this country. Those whom we deem a threat to our country should be given at least an opportunity to be put on trial properly, and if found guilty of their crimes, should be promptly put in prison or executed.

But our responsibility, that we are not discharging fairly, is to make law that is constitutional and consistent with our international obligations.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to support today's legislation in its current form. We cannot overturn hundreds of years of judicial precedent specifically referring to habeas corpus for the sake of political expediency.

Our judicial system has guaranteed the right to be heard in court, the right to know the evidence presented against you--when Mr. Cole was giving his litany of the rights that are being offered these terrible people, he left out that particular aspect--and an opportunity to contest your charge in a meaningful way. The government should not deny the minimum legal process to certain individuals now and risk the loss of freedom for all people in the future.

Additionally, as the Supreme Court has ruled--and I predicted before, you are going to get a chance to rule on the constitutionality of this measure, and it should have been expedited pursuant to the plan offered by Mr. Skelton that was ignored in the Rules Committee--the United States is required under the Supreme Court to uphold the standards codified in the Geneva Convention.

The current treatment of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay is questionable. Someone argued just a moment ago, what was the rush? We have this person who committed 9/11. And that is true. But everybody in the Intelligence Community has said all 14 of the prisoners that were transferred to Guantanamo, their intelligence has been exhausted and their value for intelligence has been exhausted.

We also run the risk of approving prior transgressions. I shan't spend much time on that.

This war on terror has reached global proportions and the world is watching our conduct closely. In the words of the distinguished late Senator William Fulbright, ``If America has a service to perform in the world, and I believe she has, it is in large part the service of her own example.''

I close, Mr. Speaker: Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Ask Ben Franklin. That is what he said.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution calling on the people of the world and their religious and political leaders to work towards ecumenical understanding and interfaith dialogue.

Usually, it is not my habit to address religious issues on the floor. I strongly believe in a person's right to religious freedom, as well as the separation of church and state. However, due to recent incidents in various parts of the world I am deeply concerned about the apparent lack of religious respect and tolerance. Therefore, I could not stand by without introducing this resolution.

Not just Christians and Jews, but also Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus and the followers of many other religions believe in values like peace, respect, tolerance and dignity. These are values that bring people together and enable us to build responsible and solid communities. I strongly believe that this is what religion is, or should be about. People all over the world share these universal values.

While few religious leaders and scholars would doubt the commonalities that exist among the various religious groups, the followers of these religions unfortunately struggle in their effort to peacefully coexist. It is my impression that too often, the differences in belief are stressed instead of their common grounds. Too frequently, religious feelings get hurt--sometimes intentionally, but more often, unintentionally.

In the last few weeks, we have again witnessed a lack of mutual understanding and misled reaction. These recent events have shown that even religious leaders are sometimes prone to lacking the adequate sensitivity in dealing with other people's beliefs. The reaction to this incident on the other hand was definitely disproportional, which indicates that the situation was used for political reasons.

The specific incident I am referring to is this: His Holiness Pope Benedict's debatable statement about the prophet Muhammad at a German university two weeks ago and the following unrest in parts of the Arab world. The subsequent unrest resulted in the murder of a nun in Somalia and the burning of churches in the Gaza Strip.

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned that many regions of this world are suffering from the effects of armed conflicts with religious aspects. I believe that the differences of faith are not the real reason for these conflicts. As a matter of fact, religious differences are actually exploited to convince people to participate in primarily political conflicts.

Given the fact that most religions share basic values, it is most unfortunate that religious people can be played off against each other so easily. One possible reason for this may be that people do not know enough about other people's beliefs.

This resolution encourages the peoples of the world and their political leaders, including the ones in our country, to learn about their neighbor's beliefs.

I am convinced that religious and spiritual understanding plays a positive role in facilitating trust and overcoming political differences.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution expresses our assistance for all projects that support a productive and constructive inter-faith dialogue. I know that there are people here in the States and in many other countries of the world, working hard on this issue. I am aware of the fact that some of them risk their political and social credibility or even their lives. All of them deserve our deepest recognition.

Moreover, I want us to urge political and religious leaders, and all peoples of the world, to move forward in a conciliatory spirit, to deal with religious matters in a responsible and balanced way, and to focus on their common grounds.

We all know that there will be no peace among the nations without peace among the religions, and we also know that there will be no peace among the religions without a dialogue among the religions. To support this dialogue and to show that we are conscious of its importance, I ask you to support this resolution.

I thank my colleague for yielding. I wish specifically to address the statement made by Chairman Ehlers, for whom I have the greatest respect. And he is my friend.

I disagree where you say, Mr. Chairman, that this is not an unfunded mandate. Although H.R. 4844 authorizes, as you correctly say and from the language of the bill, such sums as necessary to fund the program, it does not guarantee any funding to States to pay for the requirements of this bill.

The Help America Vote Act was authorized for $3.9 billion, and to date only $3.1 billion has been appropriated, leaving an $800 million shortfall. The sponsors of H.R. 4844 simply cannot guarantee that States won't be stuck with the bill for the costs imposed by this legislation.

The unfunded mandates law was the very first bill considered on the House floor when the Republicans took control of the Congress in January of 1995. I was here when it passed. They were highly critical of previous mandates imposed by Democratic Congresses and adamant about not allowing legislation to impose unfunded mandates on State and local governments as well as the private sector. Yet here we are today ready to impose enormous costs on these entities and on private citizens as well.

I support the point of order and ask that it prevail.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I am in opposition to this closed rule. This so-called Federal Election Integrity Act places an unconstitutional burden on the fundamental rights of eligible citizens to participate in our country's democratic process.

I agree with the words of President Lyndon Johnson when he said, ``The vote is the most powerful instrument ever devised by man for breaking down injustice and destroying the terrible wall which imprisons men and women because they are different from other men and women.''

Today, before millions of Americans, the majority is trying to reconstruct the walls of injustice and imprison our poor, disabled, elderly and young by putting up barriers to the voting process. This majority Congress has decided to embarrass itself further by coming up with a solution in search of a problem instead of passing legislation that would rectify actual problems that plague our citizens.

Out of all of the issues that this Congress could be considering in the last 2 weeks before we adjourn, the majority has decided that the priorities of the American people include trying to make voting harder for segments of our population that already have it difficult.

In today's USA Today, it says, ``Crisis Seen in Luggage Screening.'' And this is a report by TSA and airports highlighting the urgency of us needing to screen baggage that goes onto airplanes, and here we are screening voters who have done nothing wrong in the first place rather than dealing with urgent matters.

Although the majority of Americans have and use IDs as a routine matter, approximately 10 percent of the public, disproportionately people of color, elderly citizens, disabled citizens, and young people and low-income citizens, do not have government-issued photo IDs.

When I think about the latest schemes of the majority, I cannot help but think about who exactly this bill would affect. I call attention, for example, to elderly blacks born into segregation, as my mom and grandfather and grandmother were, and racism that existed in the pre- civil rights era in the South.

My mother was born in Florida in the early 20th century at a time when the birth of most blacks was not officially acknowledged by States or localities. This meant that my mom and thousands like her were not issued birth certificates. This practice continued in some areas of this country into the 1950s. Furthermore, many persons at this time do not drive, like my mom, so they never obtained licenses either.

Mr. Speaker, the claim that voter fraud is such a rampant problem is really beyond the pale. There is virtually no empirical evidence. I might add they held no hearings, did not take into consideration anything other than some nominal reports regarding this matter. There is virtually no empirical evidence that voter fraud with any frequency would warrant such a restrictive and potentially harmful legislation.

Furthermore, proponents of the voter ID requirements cannot even prove that existing safeguards do not adequately address the minimum problems of fraud. I heard all of the talk about something happened in Arizona and what the people did. All of that was prosecutable under the law as it exists. This legislation is nothing short of yet another political ploy at a political time when we are in high political dudgeon to bamboozle, disenfranchise American citizens.

The fact that this bill is being considered as a closed rule with no amendments and no debate confirms my suspicions that the majority is actively doing everything in its power to stifle democracy instead of letting it flourish.

Mr. Speaker, this country needs a new direction. This bill is nothing but a distraction to real issues that deserve real solution. Currently States have several alternative means to address potential problems associated with voter fraud. When those alternatives are executed correctly, which includes statewide voter registration databases, in- person affirmation and signature comparison, they pose less of a burden on eligible Americans than a mandatory ID. I also note that most of these alternatives have long been used successfully in States across the country.

If Republicans were serious about carrying out real election reform, they would not have voted against the two

amendments offered by my two good friends on the House Administration Committee, Ranking Member Millender-McDonald and Representative Lofgren, that sought to improve voter participation and access to polls.

As it stands, the current legislation before us today does absolutely nothing to alleviate the problems Florida had with recent elections on September 5, and would not address current problems that many States are still experiencing today.

Maryland, just last week, had all sorts of problems that this measure here would not have covered in their flawed election. I am not the only one who is concerned about the effectiveness of this bill. Our colleague, Lincoln Diaz-Balart, expressed extreme concern about there not being a paper trail in the voting process. I strongly agree with his concerns and those of Robert Wexler, who has fought the paper trail problem in my district, and note that this bill provides nothing, nothing, for States to improve electronic vote.

Several States, including Florida, Missouri, where Mr. Skelton is from and who will speak, has personal experience. Ohio, Michigan, Arizona, and the city of Albuquerque, New Mexico, have enacted voter ID requirements that have been challenged in court. Many have already been found unconstitutional and thrown out while others are still pending. Just yesterday, another judge, a superior court judge in Georgia, threw out that State's voter ID, which has been litigated ad nauseam.

For a party that doesn't like trial lawyers, the Republicans would almost guarantee big business with trial lawyers, with the increase of litigation that would immediately follow the passage of this litigation.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot bypass the opportunity to pursue real election reform. We cannot let the majority pass harmful and vague legislation that would only nullify the advances we have witnessed with such legislation like the Voting Rights Act.

Two years ago, in response to what I believe is going to be recited, that this is not an unfunded mandate, 2 years ago, the Democrats on the Appropriations Committee tried to provide funding under the Help America Vote Act, but the Republicans on that committee voted it down. So your argument that there would be funds for this falls on deaf ears. Once we pass a measure like this, the localities are going to have to bear the brunt, whether we fund it or not. Voting is for all of us, not just most of us. We can and must do better in the people's House.

For these reasons, I oppose this closed rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just wish to correct one thing with reference to President Carter. What he said was that there should be identification, not proof of citizenship, and that it should be free to everybody. I am sure he didn't allow for an unfunded mandate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, a decorated veteran and hero that all of us respect. I would be interested, the kind of hero that Ike Skelton is, that he tell his story; or hear his story about what happened to him.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ehlers continues to use Arizona. In the first 6 months of 2005, as a result of Arizona's Proposition 200, more than 10,000 Arizona citizens had their voter registrations rejected as a result of failure to provide adequate proof of citizenship. I think that is horrible.

Mr. Speaker, someone else that knows about protecting us from fraud is the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, who I believe has had a substantial career dealing with the subject of voter problems.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson).

Jimmy Carter also said that States should make voter registration and IDs accessible to all eligible citizens by using mobile offices and other means to register more voters and issue photo ID cards, and he also called for comprehensive electoral reform, which you all are not willing to do.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished minority whip, my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis), my good friend. Ms. Solis is the first Hispanic woman to be elected to the California senate. She has had a lot of experience in this voter business.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, it is only the things you cite, I just am curious. For beer or to cash a check or get on a plane or buy cigarettes or go into a building, do you need citizenship on that ID?

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), my good friend and classmate.

Mr. Speaker, I would advise my friend from Florida and colleague in the House of Representatives that the people that stole the election in 2000, in mine and your State, were not illegal immigrants.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), my good friend.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my very good friend from Arizona (Mr. Pastor). Arizona has been utilized an awful lot here. Perhaps we should hear from an Arizonan who was at Mr. Ehlers' hearing and could speak to this issue.

(Mr. PASTOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I am prepared to close at this time, and I yield myself the remainder of the time.

Mr. Speaker, I will submit for the Record the Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform Report that appeared in the American University. In addition thereto, I will submit for the Record an Atlanta Journal article referring to the Georgia Supreme Court's denial of this same measure.

Mr. Speaker, you know where some fraud is occurring, as much as this seems to be ringing alarm bells in the majority? There is a lot of fraud in Medicare in the United States of America, there is a lot of fraud in Medicaid. We could drive right across 14th Street Bridge and go over there and find all that fraud at the Pentagon if we wanted to hunt up some real fraud. And we could really go to Iraq and trace the money that has been wasted in Iraq's reconstruction if we want to find some fraud. I mean, those are some urgent things.

To buy beer, you don't need to be a citizen if you have photo ID. To cash a check, you don't have to be a citizen. To get on a plane, you don't have to be a citizen. To buy cigarettes, you don't have to be a citizen. And now you come up with the precursor to a national ID card. And that is really what this is, after we get past all the mumbling, fumbling, and words that we are saying.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can amend this rule to allow the House to consider the Millender-McDonald amendment that was offered in the Rules Committee late last night, but was rejected.

I ask unanimous consent to print the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, if the leadership is insistent on the moving forward with this divisive bill, which I might add ain't going to pass the Senate, let's at least allow the ranking member of the committee of jurisdiction to offer her amendment to try and address some of the more egregious provisions in the bill.

The Millender-McDonald amendment would establish uniform standards for the treatment of provisional balance and clarify criminal penalties for voter fraud under the Help America Vote Act. It would codify a Federal court decision that HAVA matching requirements are intended as an administrative safeguard, not as a restriction on voter eligibility. And it would recommend to the States additional fraud-prevention methods. Finally, it would exempt senior citizens, the disabled, and the military and their families from onerous photo ID requirements in the bill.

Mr. Speaker, nonparticipation in the election process is more of a problem in this country than noncitizens trying to vote. This bill will do more to keep eligible American citizens away from the polls than it will do to fix the nonexistent problems of ineligible immigrants sneaking in to vote in our Federal elections.

If we must take up this problem in search of a solution, let's at least allow the Millender-McDonald amendment to be included. I ask that we vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can consider this important amendment.

[From AU News, Sept. 19, 2005]

Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform Stresses Urgency of

Reform

Washington, DC.--Former President Jimmy Carter and former

Secretary of State James A. Baker, III will conduct meetings

with President Bush and Congressional leaders today to

discuss recommendations in the final report of the Commission

on Federal Election Reform, which they co-chaired.

The 21-member Commission, which conducted public hearings

in Washington and Houston, offers 87 recommendations to

strengthen the country's electoral system and build

confidence among voters in the political process. The

Commissioners met with political leaders Monday in order to

stress the need for change before the 2008 presidential

election.

``Elections are the heart of our democracy,'' Carter said.

``The Help America Vote Act of 2002 made an historic

contribution, but one law is not enough. The American people

are losing confidence in the system, and they want electoral

reform. We have forged a comprehensive package of reforms

that represent the best path toward modernizing our electoral

system, and we hope that the President, the Congress, and the

states will consider them seriously.''

``We hope that this report will help transform the sterile

debate between Democrats and Republicans on election reform

issues and provide the impetus for our federal and state

leaders to take action now, when we still have plenty of time

before our next presidential election,'' Baker said.

The 21-member private commission is organized by American

University. Comprised of former Members of Congress, scholars

and nonpartisan leaders, the group identified ``five

pillars'' of election reform--voter registration, voter

identification, voting technology, increased access to voting

and nonpartisan election administration--and recommended ways

to strengthen them. Highlights include:

To address the most serious problem of inaccurate

registration lists, the Commission recommends that states,

not local jurisdictions, organize and update their lists, and

that the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) take the

lead in making the lists interoperable so as to eliminate

duplicates when people move between states.

To enhance ballot integrity, states should require voters

to present a REAL ID card at the polls and provide non-

drivers with a free photo ID card for voting, but during a

transition, citizens without a card should be permitted to

vote with a provisional ballot.

States should make voter registration and IDs accessible to

all eligible citizens by using mobile offices and other means

to register more voters and issue photo ID cards.

Congress should pass a law to require voter-verifiable

paper audit trails on all electronic voting machines, and the

EAC needs to take additional steps to ensure those machines

are secure and accessible for people with disabilities.

The U.S. Election Assistance Commission and state election

management institutions should be strengthened and

reconstituted on a nonpartisan basis.

The presidential primary schedule should be reorganized

into four regional primaries.

The full report is available on the Commission Web site at

http://www.american.edu/Carter-Baker.

The Commission's Co-Chairs will have a press conference on

Capitol Hill at 1:30 pm in the Hall of Columns. President

Carter will also be speaking at American University at 4 pm,

and that will be open to the media.

American University's Center for Democracy and Election

Management (CDEM) organized the work of the Commission in

association with the James A. Baker III Institute for Public

Policy at Rice University, The Carter Center and

electionline.org, sponsored by The Pew Charitable Trusts.

General sponsors include Carnegie Corporation of New York,

the Ford Foundation, the John S. and James L. Knight

Foundation and Omidyar Network. CDEM Director Robert A.

Pastor is executive director of the Commission and serves as

a Commission member.

In addition to Carter, Baker and Pastor, Commission Members

include:

Betty Castor, the 2004 Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate

in Florida.

Tom Daschle, former U.S. Senate Minority Leader from South

Dakota.

Rita DiMartino, former vice president of congressional

relations for AT&T.

Lee Hamilton, president and director of the Woodrow Wilson

International Center for Scholars and a former Member of

Congress from Indiana.

Kay Coles James, former director of the U.S. Office of

Personnel Management.

Benjamin Ladner, president and professor of philosophy and

religion at American University.

David Leebron, president of Rice University in Houston, TX.

Nelson Lund, professor of constitutional law at George

Mason University in Arlington, VA.

Shirley Malcom, head of the Directorate for Education and

Human Resources Programs of the American Association for the

Advancement of Science (AAAS).

Bob Michel, former U.S. House Whip and House Minority

Leader from Illinois.

Susan Molinari, president and CEO of the Washington Group,

a government relations and lobbying firm, and former Member

of Congress from New York.

Robert Mosbacher, chairman of Mosbacher Energy Company and

past chairman of the Republican National Committee.

Ralph Munro, former Washington secretary of state and board

member for various voting and Internet technology comparues.

Jack Nelson, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist and former

Washington bureau chief for the Los Angeles Times.

Spencer Overton, professor specializing in voting rights

and campaign finance law at The George Washington University

Law School in Washington, DC.

Tom Phillips, former chief justice of the Supreme Court of

Texas.

Sharon Priest, former Arkansas secretary of state and

current chair of the Arkansas State Election Improvement

Study Commission and the State Board of Election

Commissioners.

Raul Yzaguirre, presidential professor of practice in

community development and civil rights at Arizona State

University and former president of the National Council of La

Raza.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas, my friend, Mr. Sessions, for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule and the underlying legislation, which is nothing more than political gamesmanship in the run-up to the mid-term election. Sounds good, does nothing.

To paraphrase the Vice President, it seems to me that the majority is in the last throes of keeping control of the House and is throwing vacuous public policy at us in a vain attempt to fool the American public. Well, Mr. Speaker, I believe the American people are much smarter than that. They can see

through these charades to see that this country needs a new direction.

This bill is a case in point. If you were to believe my colleague, my friend from Texas, Mr. Sessions, and the other proponents of this legislation, this bill would lead to the construction of a fence along some parts of the United States-Mexican border. But guess what? This bill does not authorize a single nickel or dime for construction.

I asked the distinguished chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, our colleague, and my friend, Peter King of New York, yesterday, point-blank, in the Rules Committee, ``Does this bill fund construction of a fence along our border?'' The transcript of the Rules Committee hearing will back me up when I say that Chairman King answered with, ``No, but.'' And Members of the majority party always seem to have an excuse at the ready when they pretend to legislate but simply pontificate.

If Americans want to see results instead of rhetoric, if taxpayers would like solutions instead of sound bites, and hard work instead of horse trading, I suggest you take a short look, and it won't take much longer, at the accomplishments of this Congress.

I don't intend to waste too much of our time on this lazy attempt at legislating. I will let others do that. However, there are a few other things to consider when thinking about this bill.

This so-called border security bill not only doesn't spend a nickel, a penny, or a dime of money to construct a fence, it also does not increase the number of Border Patrol agents, customs, and immigration enforcement authorities.

It doesn't help law enforcement. It doesn't provide accountability, and it won't stop illegal immigration into this country.

I said in last night's meeting, there ain't no mountain high enough and there ain't no river valley wide enough to stop the tide of what is happening on our border unless we do it comprehensively.

Get real, folks. If the Congress had any real intent in making this country safer and more secure, they would have allowed the ranking Democratic member of the Homeland Security Committee to offer a substitute bill.

If our colleague and my very good friend, Mr. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, had an opportunity to offer his legislation, then we could have had a serious debate. But, of course, the majority has no interest in allowing the House to work its will; thus, closed this rule. That only happens in a democracy. But had Mr. Thompson been allowed to offer his substitute, we would have seen what a real homeland security bill looks like.

The Thompson legislation would have provided the technology, personnel and equipment needed to monitor and secure every mile of the border 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. And there is no one in this body or in America that is concerned about this issue that does not understand the need to secure our borders. Everybody knows that.

The Thompson legislation authorized 3,000 additional Border Patrol agents. It would have allowed for the creation of 2,000 more immigration officials and hundreds more detention officials. It would have enlisted 250 more Federal marshals and more than 70 new judgeships to deal strictly with immigration issues.

Yes, all of this could have been considered today on the House floor. It would have been considered if the majority party was truly interested in protecting the American people instead of their own positions as the majority. Sounds good, does nothing.

I invite my colleague, Mr. Sessions, to point out in this legislation where any money is spent to put a border along the United States-Mexico border.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this closed rule and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), if the gentleman you described was in the back of a car, in the trunk, then he came through a port of entry. He didn't ride across no mountain, and you could have built every fence on Earth and he still could have been in the back of the car.

Now let me straighten you out on something else. We already, with the Hunter amendment to the border security measure, passed the identical language that is in here. This is nothing but political gamesmanship when all is said and done. And for you to say that we have to do this before we can authorize puts the lie to you being in the majority. You have the power to authorize. You could authorize. Don't tell the American people that we have to wait for some mish-mash language that has no money in it to build a fence, that that is the only way that we can do that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to Mr. Royce to respond.

So you also favor a fence along the Canadian border because terrorists have come through from that area as well?

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Royce, I am tired of studying and the American people are tired of studying. The Thompson substitute that was not allowed because of this closed rule does, in fact, do what is necessary for secure borders.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am more than pleased to yield 5 minutes to a colleague that I served with on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and who, for 26 years, was in charge of border security, the chief of two major regions of border security and who happened to be at the hearings that you were at, Mr. Royce, my distinguished colleague, Silvestre Reyes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, before yielding again to Mr. Reyes, I would say to Mr. Souder, there is nobody here that has opposition. We have already passed a measure that has 370 miles of fencing. Why don't the people over here just fess up? Their argument is against the Senate plan that has a guest worker program in it. It already has fence in it, so that is not even the issue.

What I continue to ask, and I invite Mr. Sessions again to answer, is whether or not the measure we are discussing today has one penny, one nickel or one dime in it to build a fence.

Mr. Speaker, I yield an additional minute to Mr. Reyes to respond to some of the matters that were brought to our attention earlier.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this place never ceases to amaze me. Our friend from Michigan talks about the southern border. I gather that there is no illegal immigration on the northern border which she lives close to.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague and good friend, the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), who is the distinguished ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee and author of the substitute that was not allowed under this closed rule, that would handle the problems of comprehensive border control as well as immigration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume before yielding to my good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas, just to say to the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, last night in the Rules Committee I asked him a simple question. He said he can't for the life of him understand what our opposition is, just because we can't do everything, we do nothing.

This measure that we are discussing today does nothing other than provide midterm yacking before the election. There are no dollars, not a penny, not a nickel, not a dime in this measure to build any fence. We have already passed legislation that has 370 miles of fences in it.

So why are we here? We have got an election coming up. That is why we are here. So you have to do things to put on a bumper sticker.

The American public can see through this charade. There isn't opposition to

protecting the border. But we are saying that you cannot come forward with something that does nothing, and that is what this is. Nothing. Talk. We need action.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), who has attended a lot of these hearings that we are talking about and is a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee and the Homeland Security Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at this time to yield an additional 1 minute to my colleague from Texas, the distinguished gentleman, Mr. Silvestre Reyes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

As I close, Mr. Speaker, I say what I said earlier, and that is the measure that we are discussing today sounds good, is needed, in part, along with comprehensive immigration reform, but does nothing.

Mr. Speaker, last night in the Rules Committee I misquoted the song, but the intent was the same: There ain't no mountain high enough and there ain't no river wide enough to stop people from seeking a better opportunity for themselves.

Some years ago outside Boynton Beach in Florida, I was among the first people to arrive at the scene of Haitian immigrants who were seeking to enter our country illegally. They all had died, and I stepped over the body of a nude pregnant woman. That hurt me an awful lot, that in seeking freedom and opportunity she and her unborn child were in that posture. I have seen many a situation where Cubans have lost their lives seeking to come to this country.

We need to get a grip and understand that we cannot become neoisolationists in a society as diverse as our own and that the most brilliant people that I know serve here in the House of Representatives on both sides of the aisle and those persons are very capable of advancing comprehensive immigration reform that will address all of our needs, including border security.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members of this House to vote ``no'' on the previous question so I can amend the rule and make in order the substitute offered by Homeland Security Ranking Member Thompson and Representative Reyes. This amendment was offered in the Rules Committee last night but was rejected.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment and extraneous materials be printed in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, the Reyes-Thompson substitute provides for a comprehensive approach to our border security, not simply the inadequate piecemeal approach called for in the underlying bill. The substitute requires the Department of Homeland Security to develop a comprehensive border security strategy with increased Border Patrol agent deployment as well as increased surveillance using advanced technology. It provides long-term financial support for significant increases in personnel to help the Border Patrol meet its mission, including Border Patrol agents, Immigration and Customs agents, United States marshals, Coast Guard personnel, port of entry inspectors, canine enforcement teams, and other vital personnel necessary to guard and protect our borders more effectively. It will provide needed equipment such as helicopters, power boats, radio communications, night vision equipment, body armor, and other crucial tools in the war against terror.

The substitute also reestablishes the 9/11 Commission to allow them to fulfill their mission and to provide oversight and accountability.

I urge all Members of this body to vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can bring up this comprehensive and responsible alternative that will actually do something to help make this Nation less vulnerable to those from outside who would do us harm.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, would my colleague answer one question for me.

In the measure that is before us today, is there any money in this measure to build any kind of fence?

I thank Mr. Gingrey for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule and to the underlying bill. In 1934, Congress had established Federal Prison Industries, or FPI, a government corporation that employs inmates in Federal prisons to produce goods and services for the Federal Government.

FPI employs nearly 20,000 inmates in more than 100 prison factories to manufacture a number of products for the United States Government. Prisoners manufacture such items as clothing, textiles, fleet management of the vehicle components, graphics and industrial products in return for cheap labor. Inmates receive valuable job training opportunities that teach them the necessary skills that may help them become productive, hardworking citizens once they reenter society.

Under current Federal law, FPI is a mandatory source of goods and services for Federal agencies. That means, Mr. Speaker, that any agency that wants to buy at least $2,500 worth of goods and services must first seek to do so through FPI. If FPI cannot process an order, the agency is then given a waiver to make the purchase from another source.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation seeks to phase out the preference given to Federal Prison Industries in contracts with Federal agencies. Supporters claim that it is unfair to exclusively employ prisoners when small businesses and private firms want to secure contracts with the Federal Government.

However, I claim if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I claim that it is unfair to spend more than half a billion tax dollars to dissolve an effective and self-sustaining program. I claim that it is unfair to obligate an additional $75 million a year for the next 5 years to implement an educational and vocational program to replace an already successful educational and vocational program.

This seems to me to be an extraordinarily wasteful way to spend American taxpayers' dollars. As a former judge, I know the importance of prison

employment training programs. I personally witnessed the benefits of giving prisoners constructive work while they are incarcerated. While the Federal Prison Industries may need reform, I propose we seek other options. I propose we first ask the Bureau of Prisons what they think about reforming Federal Prison Industries.

I propose we ask the Federal agencies that receive FPI products and services what improvements can be made. I am not convinced that this particular bill is necessary or that it is the best solution in reforming Federal Prison Industries.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why this bill could not have been considered under an open rule. It was in the last Congress, and this same measure passed in the last Congress, 350-65, was not taken up by the U.S. Senate, is not going to be taken up by the United States Senate in the next 2 weeks and probably not even in a lame duck session.

There weren't very many of our colleagues who offered amendments at the Rules Committee last night, and of the Members who were not permitted to offer their amendments, Mr. Scott from the Judiciary Committee and Mr. Rohrabacher, a Democrat and a Republican, each had thoughtful amendments, which the full House should have been given the opportunity to debate.

We didn't vote yesterday until 6:30 in the evening, and there isn't anything at least firm on the schedule on the floor Friday. So why not let the House work its will? Why continue to stamp out democracy here in the people's House while feigning to advocate democracy around the globe. It really kind of makes you go hmm, and it makes me wonder, Mr. Speaker.

For all of the above reasons, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and the underlying bill

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Costa).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume only to respond to my good friend from Georgia that I am prepared, as I am sure all Members in this body are, to stipulate that this is an important matter. The question that I would ask and answer rhetorically is, is this the most important thing that we could be doing here? If it is, I am missing something, because I did not see the minimum wage, I did not see port security, I did not see the appropriations bills. All we have done is two of the 13 up to now.

So if this is the most important thing, which has already passed in a previous session of Congress 350-65, and ain't going to pass the other body this week or next or before September 29, when the majority leader has said that we will go sine die during that particular weekend, I am here to tell you that this is a woeful response, and it is more than credible that it will make the suggestion that people make come to fruition that this is a do-nothing Congress, when in fact we are taking up something that may very well be important, but it sure ain't the most important thing to Jane and Joe Lunch Bucket in America.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Most quickly, have we done the appropriations measures, and can the gentleman assure me that between now and September 29 we will pass the rest of the appropriations measures in the House of Representatives

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of a resolution calling on Iran to immediately fulfill its nuclear nonproliferation obligations.

On August 31, 2006, Iran rejected United Nations Security Council Resolution 1696 requesting that Iran suspend all uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities, including research and development within 1 month or face economic and diplomatic sanctions.

In a report the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, released that same day, the agency discussed proof of Iran's continued pursuit of its nuclear program, as well as evidence that Iran might be pursuing alternative nuclear activities in secret.

For decades, Iran has been deceiving the IAEA and the international community about the extent and the purpose of its nuclear program. Iran has consistently failed to provide sufficient information about its nuclear capabilities and has failed to fully cooperate with international nuclear nonproliferation laws. Time and time again, Iran has scorned diplomatic and economic propositions offered by the global community.

The United States cannot afford to stand aside now and allow Iran to continue with their pattern of nuclear defiance.

This is why I am calling for this resolution, which calls for the full implementation of Security Council Resolution 1696; asking the Security Council members to move forward quickly and apply appropriate multilateral sanctions against Iran. This resolution also calls upon President Bush to implement and exhaust every diplomatic and economic sanction at his disposal to prevent a nuclear Iran.

Iran's strategic plan is blatantly obvious: With one hand it is stringing along diplomatic negotiations with the world's powers, while the hand behind its back continues to pursue nuclear activities. In doing so, Iran is successfully driving a wedge between the international communities. Iran remains defiant banking on the assumption that the United Nations Security Council will be unwilling to agree on imposing sanctions on their country.

Iran's pattern of insubordination is extremely troubling to me. Even more troubling to me is the reluctance of the international community to unite together and take immediate action against the threat posed by a nuclear Iran.

This past weekend, European Union, EU, leaders met with an Iranian negotiator in an attempt to persuade Iran to suspend its nuclear enrichment. And just last week, top diplomats from the EU-3: Britain, France, and Germany, as well as the United States, met in Berlin for the first time since Iran refused to accept the United Nations deadline to halt its uranium production.

But while these meetings signal progress, they will accomplish nothing if all of the Security Council members do not completely implement resolution 1696. Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany, and the United States voted for this resolution; now they must champion what it calls for.

The need to implement multilateral sanctions and for the United States to apply all diplomatic and economic sanctions at its disposal against Iran is growing steadily.

Over the years we have seen how Iran's defiance against the international community has galvanized extremist groups in Iraq, Gaza and Lebanon. In the most recent example of the cross-border attack by the terrorist group Hezbollah against Israel--largely financed and supported by the Iranian Government--we saw the devastating impact that Iranian assistance to militia groups can generate.

On the day following the 5-year commemoration of 9/11, our Nation is still vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Allowing a primary sponsor of international terror to advance their nuclear capabilities, burgeons the terrorist threat posed to our Nation.

Iran poses a huge and existential danger to our democratic ally Israel as well. For years, President Ahmadinejad has spewed anti- Semitic rhetoric and has denied the Holocaust's existence. Iran's nuclear intentions are no secret. President Ahmadinejad is on a national crusade of hatred and ultimate destruction against Israel and the United States.

Moreover, in one of the most unstable regions in the world, Iran continues to remain a highly destabilizing force. A nuclear Iran only intensifies the threat Iran currently poses to the security of the entire global community.

Mr. Speaker, let us take a moment to consider the consequences of allowing a repressive anti-Semitic regime with ideological goals, extensive oil production capabilities, and an active sponsor of global terrorism, to possess nuclear powers. The possibilities are endless and progressively more dangerous. A nuclear arms race in the Middle East could break out, or Iran could garner support elsewhere in the Muslim world and successfully advance their radical ideological movement against the West.

Many in the international community had hoped that Iran would realize that advancing their nuclear program makes their country less safe, not more. But Iran made its choice. It has not only failed to meet the demands of the United Nations Resolution 1696, it has defied the resolution and the international community. And now it must pay the price of sanctions.

I ask all of my distinguished colleagues to join me and co-sponsor this resolution to request that the Security Council members and the United States reply with an immediate and meaningful response to Iran's longstanding pattern of nuclear noncompliance.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a resolution expressing our deepest gratitude to Cyprus and Turkey.

We are all following the news from the Middle East with concern and regret. The Lebanese South--for many years a region of civil war, of mortal fear and hopelessness--is burning again. Parts of Israel are suffering under permanent rocket fire. The military actions are causing humanitarian difficulties, as well. Thousands of Americans and Europeans are suffering in the region. When Hezbollah started their offensive against Israel, there were at least 25,000 American citizens in Lebanon.

The current situation painfully reminds me of Lebanon in the year 1983, when 241 Americans were killed in a suicide bombing. It also brings to mind the evacuation of American citizens from Iran in 1979 and from Vietnam in 1975.

However, we must remain optimistic. There is some light in the darkness, something not to overlook in these sorrowful days: Even at a time when the United States is not the most beloved country in the world, we can feel that we are not alone. We are not alone in our efforts to save the lives of our citizens. True friendship is shown in difficult times, and I am glad it does.

I hope we are all aware that the United States could never manage the evacuation of 25,000 citizens without reliable partners in the region. Bearing this in mind, I feel deeply grateful not only toward two governments but also towards two people: The governments and people of the Republics of Cyprus and Turkey.

Cyprus opened her doors to Americans evacuating Lebanon. On July 15th, a short-time after the Israeli reaction started, the Cypriot government declared its readiness to assist efforts for the evacuation of U.S. citizens and other nationals fleeing Lebanon.

The government set up a committee to organize the reception of thousands of evacuees--between 5,000 and 10,000 were expected just in the first week of the evacuation. Keeping in mind that the Republic of Cyprus does not have more than 750,000 inhabitants, this is an enormous task.

Thousands of American citizens have already been evacuated to Cyprus. Many of them breathed a big sigh of relief! We received reports about the extraordinary hospitality offered to our evacuees. The Cypriot people obviously know about the needs of people suffering under war and terror due to their own painful history of war and separation.

Besides Cyprus, our Turkish friends also offered their support. For the purpose of the evacuation of American citizens they provided their Mediterranean seaport Mersin. From there our evacuees can easily be transported to the U.S. military base of Incirlik. The Turkish offer is also an expression of our deep and strong alliance.

Today, we should express our hope that the excellent cooperation of the last several weeks will be continued.

It is also time to recognize the responsible roles the Turkish and the Cypriot governments are playing in their efforts to stabilize the Middle East, and encourage them to proceed.

Let us keep in mind: Real friendship is proven in times of crisis, and we can be appreciative that it does. Let us support this process sending a message of gratitude to our friends in Cyprus and Turkey!

Thank you Cyprus, thank you Turkey!

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Louisiana. I appreciate it very much.

I just rise to thank Major Owens for his steadfastness, not only in this particular area but in the area of education generally. The time is coming when Major will not shepherd any longer any of these measures, but certainly all of us are grateful to him.

Also, I am grateful to my classmate and colleague for bringing this legislation to the floor. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I can join the list. I heard Danny Davis, my good friend from Illinois, speak of his experiences.

In 1953, I left Sanford, Florida, on a train for Nashville to attend Fisk University, one of the Historically Black Colleges that has been recognized. I left there and came here to Howard University and left there and went to Florida A&M University, where I achieved my JD degree.

Ms. Brown, my colleague and classmate, spoke momentarily about Florida's schools. I have taught at Florida Memorial, been a Board of Trustee member at Bethune, and I am a graduate of Florida A&M University.

If it were not for those Historically Black Colleges, I would not be here. That may be something that a lot of people wish didn't happen, but it happened, and I am proud of it, and I thank my colleagues.