Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding and it is at this time my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Davis.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

I rise in opposition to H.R. 1905, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act. There is no doubt that citizens of the District of Columbia have no full voting representation in the House of Representatives. However, there are ways that these individuals can receive representation without trampling on the Constitution. Unfortunately, this bill is not one of them.

The Constitution does not mince words when it says that Members of Congress may only be elected from the States. Article I, section 2 states that the House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the several States.

The Constitution also does not mince words when it distinguishes the District of Columbia from a State. In describing the powers of the Congress, article I, section 8 describes the seat of Federal Government as a district, not exceeding 10 miles square, as made by cessation of particular States and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of government of the United States.

Furthermore, the text of the 23rd amendment to the Constitution further illustrates that the District was never meant to have the same rights as States. Specifically, it grants D.C. the power to appoint a number of electors of President and Vice President, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State.

We amended the United States Constitution for that purpose. If the advocates of this seek to do the same for representation in the House, they need to amend the United States Constitution.

The plain language of the Constitution is clear, that D.C. is not a State and that it is not granted the same rights as States.

However, the constitutional problems with this bill do not end here. The bill would also establish an at-large Representative for Utah, which would allow the citizens of Utah to vote twice, once for their Representative from their district, and once for another Representative at large. This would clearly violate the constitutional principle of one-man, one-vote by granting Utah citizens disproportionately large voting power.

Adding insult to injury, this new bill we have before us today does not include the language from the previous bill, H.R. 1433, to eliminate the position of D.C. Delegate. Under this new

bill, it appears that the District of Columbia would not only unconstitutionally be granted the same voting rights that State residents enjoy, but it would give D.C. greater representation than any State currently enjoys. The D.C. Delegate would continue to be eligible to vote in committee, and in the Committee of the Whole; and in addition, the new D.C. Representative would also be eligible to vote in committee and on the floor.

While every other district would get one vote in committee and on the floor, the District of Columbia would get two votes in committee and two votes on the floor under this new language.

Finally, the procedure for bringing this bill to the floor is, again, appalling. Debate has been blocked on a bill that affects the relative voting power of citizens in each of our congressional districts. The majority has once again denied us even the opportunity to discuss amendments, including an amendment by Ranking Member Smith to simply provide for an expedited judicial review of the bill after it is enacted in order to determine its constitutionality.

Furthermore, it is very telling and disappointing that the majority has decided that it would rather violate its own PAYGO rules than allow an open and fair discussion on the underlying bill.

For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this very poorly crafted legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to the gentleman from Alabama.

The second amendment to the Constitution refers to the ``State.'' When the Constitution refers to the ``States,'' meaning today 50 States, then 13 States, it is referring to them in the plural. The ``State'' in the second amendment refers to the country collectively.

And to the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for whom I have great respect but also great disagreement on this issue, I hope that given the fact that we do acknowledge a difference of opinion on what the Constitution says means that he will join with us in seeking for expedited judicial review if, as I hope is not the case, this should be passed and sent to the courts for their review.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on each side.

At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes, and I would like to pose a couple of questions to the distinguished majority leader.

I have listened to his historical discourse. As the gentleman knows, Alexander Hamilton, one of our Founding Fathers, offered an amendment during the writing of our Constitution that would have provided voting rights to the citizens of the District of Columbia. It was defeated and not included in our Constitution. At that time, both portions of Maryland and portions of Virginia were included in a 100-square-mile area, and in 1846, the portion that had come from Virginia was ceded back to Virginia.

I wonder if the gentleman, having posed the question about the constitutional amendment, would respond to the question, if this is ruled unconstitutional, as many of us think it is, would the gentleman bring to the floor legislation that would do something similar for the portions of the District of Columbia, excepting key government buildings, so that the citizens would have the opportunity to vote with the citizens of his State, Maryland, for whom he can speak with some regard?

I would ask the gentleman further, if when the court, and I hope the court does, determines that this is unconstitutional, if in getting to that process, recognizing there are going to be lots of uncertainties if this bill were passed and signed into law, both for citizens of Utah, for the District of Columbia and for the operation of the Congress as a whole, if he would join with us in supporting an expedited judicial review to receive a prompt determination of the constitutionality of this legislation?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond.

I would say, with due respect to the majority leader, the motion to recommit was offered as an amendment. No amendments were made in order, so it is our only recourse to offer it in those circumstances. I take the gentleman's statement as his word that he is going to oppose it for valid reasons, but I frankly see no valid reasons why we should not have expedited review of this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time and simply say that I think this has been an excellent debate. I think there is good faith on both sides. But I do believe very, very strongly, as do I think many, many other people, that this is the wrong way to go about correcting the lack of a vote for residents of the District of Columbia, which the other side has clearly pointed out should be corrected. But there are correct ways to do it. An amendment to the United

States Constitution, what Virginia did with recession of the land to Maryland and allowing the citizens to vote in Maryland are both good solutions.

We should defeat this ill-conceived and unconstitutional legislation because the plain meaning of the Constitution, the words of the Constitution, cannot be altered by this House. And if we start doing that, we are indeed betraying our oaths. Defeat this legislation and do it right.

I thank the gentleman. I thank the majority leader and the Speaker and the other Members of our delegation for their comments.

The tranquil campus of Virginia Tech and the town of Blacksburg has been shattered by the actions of a lone gunman. The horror that the Virginia Tech community has experienced this week is something that every parent, every American hopes they never have to learn has affected their families and friends.

I have a great appreciation for Virginia Tech, one of America's preeminent research institutions, having advanced from one of the original land grant universities. Thousands of people in my district which neighbors Blacksburg have gone to school there, have sent their children there, and are members of Hokie Nation. During my time in this body, I have had graduates and students of Virginia Tech work and intern for me. For years I have known what a special place it is, with its affiliated campuses and offices spread throughout the Sixth District and across the great Commonwealth of Virginia. Yet it is with great sadness that the rest of the world has come to know the compassion of Virginia Tech only through this tragedy. Although this horrendous and unspeakable violence showed the worst of mankind, it also showed what those of us who have been a part of the Tech community for years have always known--the students, the instructors, the administrators, and the citizens of Blacksburg care deeply for one another and take great pride in their community. Even in the worst circumstances, the Virginia Tech community showed great compassion for their fellow man and did what they could to help each other. Liviu

Librescu, a survivor of the Holocaust, blocked the doorway of his classroom so that his students could climb out the windows to safety. Ryan Clark, a resident adviser in the West Ambler Johnston Hall, rushed into the hallway to help his fellow students when the first attack came and became the second victim. And I was deeply saddened to learn that one of my constituents, Henry Lee, a graduate of William Fleming High School in Roanoke, was among those who died in the attack on Norris Hall. Two other of my constituents from Harrisonburg, Virginia, Heidi Miller, an undergraduate, and Guillermo Colman, a graduate student, were wounded and thankfully are okay. Now, following this brutal action, throughout the campus and community, students are relying on each other to cope with what has happened, but they will not let the sorrow and pain that has overtaken them this week be the lasting legacy to those whose lives were lost. Under the leadership of President Charles Steger, the Virginia Tech community will become stronger as a result of this. Their compassion will reach far beyond the town of Blacksburg, deep into what is affectionately known as Hokie Nation. Their vocal pride in their community will not be silenced by the actions of one misguided soul.

I was very moved as I witnessed the process begun yesterday at the convocation at Cassell Coliseum. Speaker after speaker, including the President, the Governor, and so many great leaders at Tech spoke of not only the grief, but of overcoming the grief and moving forward to a brighter and better future.

For the families who have lost sons and daughters, fathers and brothers, mothers and sisters, I grieve for you and your loved ones. You will forever remain in the prayers of this Nation, and I hope that in time you can come to find peace.

For the Virginia Tech community, although we grieve today, and what has happened will never leave our minds, I know that you will take this tragedy and use it to build a stronger campus and a more compassionate community for all.

Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to H. Con. Res. 99, which has been

called the single biggest tax increase in American history.

However, I rise today to express my extreme disappointment that the majority decided to oppose debate on an amendment I offered to express the sense of Congress that the money the Federal Government spends is not the Government's, but rather the hard-earned dollars of the American taxpayer. My amendment also declares that Congress has a duty to guard against waste and excessive spending, that Congress should balance the Federal budget, and that Congress should expeditiously pass a constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget.

It is common sense to American families that they cannot spend more than they have-- yet far too frequently, this fundamental principle has been lost on a Federal Government that is too busy spending to pay attention to the bottom line. Unless Congress is forced to balance the Federal budget, it will always have the all-too-tempting option of shirking this responsibility.

On the first day of this Congress, I introduced H.J. Res. 1, a constitutional amendment requiring Congress to balance the budget, which has garnered 159 bipartisan cosponsors. I hereby renew my call on Congress to pass this crucial legislation, which also makes it harder to raise taxes.

However, in the meantime, my simple amendment to the budget resolution would have been the least we could do to show the American people that Congress is committed to the same fiscal principles that America's families face each day. It is very telling that the majority thought it best to sweep this debate under the rug.

Regarding the merits of the underlying Democrat resolution, it assumes the expiration of all the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and adds those revenues, some $392 billion, into the budget over time. At the same time, they have chosen to increase discretionary spending. In fact, under the Democrat budget, appropriated spending is projected to increase faster than the rate of projected inflation. By increasing taxes on the American people in order to fund their own priorities, the Democrats assume that they know how to better spend the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars.

For America's farmers and ranchers already facing increased input costs, increased taxes would further add insult to injury. For many farmers and ranchers, this budget appears to hold the key to bolstering the budget for American agriculture. This bill purports to provide the Agriculture Committee with an extra $20 billion, seemingly tucked away in a ``reserve fund'' to be released at the discretion of the Budget Committee chairman. Although they've made it sound like there's an extra $20 billion just lying around waiting to be spent; this could not be further from the truth.

The $20 billon is only available if it can be offset by cuts in other spending or increased taxes. The Agriculture Committee, as well as every other Congressional committee, already has the authority to spend dollars created by offsets under existing rules.

This is either a poorly constructed hoax designed to create an illusion of increased funding, or it is part of a broader plan to continue to raise taxes to pay for increased program spending. In either case, there is nothing about the Democrat budget that does anything to relieve the budget crunch that farmers face in this farm bill.

I urge my colleagues to see this budget for what it is and vote ``no.''

Madam Speaker, on the occasion of his retirement from the United States Air Force, I want to recognize MAJ Eugene Barlow for his 23 years of dedicated service to our country. In his most recent assignment, he serves as the Chief, Air Force Congressional Fellows Branch, Congressional Inquiry Division, Office of Legislative Liaison with, additional duties as a White House Social Aide.

In June 1984, Major Barlow started his outstanding career as an enlisted Information Manager. He was selected for promotion to senior airman below-the-zone and later selected for promotion to staff sergeant under the Stripes for Exceptional Performers program. After assignments in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and Office of the Secretary of the Air Force, Legislative Liaison Directorate, Major Barlow was selected to attend Officer Training School. He was commissioned in 1996 and assigned to Keesler Air Force Base, Mississippi, as the Chief of Customer Support.

In August 1998, Major Barlow was selected for assignment to Kadena Air Base, Japan, where he served as Squadron Section Commander in the 67th Fighter Squadron. Before being handpicked for his current assignment, Major Barlow was assigned to his alma mater, the University of Maryland, as an Assistant Professor of Aerospace Studies

Madam Speaker, I join my colleagues in expressing our sincere appreciation to MAJ Eugene Barlow for his outstanding service to both the Legislative and Executive Branches and our United States Air Force. We wish him the best as he transitions into a new career. Major Barlow is a true professional and a credit to himself and the United States Air Force.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation that will establish the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library in Staunton, Virginia. In studying the life and times of the 28th President, we see how Woodrow Wilson affected and continues to influence how the United States responds to national and international crises. This bill is identical to legislation that passed on the House floor by Voice Vote in the 109th Congress September 28, 2006.

As a statesman, scholar, and President, Woodrow Wilson faced economic crisis, democratic decay, and a world war. Presidential historians agree that World War I, and President Wilson's leadership, radically altered the role of diplomacy as a tool of foreign policy--a policy that established a new path for America's role in promoting democracies throughout the world. So too did Wilson's high-minded ideals craft a legacy that shaped the powers and responsibilities of the executive branch in times of war.

As a professor and president of Princeton University, Wilson created a more selective and accountable system for higher education. By instituting curriculum reform, Wilson revolutionized the roles of teachers and students and quickly made Princeton one of the most

renowned universities in the world. Due to Wilson's legacy at Princeton, I am pleased to have the support of the current president, Shirley Tilghman, as we seek to establish a Presidential library and museum at Wilson's birthplace in Virginia.

On April 2, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson went before a joint session of Congress to seek a declaration of war against Germany, for ``The world must be safe for democracy.'' Ninety years later, we continue to champion that right of mankind.

Specifically, this legislation will make grants from the National Archives and Records Administration for the establishment of a Presidential library to provide educational and interpretive services to honor the life of Woodrow Wilson. To ensure that a public-private partnership exists, my legislation also mandates that no grant shall be available for the establishment of this library until a private entity has raised at least twice the amount to be allocated by the Congress. Finally, once the library is complete, this legislation states that the Federal Government shall have no role or responsibility for the operation of the library.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1433, the District of Columbia Voting Rights Act.

There is no doubt that citizens of the District of Columbia do not have a full voting representation in the House of Representatives. However, there are ways that these individuals can receive representation without trampling on the Constitution. Unfortunately, this bill is not one of them.

The Constitution does not mince words when it says that Members of Congress may only be elected from the States. Article I, section 2 states that the House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the several States.

The Constitution also does not mince words when it distinguishes the District of Columbia from a State. In describing the powers of the Congress, Article I, section 8 describes the seat of Federal Government as a district, not exceeding 10 miles square, as made by cessation of particular States and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of government of the United States.

Furthermore, the text of the 23rd amendment to the Constitution further illustrates that the District was never meant to have the same rights as States. Specifically, it grants D.C. the power to appoint a number of electors, a President and Vice President, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the district would be entitled if it were a State.

The plain language of the Constitution is clear, that D.C. is not a State and that it is not granted the same rights as States. However, the constitutional problems with this bill do not end here. The bill would also establish an at-large representative for Utah, which would allow the citizens of Utah to vote twice, once for their local representative and another time for an at-large representative. This would clearly violate the constitutional principle of one man-one vote by granting Utah citizens disproportionately large voting power.

Finally, the procedure for bringing this bill to the floor is appalling. Debate has been eliminated on a bill that affects the relative voting power of citizens in each of our congressional districts. Ranking Member Smith offered an amendment which would have provided for an expedited judicial review.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation which is clearly unconstitutional.

I rise in opposition to H.R. 1433, the District of Columbia house voting rights act.

There is no doubt that citizens of D.C. do not have a full voting representative in the house of Representatives. However, there are ways that these individuals can receive representation without trampling on the Constitution. Unfortunately, this bill is not one of them.

The Constitution does not mince words when it says that members of Congress may only be elected from the states. Article I Section 2 states that ``The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States.'' The Constitution also does not mince words when it distinguishes the District of Columbia from a State. In describing the powers of the Congress, Article I Section 8 describes the seat of Federal Government as a ``District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cessation of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of government of the United States.''

Furthermore, the text of the 23rd amendment to the Constitution further illustrates that the district was never meant to have the same rights as States. Specifically, it grants D.C. the power to appoint ``a number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State. . .''

The plain language of the Constitution is clear that D.C. is not a State and that it is not granted the same rights as States. However, the Constitutional problems with this bill do not end here. The bill would also establish an at-large representative for Utah, which would allow the citizens of Utah to vote twice--once for their local representative and another time for an at-large representative. This would clearly violate the Constitutional principle of ``one man, one vote'' by granting Utah citizens disproportionately large voting power.

Finally, the procedure for bringing this bill to the floor is appalling. Debate has been eliminated on a bill that affects the relative voting power of citizens in each of our congressional districts. Ranking member Smith offered an amendment which would have provided for an expedited judicial review of the bill after it is enacted, to determine its constitutionality. It is revealing that the majority decided to block that amendment which would have settled the Constitutional concerns about this legislation.

For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this ill- crafted legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this irresponsible spending bill.

Mr. Speaker, we owe it to our brave service men and women who are fighting for freedom and democracy in Iraq to make sure that they are the best equipped and most successful troops in the world. While the Democrats would have you believe that this legislation does just that, it couldn't be further from the truth.

This supplemental is a prescription for defeat in Iraq by tying the hands of our military leaders and setting a date certain for withdrawing our troops. If we fail in Iraq, the resources now devoted by terrorist organizations and nations sponsoring terrorism there would be turned to spreading terror around the globe, including, again, on American soil.

It is through the hard work and sacrifice of our American troops that the ideals of freedom continue to be spread. We owe them the resources they need to complete their mission, but this bill does not meet that threshold.

Mr. Speaker, I am also alarmed that the Democrats are treating a wartime, let me repeat, wartime funding bill as a collection cup for pet projects.

Many Members have already mentioned the litany of pet projects in the bill, so I do not need to repeat these so-called domestic emergency spending provisions. I would like to mention, though, how ridiculous this bill must seem to troops and their families listening or watching us on C-SPAN.

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how I will respond when asked by constituents why funding for some $15 billion in pet projects is necessary when attempting to fund the global war on terror.

Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that some of these extraneous provisions may be worth examining, but how would we know? We did not hold oversight hearings on these issues and have, therefore, abdicated our responsibility to the taxpayer. If there is a problem, I am sure we can make the necessary fixes in regular order.

I urge my colleagues to vote down this legislation and fund our troops with a clean supplemental bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation, which will help protect our Nation's judges against those who may want to harm them, or who may threaten to harm them in efforts to influence outcomes of cases.

Until recently, when a judge or court official needed to submit a financial disclosure report, personal information about that individual could be redacted to prevent those who may intend harm from obtaining such information as the individual's home address.

Unfortunately, this redaction authority expired at the end of 2005. A recent incident in which a convicted felon requested the financial disclosure records of a judicial officer and those records contained such items as the work address of the officer's wife--highlights the need to reauthorize the authority to redact this type of personal information.

H.R. 1130, the judicial disclosure responsibility act, would amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to extend through 2009 the authority of the judicial conference to redact certain personal information from financial disclosure reports filed by judges. In addition, the bill would restrict disclosure of personal information about family members of judges when that disclosure might endanger them, in order to protect such information as the school location of a judge's children, the address of the workplace of a judge's spouse, and the like.

This narrowly tailored legislation will protect those that protect us--and I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on the Judiciary Committee and on this legislation, and I also thank Chairman Conyers and Subcommittee Chairman Scott, my colleague from Virginia, for their work on this legislation, as well as Congressman Murphy and Congressman Forbes, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 740, the Preventing Harassment Through Outbound Number Enforcement, or PHONE, Act.

Consumer fraud and identity theft are serious problems facing our citizens today. While technology has provided access to vast amounts of information about products and services that were not even imaginable a few years ago, technology is also being used by criminals to commit new types of fraud and to steal personal information from unknowing consumers.

Like other technologies, caller ID devices have empowered consumers. These devices allow them to screen out calls they would prefer not to take. However, they also perform the important function of acting as an additional check to ensure that the individuals placing incoming calls are who they say they are.

Unfortunately, criminals have found a way to fake caller ID information in order to trick consumers about who is actually calling. Increasingly, thieves are using this tactic to extract personal information from unsuspecting consumers. For example, by faking the caller ID of a consumer's bank, a thief can lure a consumer into divulging bank account numbers, Social Security numbers, and other types of sensitive personal information which can then be used to commit identity theft and other criminal acts.

The PHONE Act will help stop this abusive practice. Specifically, this bill imposes criminal penalties on those that provide false caller ID information with the intent to defraud, as well as those that provide the caller ID information of an actual person without that person's consent, with the intent to defraud the recipient of the call.

The PHONE Act is an important tool in the fight against identity theft, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Security and Fairness Enhancement (SAFE) for America Act.'' This much-needed legislation eliminates the controversial visa lottery program, through which 50,000 aliens are chosen at random to come and live permanently in the United States based on pure luck. The visa lottery program threatens national security, results in the unfair administration of our Nation's immigration laws, and encourages a cottage industry for fraudulent opportunists.

Because winners of the visa lottery are chosen at random, the visa lottery program presents a serious national security threat. A perfect example of the system gone awry is the case of Hesham Mohamed Ali Hedayet, the Egyptian national who killed two and wounded three during a shooting spree at Los Angeles International Airport in July of 2002. He was allowed to apply for lawful permanent resident

status in 1997 because of his wife's status as a visa lottery winner.

The State Department's Inspector General has even weighed in on the national security threat posed by the visa lottery program. During testimony before the House Committee on the Judiciary in the 109th Congress, the Office of Inspector General stated that the Office ``continues to believe that the diversity visa program contains significant risks to national security from hostile intelligence officers, criminals, and terrorists attempting to use the program for entry into the United States as permanent residents.''

Even if improvements were made to the visa lottery program, nothing would prevent terrorist organizations or foreign intelligence agencies from planting members in the U.S. by having those members apply for the program. As long as those individuals do not have previous criminal backgrounds, these types of organized efforts would never be detected, even if significant background checks and counter-fraud measures were enacted within the program.

Usually, immigrant visas are issued to foreign nationals that have existing connections with family members lawfully residing in the United States or with U.S. employers. These types of relationships help ensure that immigrants entering our country have a stake in continuing America's success and have needed skills to contribute to our nation's economy. However, under the visa lottery program, visas are awarded to immigrants at random without meeting such criteria.

In addition, the visa lottery program is unfair to immigrants who comply with the United States' immigration laws. The visa lottery program does not expressly prohibit illegal aliens from applying to receive visas through the program. Thus, the program treats foreign nationals that comply with our laws the same as those that blatantly violate our laws. In addition, most family-sponsored immigrants currently face a wait of years to obtain visas, yet the lottery program pushes 50,000 random immigrants with no particular family ties, job skills or education ahead of these family and employer-sponsored immigrants each year with relatively no wait. This sends the wrong message to those who wish to enter our great country and to the international community as a whole.

Furthermore, the visa lottery program is wrought with fraud. A report released by the Center for Immigration Studies states that it is commonplace for foreign nationals to apply for the lottery program multiple times using many different aliases. In addition, the visa lottery program has spawned a cottage industry featuring sponsors in the U.S. who falsely promise success to applicants in exchange for large sums of money. Ill-informed foreign nationals are willing to pay top dollar for the ``guarantee'' of lawful permanent resident status in the U.S.

The State Department's Office of Inspector General confirms these allegations of widespread fraud in its September 2003 report. Specifically, the report states that the visa lottery program is ``subject to widespread abuse'' and that ``identity fraud is endemic, and fraudulent documents are commonplace.'' Furthermore, the report also reveals that the State Department found that 364,000 duplicate applications were detected in the 2003 visa lottery alone.

In addition, the visa lottery program is by its very nature discriminatory. The complex formula for assigning visas under the program arbitrarily disqualifies natives from countries that send more than 50,000 immigrants to the U.S. within a 5-year period, which excludes nationals from countries such as Mexico, Canada, China and others.

The visa lottery program represents what is wrong with our country's immigration system. My legislation would eliminate the visa lottery program. The removal of this controversial program will help ensure our Nation's security, make the administration of our immigration laws more consistent and fair, and help reduce immigration fraud and opportunism.

Mr. Speaker, as ranking Republican of the House Agriculture Committee, I want to commend the chairman of our committee, Collin Peterson, for the cooperative path we have followed in developing the funding method for our committee. We are carrying on the bipartisan tradition of the Agriculture Committee in staffing and expenditures.

Under normal circumstances, I would be voting to support H. Res. 202 that supports the operations of all the committees of the House. Unfortunately, the Speaker has used

the unusual and inappropriate mechanism of the self-enacting rule to add the creation of a new and completely unnecessary Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. We are being asked to support the expenditure of nearly $4 million on a committee that would have no legislative jurisdiction and would cover no issue that is not already well addressed by existing committees. It strikes me that $4 million is too much for the taxpayer to pay for press releases.

The attempt to create this expensive and useless committee has added an unacceptable element to what would otherwise be a bill I could support. Therefore, I reluctantly oppose H. Res. 202.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for yielding.

I rise in opposition to this misnamed bill, which should be called the Worker Intimidation Act.

Madam Chairman, the National Labor Relations Act gives the private sector workers the right to join or form a labor union and to bargain collectively over wages and hours. However, this bill would eviscerate the protections for workers choosing to join or not to join a union by eliminating the requirement of a secret ballot system and requiring employees to make their ballots public. This bill strikes a blow to the privacy rights of workers throughout the country and would create opportunities for intimidation and coercion by union organizers and employees.

Whom then does this bill benefit? Certainly not the American workforce, a large majority of which, as cited by the gentleman from Florida, overwhelmingly opposes this bill; nor the

American people. Maybe it is the Mexican workforce. The sponsor of this bill and 15 other Democrats, after all, seek to protect the privacy of Mexican workers in a letter that they sent where they said: ``We understand that the secret ballot is allowed for but not required by Mexican labor law. However, we feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose.''

The words of those proposing to support and protect Mexican workers are not willing to do that for American workers. It is a crime.

Madam Chairman, it strikes me as extremely ironic that the sponsor of this bill prefers to uphold the fundamental privacy protections of the Mexican workforce at the same time that he strips American workers of their privacy protections in their jobs here at home.

I urge my colleagues to vote down this bill that amounts to a betrayal of American workers.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the nonbinding resolution being offered by the majority which, despite the rhetoric, amounts to nothing more than a vote to maintain the status quo in Iraq.

This resolution offers no change from the recent course of events in Iraq. It does not take into consideration the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. It does not require the Iraqi people and their elected leaders to step up and take responsibility for their own future. It certainly does not set any benchmark that must be met by the Iraqis. Most importantly, passage of this nonbinding resolution does not protect the funding of our troops in Iraq and, according to many Democrats, it is likely the first step in cutting off that funding altogether.

Madam Speaker, we have spent 3 days debating a resolution that does nothing more than serve as a vote of no confidence in the brave men and women who are fighting for freedom and democracy in Iraq. Not only is this resolution discouraging to our commanders and forces, it will fuel the efforts of our enemies who are determined to spread terror and suppress freedom.

Despite numerous attacks by terrorists on U.S. military and diplomatic targets throughout the 1990s, Americans on September 11, 2001 awoke to the painful realization that we are engaged in a long- term global war with terrorists, an international campaign to combat an ideology that spreads hate and destruction.

Iraq is now the central front in this global war. Success in bringing about a stable and democratic Iraq in the heart of the Middle East is a goal that I believe we all share.

While the difficulties cannot be minimized, neither can the consequences of failure and withdrawal. If we fail, the resources now devoted by terrorist organizations and nations sponsoring terrorism in Iraq will be turned to spreading terror around the globe including, again, on American soil. Do not embolden them with this resolution.

The United States and our allies, in fact, all freedom-loving peoples, need to support the popularly elected Iraqi Government in establishing control over their country and providing a stable environment for the Iraqi people and our troops as they assist in this process. Together, we have made significant progress, despite numerous obstacles.

Iraqis made history when they turned out in record numbers, despite increased violence, to vote in the first free elections in over 50 years. Millions of Iraqis waved their purple-tipped fingers with pride as they came out of the voting stations, a message to the world that they chose freedom.

The President is the Commander in Chief and has the authority to make decisions about the best way to accomplish our goals in Iraq. He has initiated changes to our course in Iraq.

However, today we will not be voting for change. We will not be voting for a comprehensive review of our strategy in Iraq. It is too bad that when we all have concerns about how best to achieve success in Iraq, the Democratic leadership has brought this polarizing and political resolution to the floor to divide us, rather than unite us, on the most serious question facing the country today.

For this reason, I urge my colleagues to vote against this nonbinding resolution, which lacks any substance. I remind my colleagues that a ``no'' vote on this resolution is certainly not a rubber stamp for the President's troop surge.

While I continue to support the mission in Iraq, I think it is clear that the administration's efforts to achieve the mission have not been flawless. But a vote against this resolution is a clear vote to support our commanders and troops and all those who have lost their lives spreading freedom to the people of Iraq.

I believe that more should be done to press the now established Iraqi Government and U.S.-trained Iraqi military to take the lead. I believe more can be done on the diplomatic front to engage the countries of the Middle East to help.

But unfortunately, no such resolution offering concrete evidence has been allowed, and this hollow process has resulted in a hollow resolution.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 6. Like my colleagues, I believe we should find solutions to address the growing demand for energy, and I look forward to working with my colleague, the chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Peterson, to find new ways for American agriculture to provide increasing sources of domestic energy.

In the Republican-led Congress, I supported an energy bill that was signed into law that actually encouraged domestic energy production and lessened our dependence on foreign oil. Today's legislation, however, seems to dismantle any progress we have made in achieving energy independence.

The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post, they don't agree with each other very often, they both condemn this legislation. The Wall Street Journal calls it the OPEC Energy Security Act: ``This bill is said to promote America's energy independence, but the biggest winner may be OPEC. Raise taxes on domestic oil producers,'' it said. ``Yes, raise the cost at the gas pump for American consumers. Raise the cost for American farmers who have to buy oil and natural gas to operate their farms. Every American farmer has to do that.''

The Washington Post says: ``This heavy-handed attack on the stability of contracts would be welcomed in Russia, Bolivia or other countries that have been criticized for tearing up revenue-sharing agreements with private energy companies.'' The Wall Street Journal again says: ``So at the same time that the U.S. is trying to persuade Venezuela and other nations to honor property rights, Congress does its own Hugo Chavez imitation.''

Many Members have discussed passionately how America needs to decrease its dependence on foreign oil. In fact, many campaigned on promises to decrease our independence. But here we are in the midst of the Democratic leadership's first 100 hours considering a bill to increase America's dependence on foreign oil. This is dangerous policy for our national and economic security.

This legislation increases fees for domestic energy production and repeals for energy companies only the manufacturing tax deduction which was put in place to encourage domestic manufacturing and jobs from domestic production of goods. The manufacturing tax deduction was extended to all manufacturing to fix the problematic FSC-ETI problem, and was in no way a giveaway to the oil companies.

By singling out one industry alone, we are not righting a wrong. We are persecuting an industry and the people employed in that industry domestically. This is not attacks on foreign production in Venezuela or Iran or Saudi Arabia. This is attacks on American production of energy. Repealing these incentives makes it less economical to produce domestic energy and will compel companies to seek cheaper options abroad.

While energy demands continue to rise, this bill would discourage domestic production, forcing the U.S. to import more foreign oil. While the proponents will tell you only oil companies will pay, the truth is every single one of us will pay the price.

So why are we increasing the price of energy as well as our dependence on foreign oil? Those on the other side think this will help spur research for alternative energy. It is estimated that this bill robs about $14 billion over the next decade from domestic energy production. That is quite a lot of money. But where is the plan outlining how that money will be used? Sadly, there isn't one, thanks to a closed rule, with no amendments offered whatsoever time after time during this process, in contrast with the Contract With America, where we allowed 154 Democratic amendments, 48 of which, by the way, passed and were included as a part of the Contract With America. In this process, that possibility of spelling that out is gone. There is no way to tell people how we can use this for more domestic production for renewable fuels, for example. Sadly, there isn't anything like that.

This bill creates a $14 billion piggy bank or slush fund that we have been told will be used for future alternative energy legislation.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this very bad legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for the purpose of controlling debate.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the day when we can work across the aisle to do what I have heard so many of the speakers here today talk about doing in terms of encouraging greater production of renewable energy here in the

United States. The committee will look forward to doing that, indeed.

But this legislation doesn't do it. Unfortunately, it doesn't do it because of the very closed rule that we pointed out throughout the Democrats' 100 hours; no openness whatsoever, in contrast to the Contract with America, when Democrats offered 154 amendments. In fact, 48 were adopted.

We could have spelled out in good legislation, if it had been through the committee process and we had held hearings and markups in each of the committees represented here today, to say what we were going to use this money for.

But, instead, what we are asked to do is vote for a tax increase on domestic production of energy, no tax increase on Venezuela and Hugo Chavez, no tax increase on Iran, no tax increase on any Middle Eastern country, no jobs lost over there, but jobs lost in the United States and American consumers paying for it at the gas pump and American farmers and ranchers paying for it with increased energy cost.

Oppose this legislation.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to re-introduce the ``Tax Code Termination Act''.

This bi-partisan legislation, which I introduced with my colleague Collin Peterson of Minnesota, and 65 bi-partisan cosponsors, will accomplish two goals. It will abolish the Internal Revenue Code by December 31, 2010, and call on Congress to approve a new Federal tax system by July of the same year.

The fact is our current tax system has spiraled out of control. At a time when Americans devote a total of 7 billion hours each year to comply with the tax code, we need tax simplification. Today's tax code is unfair, discourages savings and investment, and is impossibly complex. The problem is Congress won't act on fundamental tax reform unless it is forced to do so. The Tax Code Termination Act will force Congress to finally debate and address fundamental tax reform.

Once the Tax Code Termination Act becomes law, today's oppressive tax code would survive for only 4 more years, at which time it would expire and be replaced with a new tax code that will be determined by Congress, the President, and the American people. The Tax Code Termination Act will allow us, as a nation, to collectively decide what the new tax system should look like. Having a date-certain to end the current tax code will force the issue to the top of the national agenda, where it will remain until Congress and the President finish writing the new tax law.

The tax code is hopelessly broken and abolishing it is the necessary first step to debating, designing, and adopting a new tax system. Although many questions remain about the best way to reform our tax system, I am certain that if Congress is forced to address the issue we can create a tax code that is simpler, fairer, and better for our economy than the one we are forced to comply with today.

Whichever tax system is adopted, the key ingredients should be: a low rate for all Americans; tax relief for working people; protection of the rights of taxpayers and reduction in tax collection abuses; promotion of savings and investment; and encouragement of economic growth and job creation. Taxes may be unavoidable but they don't have to be unfair and overcomplicated.

Just like other programs that require reauthorization, the tax code must be reviewed to examine whether it is fulfilling its intended purpose and then Congress must make what changes are necessary.

America's future depends on overcoming the handicap of the current tax code. There is a widespread consensus that the current system is broken, and keeping it is not in America's best interest. I urge each of my colleagues to support this important legislation.