Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, welcome to the chair. I hope you enjoy your duration up there, as many years ago, it must have been 1995, I had the privilege of my first time in the chair. I hope you enjoy it as much, and I hope everybody at home is watching you in your day of glory.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Iowa.

I appreciate that, Mr. King.

At this time it is my privilege as the new chairman of the Congressional Immigration Caucus to actually recognize Congressman Nathan Deal of the great State of Georgia, who actually has agreed to serve as the subcommittee chairman on the Immigration Caucus for Birthright Citizenship.

At this time I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say thank you very much to Mr. Deal for taking a leadership role on this issue. It is quite appropriate you are pointing out how broad the problem is of this automatic citizenship given to people that have no obligations, no responsibilities, and are leveraging the fact that some people think that everyone born on U.S. soil somehow gets automatic citizenship. The fact is I think that the Korean parents are a good example.

The subject to the jurisdiction clause of the 14th amendment does not only mean that you can be arrested. It means that you must, according to common law, be totally obligated. You must be able to be tried for treason and be forced into the military.

Can you imagine if these terrorists from Korea were told, sorry, you are now going to be drafted into the United States Army? People would come unglued. They would say that is inhumane, that is outrageous, how can you do that. Well, it is just as outrageous to give automatic citizenship to the people that have no obligations and no responsibility to the Federal Government, to give them citizenship, as it is to require them to be tried for treason against the United States or to serve in the military when they are not, quote, unquote, subject to the jurisdiction in a manner that applies to the 14th amendment.

This thing we have to understand, that rights and responsibilities come together, and as these legal Korean tourists come to our country, they have certain rights and certain responsibilities, but they do not have total responsibility, and thus they do not have birthright citizenship.

I think that is a clause to get into. I just wish that the people who would be as outraged about us drafting a Korean tourist or trying them for treason will be just as outraged about the people leveraging and taking advantage of our hospitality and then trying to demand rights where the rights obviously do not exist historically or in fact.

I appreciate the fact that you took a leadership role on this after I got my 5-year sabbatical that the voters gave me from Congress. You picked up the baby and actually carried it, and I really appreciate that and your leadership will be appreciated.

It is astonishing that back in the 1990s when we first brought up this issue, some people were saying, well, what is this issue. But more and more when you go talk to the American people, they want to know what has kind of been tagged this, what they call it, ``anchor baby'' issue because they see this huge open door for abuse.

In California alone, I want you to know and I just say this to the people, how big a problem, how big a price tag can automatic citizenship to foreign nationals and illegal aliens can be. How big can it be? Just in California, it costs the State of California to pay for the births of the children of illegal aliens $400 million a year, and that is a price tag to people who are illegally in the country.

Let us face it, that $400 million could sure provide a lot of basic health care to legal Americans, both immigrants and U.S. citizens, that is being denied those people of need, while we accommodate those who have broken our laws and their families and encouraged them to emigrate.

So I thank you very much for taking this leadership role, and I greatly appreciate the fact that Georgia is represented on the Immigration Caucus, and that is a great advantage for us. Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to serve on the Immigration Caucus, and as someone who grew up on the Mexican border between San Diego and Tijuana, I saw this issue as it has evolved over the last 45 years.

I grew up in an area where illegal immigration was just sort of a matter of fact. You saw people going north, and I got to tell you, as a young man, you never knew where they were going. They were all going to a place called L.A. or norte, norte, and you never understood what was the impact in the communities beyond the border.

But, seriously, I think the one thing that I would ask those of you that live beyond the border, you do not see on the border, like those of us that grew up there, I happen to have had the privilege to serve as a life guard in a small community on the border called Imperial Beach. In that job, I had the experience of rescuing illegals when they were drowning in the Tijuana River. I recovered their bodies when they did not make it, and in the 1980s, some of you may not remember a thing called the bonsai charges, where the coyotes, the smugglers, would organize illegals into huge groups at the border and rush them up the freeway.

I would just ask any of you to consider what your reaction would be if you were driving along at 65 miles an hour, 55, and you saw massive pedestrians running at you on the freeway in a manner that you do not have a chance to stop. Well, let me tell you something. After seeing what happens when somebody gets hit by a vehicle at 55, 60 miles an hour, I became committed as a member of the county board of supervisors in San Diego to finally say stand up and say this is wrong, this is immoral, this is outrageous.

Americans should be ashamed that we do not control our frontier, that we do not guarantee our sovereignty on U.S. soil. And the immigration issue is an issue of sovereignty. It is a concept of protecting the land that our forefathers have given to us and also protecting those rights and those privileges that should and can be rendered to those who are citizens and legal residents.

But, sadly, we have found excuses to look the other way. Be it political correctness or some sick concept that encouraging illegal activity somehow is going to be good for America, it is sad that we allow not only illegal immigration but all the illegal activity that happens along the border.

I am really encouraged, though, to see colleagues like the gentleman from Georgia and Mr. King, people from the interior, that get it, that understand that the immigration problem is not something at the border that can only be addressed at the border, but is something that is in our neighborhoods every day; that it is on the street corners, we see it every day; and that the American people, though they have been ignored on this issue for too long, are saying we are going to hold both parties accountable if you do not address that.

I think in all fairness, as a Republican, I think we can all agree that a

degree of the problems in the last election was that voters did not believe Republicans were doing enough and are going to demand that Democrats and Republicans put their partisanship on the side and take care of this problem.

I am glad to see the kind of general support that we have seen working on this issue and the community support on this; and at this time, if I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to Mr. King.

Mr. King, first of all, I have to say I am so proud that you are our ranking member on the Immigration Committee. With you on that, leading the Republican side of that committee. Hopefully you will be able, and I know it is a tough sell; I am going to meet with your chairman and try to point out what is the obsession that the Senate and some Members of the House of Representatives have to give amnesty and reward 12 to 13 to 15 million people for breaking the law?

Do they really think we can defend the concept, the rule of law, by having up to 60 million people in this country celebrating the fact that they are here because they broke the law? You know, I am thankful that I was able to listen to you tonight, because I keep saying, and I was saying to a couple of Senators this week, what is the obsession, what is the motivation for giving amnesty and rewarding people for breaking our laws? What message have you seen? What agenda are you fulfilling? What political group are you fulfilling?

Now that you brought it up, you are right, you point out you gave amnesty to a group that originally was proposed to be 300,000, ended up with all the delays in the agenda to be 3 million; then you get all of their relatives coming in. This is the group that is lobbying and able to vote to encourage more people to come in, and this downward spiral has started. If we don't stop it now with the American people that really believe in the rule of law, that really believe in the concept of common decency that you do not punish somebody for waiting patiently to immigrate legally while you reward somebody who breaks the law, if we are not willing to stop this downward spiral now, it will continue to grow larger and faster down the line.

I think the American people here know this is not a Republican or Democratic issue; this is an American issue. If anybody doesn't believe that the rule of law is important, I can take you to a lot of places I spent a lot of time in other countries where people can buy off the law by politics or by money.

This amnesty, it just seems like the most un-American concept I heard. Let me tell you something, my son was sitting there, 19 or 20 years old, and he brought up the interesting issue, and I guess from the mouths of babes, he said, Dad, let me get this straight, Mr. Kennedy says that if you break the law for 5 years, you now get rewarded for it? Does this mean that if I am willing to testify that I have driven without a license for 5 years, I get a license for free?

Because that is what people think they can do with immigration and make it work. It won't work with the traffic situation; it won't work with an immigration issue.

I am glad you bring this up, and just seeing a self-made special interest group that is driving us toward an abyss of the destruction of the entire concept of what this greatest Republic we call the ``American experience.'' I yield to Mr. King.

Mr. KING of IOWA. I thank the gentleman from California for adding to this subject matter in that way.

A piece that I left out was that the 66.1 million that would have been legalized by the Senate version of amnesty last year happens to be, and I believe coincidentally, the sum total of all Americans who have immigrated into the United States and become naturalized, most through Ellis Island, but done so legally. We are talking about doing that in one fell swoop.

So, in 1986 it was a 300,000, maybe a million number. That was a great big piece to try to swallow and get our brains around. In 1995, before the 1996 election, there was an accelerated effort, especially in California, to naturalize a million people so that they could go to the polls and vote in that Clinton/Gore election. And we all know where the incentive was, on which side of the aisle that was. That was perhaps 1 million in 1986. At most, it was 1 million in 1995 before the 1996 elections. That was an appalling number to think about a million people getting fast-tracked to citizenship or amnesty. And this is a time now we are seriously talking about 66 million people. Sixty-six times an amount that was too many in 1995, it was too many in 1986, it is absolutely too many today.

There is another component of this, too, and that is that we know on the left, and I am going to say on the part of Democrats, they recognize that they are going to pick up about two out of every three immigrants that would have amnesty. They have a strong political motive that subordinates the United States, our Constitution, their oath of office, by the way. That is the incentive. It is a political incentive on the left hand side of the aisle. On the right hand side of the aisle we have elitists. They aren't all on the right hand side of the aisle; we have plenty of left-wing rich folks, too, that are capitalizing on cheap labor. They believe that they have some kind of birthright to always be hiring cheap labor and continue getting richer off the backs of the people they are hiring.

Think of this kind of like a barbell. On the one side, the weights over here on the barbell are the liberals that get all the political power that comes from illegal immigration. On the other side there are probably about 2-1 Republican conservatives that get empowered by getting rich off of cheap labor. In the middle is the handle of the barbell, that is the middle class, the middle class that used to be an ever-broadening, an ever more prosperous middle class that now is losing its purchasing power and being narrowed by the greed of the people that are politically greedy on the one side, and economically greedy on the other side.

I asked this question to the business community in America, because I know I will not convince the people on the other side of the aisle, where will you apply your trade once we have destroyed this America that is based upon the rule of law?

I will yield back to the gentleman from California.

Let me say, what we are fighting for here is nothing short of the middle class. The fact is there are those on the left and the right that say we desperately need more poor people. You know why? It is because the major corporates want cheap labor on the right, and the left wants cheap votes. And they are willing to sell their children's birthright out, their grandchildren's future out just to be able to capitalize off of this illegal activity.

At this time, I have the privilege of recognizing the gentleman from California who has agreed to be the subcommittee chairman on the Border Security Policy Committee team for the Immigration Caucus, Mr. Royce.

Mr. Royce, I yield to you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Royce. Seeing that you are the chairman of the Border Security subcommittee, it is good to hear today that the administration has found the money to finally fill in the border tunnels across our border. A lot of people when I say the fence isn't working, if the fence wasn't working, the cartels would not be spending millions of dollars trying to figure out how to tunnel under the fence.

I thank you for that. Because before the fence, as somebody that grew up down there and watched this game being played, any criminal on either side of the border could jump

across the border and avoid enforcement on the other. Even in Mexico, they had the area called the Zona Norte, the northern zone, and everyone knew that it was a criminal hideout because they could always jump onto the American side if the Mexican officials came. So this issue of creating a barrier is common sense and common decency.

As Governor Ruffo of Baja, California, once said, he said something in Spanish and said in Mexico, we have a saying, Good fences make good neighbors. Frankly, I think those people that always attacked the concept of having secure borders should just listen to Ruffo's advice that common sense does go a long way.

I yield to the gentleman.

I appreciate that. The fact is most Americans may not understand that it is so out of control that they have had over 30 police officers murdered in Tijuana and over nine Federal prosecutors assassinated in Tijuana. In fact, it was so bad that the Mexican government 10 years ago sent their army to the American border. You hear an outcry here when we talk about the possibility of sending our troops or our National Guard down to the border. I wonder where these people are that are so outraged about America exercising our sovereignty, using our resources, when they ignored the fact that Mexico did the right thing by bringing their troops up.

I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, your work on this and look forward to working with you.

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about border control, but I want to make sure that the American people and everybody recognizes, in your district, the real problem exists that those who hire illegals are the ones who are creating the number one source of illegal immigration. When we talk about the violence at the border, when we talk about people dying, drowning at the border trying to come into this country illegally, the people that are at fault for that are those employers who provide the incentive for people to break our immigration laws and those who are profiteering off illegal immigration, and that is the illegal employers.

I would ask you and I would ask every Member of Congress and I would ask everyone who is listening across the United States to take a look at H.R. 98 which is a bill that Silvestre Reyes, a very respected Democrat from El Paso, who is a former Border Patrol agent, and David Dreier, a Republican, former chairman of the Rules Committee, put together working with the men and women who actually have to control our frontier and control immigration, the immigration agents themselves. They put together a bill called H.R. 98, and it is so simple that there is no excuse for anybody not to support it, unless they think that there is an advantage to encourage illegal immigration.

In this bill, it says one thing. It says, let's get rid of the 37 different documents that anybody can prove they are legal to be in the country to work. Let's go down to one simple document, a tamper- resistant Social Security card to allow Americans and foreign nationals alike to prove that a Social Security number that they are required by law to provide for employment is actually their number and not one that they have taken or 20 of their buddies have taken from somebody else and are using because they have stolen a Social Security number. One document for any employer to know to check, to be able to verify electronically that whoever is in front of them is qualified to work in the United States. Because it is essential that we give employers a simple, verifiable way of knowing who is legal and who is not legal so that we can do what I think Democrats and Republicans who really care about America can do together and, that is, crack down on the employers who knowingly hire illegals. We all know who they are, we know where they are, and we need to eliminate the excuse for hiring illegals. We need to start cracking down on that.

I just ask that when we get into this issue, let's not talk about amnesty, let's not talk about excuses for rewarding people for illegal immigration, let's talk about working together and cracking down on the illegal employers, making it clear that if you want to come to this country and work, then you come here legally, you play by the rules, you get rewarded for that.

So, Mr. Speaker, a lot of people may not know, but I am privileged to have a mother who is a legal immigrant who came back to this country back in the 1940s. And as she reminds me so often, everyone who rewards illegal immigration is insulting those immigrants who came here and played by the rules. Anybody who talks about giving amnesty or any reward to those who have violated our immigration law is insulting the hard work, the patience, and the perseverance to be a legal immigrant and everyone who has played by the rules and stayed within the law.

So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say tonight that every Wednesday night we are going to try as the Immigration Caucus to give a report to the American people about what is going on with the immigration issue. It is something that politicians have ignored for too long, but it is something that the American people are demanding that we finally address if we want to stay in this city representing the people.

So tonight I appreciate the time to be able to address this issue.

30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP

Mr. Speaker, in the 230-year history of our country, the United States has fought in conflicts both at home and abroad that have tested the resolve and unity of the American people. During that time, the purview of the Commander in Chief has justly been scrutinized and questioned. These debates are a part of our past and will be a part of our future as long as we send our men and women into battlefields to fight for our country.

Today's debate is no exception. The question we must answer for ourselves is a fundamental one that speaks not to our approval of the War in Iraq but rather to our commitment to the men and women fighting this war. It is a commitment we must reaffirm without question or doubt. With commitment and unity.

Now it seems to me that we have two courses of action we can take regarding the War in Iraq. We can pull our troops out immediately and leave the stability of the region up to an increasingly violent insurgency, thereby admitting defeat, or we can send in further reinforcements to work with Iraqi Security Forces to seize control of their country.

We can all agree that a change in the status quo must be made. With an increased level of violence between Sunni and Shia insurgent groups, an escalating cost, and the loss of American lives, it is imperative that we have a legitimate and substantive debate on the direction of this war.

However, if we are to succeed in Iraq and complete the mission, then the United States House of Representatives should not waste its time debating a nonbinding resolution criticizing the Commander in Chief. This resolution offers no real policy alternatives for Iraq and does not bring our men and women home any sooner. It is a political shot aimed at the President, but it is really our troops who suffer most from these grandstanding tactics.

I recently visited Walter Reed Hospital to hear from the wounded who have been to Iraq and sacrificed so much for their country. I talked to a wounded soldier who had a bone infection that prohibited him from returning to Iraq. He was not concerned about his physical well-being but instead he was upset that he could not go to finish the job that he had started. His feelings reflected the thoughts of many of the soldiers that I had the privilege to sit and talk with that day.

The fact is we face a moment of unparalleled opportunity to, in voice, in one vote, fulfill our promise to our troops--the promise that we will give them the resources, the armor, the manpower and reinforcements they need so that they may safely and effectively win the War on Terror and come back home.

Mr. Speaker, tonight I am privileged to yield to the second best surfer in Congress, Mr. Dana Rohrabacher of the great State of California, and I yield to him whatever time he may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from California.

And at this time, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to the gentleman from the great State of North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

I appreciate the gentleman from North Carolina.

And at this time I yield to the gentleman from the Volunteer State, the great State of Tennessee, Chattanooga's favorite son, Congressman Wamp.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to be able to present this issue before this body. I think that, as the Congressional Immigration Caucus has pointed out, there is an issue here that obviously the American people are interested in and we were able to present tonight.

I just have to close with a few comments. One is the fact that the White House has discussed that there are procedures they have to go through. I think it is quite clear to anyone who reads the Constitution that the White House, the President, does not have to go through any procedure except to the decide either to pardon or not to pardon.

We hear a lot over the years of Executive privilege. Executive privilege. And every White House since George Washington has loved to discuss the concept of Executive privilege. But with that privilege goes Executive responsibility. And the White House bears the responsibility and the sole responsibility to issue pardons where there has been a miscarriage of justice. And I think the consensus is among many of us that this is exactly the kind of situation that the Founding Fathers had in mind when they proposed that the Executive and only the Executive would have this power, and this unencumbered power, separate from other procedures, to be able to right a wrong when the justice system has failed. I think that this is a chance that we can talk about.

But the thing that concerns me, Mr. Speaker, as being a Member who was born and raised on the border, I think that what has happened in Texas with this case reflects the total lack of understanding of just how out of control our borders are.

I hear people again and again in the Federal Government say that there are not the resources down at the border to be able to enforce the laws against drug smugglers, that there just isn't enough money and manpower to be able to address the problem, that we must allow these people to go free.

Well, Mr. Speaker, if there was enough money to go down into Mexico, find a drug smuggler, negotiate a back-room deal with this drug smuggler, bring the drug smuggler back, and give them amnesty not just once but twice, if there were enough resources to cut this kind of deal and make this kind of effort to make sure that two Border Patrol agents get convicted, my God, aren't there enough resources to use the same effort to go after the drug smugglers? And I really ask that we consider that.

I would just like to say that tonight we were able to spend almost an hour discussing an issue that is very near

and dear to those who are concerned about the fact that our borders are out of control, that this incident happened in an area where Border Patrol agents had a firefight with smugglers with automatic weapons a few months ago, if you remember. And we wanted to remind the American people how out of control and absurd the situation has become in a lot of ways.

We hope, as the Congressional Immigration Caucus, Mr. Speaker, that over the next few months that Wednesday night will be spent as a night where those of us who are concerned about the illegal immigration issue and the out-of-control border will spend an hour every Wednesday night reporting to the American people of what is going on, on this most critical issue that Democrats and Republicans both care about.

If there was ever a situation and ever an issue where partisanship should be put aside and being an American should be first, it is time that we find a way to work together on the immigration issue. I call on you and everyone that has the honor of working in this House of the people to join together to address that. I invite you and every Member of the House to join the Immigration Caucus, so that we can work together for the good of all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 8 o'clock p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, February 8, 2007, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on this very important issue. As you know, my constituents have been directly impacted by the very issue we are voting on today. The previous Congressman from my great Congressional district, Randy Cunningham, used this Chamber and his position to line his pockets with bribe money from lobbyists. He violated the trust of his constituents and his colleagues with his behavior, tarnishing this institution. Unfortunately, the taxpayers will be forced to pay a sizeable pension to him every year.

I think this legislation is an important first step in denying pensions to Members of Congress who abuse the trust of the people. However, I want to note that this legislation did not go far enough.

First, it has a 2-year implementation window, which would allow any Member convicted over the next two years to maintain their pension. I think this is the wrong message to send. If it was constitutional, I would support retroactively taking away the pensions of convicted felons such as Dan Rostenkowski and Randy Cunningham.

Additionally, I think H.R. 476 does not go far enough in detailing the types of crimes that would trigger these provisions. That is why I am a strong supporter and cosponsor of H.R. 14, sponsored by Congressman Mark Kirk. His legislation, the Congressional Integrity Act, would deny a Congressional pension to any Member convicted, and denied a final appeal, for a much more expansive number of crimes directly related to the official duties of a Member of Congress.

This legislation is long overdue. I was proud to support a similar measure, H.R. 4011, in the 104th Congress along with many of my Democratic and Republican colleagues, including current Speaker Nancy Pelosi and our former Speaker Dennis Hastert.

I call on Speaker Pelosi to widen the scope of this legislation to help us regain the trust of the American people and withhold the pensions of those who violated that trust.

Furthermore, I call on Speaker Pelosi to consider important legislation to develop stricter, more transparent regulations on pork- barrel spending, also known as ``airdropped'' earmarking. I was proud to introduce legislation that would ban the practice of slipping earmarks into Conference reports that have not been approved by either the House or the Senate previously. These items do not have the benefit of being debated in Committee or on the floor of the House of Representatives. By requiring the Conference Committees to only consider items that were passed by one of the Chambers; we can ensure that all projects were examined in the light of day, not the backrooms of Congress.

I ask for consideration of this important provision.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5, the College Student Relief Act of 2007.

Make no mistake; H.R. 5 is a bad bill which does not live up to its title. In fact, this legislation provides no assistance to help future and current students attend college. Instead of helping increase attendance, this legislation seeks to reduce interest rates for those making payments on their student loans. This is a worthy goal. But this legislation accomplishes this by taxing private lenders, ultimately reducing the number of lenders willing to participate in the student loan program.

H.R. 5 provides a short-term reduction in interest rates for students who received federally guaranteed subsidized loans while they were attending college. In order to pay for this required rate reduction, this legislation forces private lenders to reduce their rates below market value. Additionally, this legislation doubles the tax imposed on these lenders by increasing the lender origination fee from .05 percent to 1 percent.

Over the course of this debate we have heard stories from Members of Congress about how the ability to go to school greatly added to their quality of life. I agree wholeheartedly that there are numerous benefits to attending college. However, not one of those Members of Congress would have had greater access to college if H.R. 5 had been in effect when they were undergraduates, because this bill does nothing for aspiring students.

Finally, I think it is important to note that we have a very competitive private marketplace providing student loans. When the government places mandates reducing their ability to compete--we all lose by driving competitors out of the marketplace. H.R. 5 directly targets the Federal family education Loan industry, dealing a devastating blow to the industry that has helped millions of students go to college.

I urge my colleagues. to oppose this legislation and work toward a bill that will actually help college students realize their goals of furthering their education.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support, but let me say not support in the traditional sense. There are those of us who are parents who have lost young ones and have watched and had to make the decision of what to do with embryos that they have. I think the sanctity of life works both ways.

One of the sanctity of life concepts is to make sure that if you are going to lose a loved one, you respect the life and try to maximize the benefit from that loss. I think this bill is trying to address that. I would ask both sides not to point fingers, but to try to find that sanctity of life is something that is interpreted in many ways.

One of them is to make sure that if a life is going to be lost, we have a moral obligation to maximize the potential benefit from that loss. That is a respect for sanctity of life that is not discussed enough.

Madam Speaker, I think everyone will agree, when it came to earmarks, the big concern

about the abuses of the past were two components: one is transparency or the lack of transparency in previous proceedings when it came to earmarks. The other was the issue of what is called air drops, those that could be in a conference and at the last minute add things into the budget without going through the review of the committee or subcommittee and a public review of that aspect.

I have to compliment both sides of the aisle when it comes to transparency. I think that both Republicans and Democrats are working together to make sure the public knows who has asked for earmarks to be included. But I ask that at the same time, and to say we are a little let down, I think the public is going to feel let down, because both sides, both Republicans and Democrats, have not addressed the air drop issue. In fact, let's face it, why put your earmark or your request through the review process of committee and subcommittee if you can get put on the conference committee at the last minute, and just before the votes are brought to the House floor add your item in without going through the review process?

So I would ask the majority and the minority to take a look at this aspect and not move this bill without having it specific that unless an item has been voted on in the House or the Senate before it got to conference, that it shouldn't be added in at the last minute. And I come from the 50th District of California, as you know, and we saw the crisis in credibility and government that was created by the Member that preceded me, and one of those crises was the fact that the game here was get on that conference committee so you could add your item in, in an air drop, at the last minute.

So I would ask the majority to go back and take a look at this item and bring back something that stops the abuse of air drops, the last- minute inclusion of earmarks that doesn't go through the review process, doesn't allow the public to know about it, and doesn't allow you and me as Members to be able to address this issue individually.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the chance, and I ask you to reconsider that before we move this item.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank Mr. Latham and both the majority and the minority for presenting this resolution today.

I do not talk about a situation that occurred over 22 years ago in my family. Actually it was 22 years, 2 months ago that my wife and I lost our child at 3 months to crib death.

I am sure you have got to believe that 22 years should be able to cover up the pain and the hurt and the scar. But it does not. And though we have been blessed with five healthy children, we will always have that missing spot that that little 3-month-old baby filled.

But I want to thank you for today, and I stand up here today and speak of this matter to represent the men and women who have gone through what my family has gone through, and thank you for this.

If I may leave you with one message: more important than us grieving for our losses of those young ones that have died and are not here today, the best way for us to really remember them is to appreciate and worship and thank God for the blessings of having healthy children and babies that we can take care of.

Because they truly are the best memorial for our babies that we have lost, by preserving and protecting the treasures that God has given us in healthy children.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today in support of H.R. 2679. Let me just say as a Representative from San Diego County, we have had a situation that I think both sides of the aisle would say was absolutely absurd, where there was a movement to destroy a war memorial on Mount Soledad, and the justification was because that war memorial happened to have been a religious symbol, a cross. One group, or a small plaintiff, not only was pushing for the destruction of the war memorial, but actually got the fees paid to gain profiteering from the destruction of this war memorial.

Now, you may say there must be a logical reason, it must be reasonable, there must have been some good reason to tear down this war memorial. Mr. Speaker, let me remind you that this body had a chance to vote on exactly the same issue, and this body voted 349 to preserve the war memorial, with 74 voting to destroy it. I think that it is quite clear that this body has said that the preservation of certain religious artifacts did not justify the profiteering by those who would want to destroy it.

I strongly ask us to look at this bill and just think about this: this profiteering not only affects the agencies or the people that have to pay out, like the city of San Diego, but that money could have gone to services throughout the community which proportionately help those needy, those poor and those who need it the most.

So, so much of this profiteering is being made at the expense of those who people on both sides of the aisle say do not get enough resources. I just think it is time that we tell the trial lawyers and we tell those who are profiteering from trying to destroy our religious heritage that we are no longer going to allow them to walk away from the courts with bags of the people's money and individuals' resources that can be used in better locations.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the bill and would like to thank the chairman of the committee for this legislation, and I would like to thank the ranking member, my old friend, Mr. Filner from San Diego.

Let me just say, sincerely, I think this is what America wants, this is what our veterans need. I think it is a great bipartisan cooperative effort.

The fact is that there are challenges under today's new technology opportunities we have that can be used or abused, and hopefully this bill will be able to tighten up the procedures to make sure we reflect those new realities.

Mr. Speaker, I in no little way want to praise both sides of the aisle for doing what is right for our veterans. Hopefully, we have been able to avoid a major problem in the past and with this legislation will make sure that no major problem occurs.

The identity and the personal records of our veterans are cherished possessions that we hold in the Federal Government, and we want to maintain those for the veterans and not allow it to leak out.

I thank very much both the ranking member but, most importantly, the chairman of the full committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6094, the Community Protection Act of 2006. Right now, the government is releasing numerous rapists, child molesters, murders and other dangerous illegal aliens onto our streets. The Department of Homeland Security's Inspector General said that in the first six months of 2005, more than 696 high-risk aliens were released.

This act will ensure that these dangerous illegal immigrants will not be released back into society. If we are to address the public safety concerns created by our Nation's lax illegal immigration policies, then we must adopt new procedures to will expedite the removal of dangerous criminals.

Of the 55,322 illegal alien criminals found in 2005, about 24 percent were arrested on drug offenses, 15 percent for property-related offenses and about 12 percent were arrested for more serious crimes such as murder, robbery, assault, and sexually related crimes. Even more troubling is the fact that the 55,322 illegal alien criminals committed a total of 700,000 crimes or 13 crimes each. These repeat offenders pose a serious threat to the safety and security of our country.

H.R. 6094 will give the Department of Homeland Security the authority to get these criminals off of our streets and out of our country. One of the key provisions of this bill addresses the problems created by illegal immigrants who belong to violent gangs. In the last decade, the U.S. has experienced a dramatic increase in the number and size of transnational street gangs. These gangs have held entire communities hostage with their violence and our current laws don't do enough to stop these gang members from crossing our border.

The Community Protection Act designates these violent gang members as an inadmissible class--expanding the authority of Homeland Security officials to detain and deport alien gang members. These are common sense provisions that should have adopted years ago. We now have the opportunity to do the right thing and pass this bill that will help combat the violence created from criminal aliens.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6095. Let me say as somebody who was involved in local law enforcement as a county supervisor, mayor, and city council member, it is astonishing to me when it comes down to enforcing our immigration laws how individuals in this institution can find every excuse in the world to not enforce the laws or not wanting the laws enforced.

Now, in all fairness, you want to talk about the cost of law enforcement. Mr. Speaker, in my County of San Diego, the cost of illegal immigration to our law enforcement agencies is $50 million a year, just identified from the County of San Diego. The fact is that there should be involvement in local law enforcement to have the option. But actively there are groups here and groups in California that are telling local law enforcement officers they can't get involved in the illegal immigration issue until there has been a major crime such as murder, rape or mayhem. That is absolutely absurd.

The frustration in law enforcement is being pulled both ways on these issues. Anyone who is sworn to enforce the law knows the impact of illegal immigration, and every law enforcement officer in the long run wants to do everything they can to participate.

I just cringe to think about what our drug policy and drug enforcement policy would be in this country if we took the same attitude, that if a San Diego police officer saw a drug smuggler coming across the border, somehow he or she could not intervene because that is a Federal drug law that is being addressed.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that we stop finding excuses on not allowing our local law enforcement to get involved.

Let me throw this out. If we want to talk about the money issue, let's ask our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to join with us, and why don't we talk about doing fines and forfeiture allocations like we do with drug interdiction. Let's allow the local law enforcement to be able to keep a large percentage of the assets if they catch someone smuggling or is caught. Maybe that is something we can talk about, but not today find an excuse for not giving the authority to our local law enforcement to do what they know is right, and that is fight illegal immigration.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify, as somebody who supervised one of the largest counties in the United States for 10 years in the voter registration system, that voter fraud is not something you can come back on after the fraud is committed. The person who voted for those dead people is long gone by the time it comes up on the record that somebody who has got a death certificate filed is also somebody who supposedly voted. Then to say why didn't we catch the person who was doing it, it is too late to stop voter fraud once the vote is done and they are out of the booth.

That is just a practical experience of actually administering the programs.

Mr. Speaker, last June, in the 50th District, my constituency was rocked by statements made by a candidate that you do not need papers for voting. Those words were rocked across this country as the scandal over the issue of whether a candidate was actually soliciting people who were not U.S. citizens to vote in a public meeting.

The fact is in the State of California there is no checking, no reviewing, and not even the ability for those of us who supervise the electoral process to be able to question those, when they register to vote, if they were qualified. It was strictly on an honor system, and the honor system did not even say I am a citizen. It just says I am qualified.

The integrity of our republican form of government, the electoral process that we like to call democracy, has two major threats. Yes, stopping those who can qualify to vote from being able to participate if they are franchised. But the other violation that we have not addressed enough of when it comes down to violating voters' rights is disqualifying a legitimate vote by allowing those who do not have the constitutional right to vote to cancel out those legitimate votes. That is the violation of the Voting Rights Act that we have not addressed in this body enough.

Mr. Speaker, I ask us to stand up for our process, for fairness, and with the American people, that we will do everything we can to protect our process.

Mr. Speaker, in a day that will be looked upon as one of the worst days in American history, I remember it as a day where the world saw the best in all of us. Together, we mourned the loss of our fellow countrymen, grieved for the families they left behind and reaffirmed our resolve to cement the lessons of their sacrifice. Today, we celebrate their memory by forging a renewed commitment to never forget the lives lost on September 11th. For every life we lost, there was also a tale of courage and spirit.

I'd like to take a moment to tell you the story of a 53-year-old Catholic priest living in San Diego named Bill Metzdorf who is also a member of the California National Guard. On September 11th, Father Metzdorf was fulfilling his annual National Guard requirements by performing funerals at Arlington National Cemetery. Minutes following the attack on the Pentagon, Father Metzdorf was coordinating an impromptu prayer service. He would later accompany rescue workers into the Pentagon debris and perform blessings over the remains of those who did not survive the attack. He did this for more than two weeks, working 12-hour shifts.

Consoling family members, friends and survivors, Father Metzdorf helped strangers become friends, facing his difficult mission with unshakable resolve and fierce determination. Amidst all of the fear and uncertainty, Father Metzdorf stood with unwavering strength and gave others the gift of comfort. His story is similar to many of the police, fire and emergency responders who went into action, unafraid and unwilling to let cowards win the day.

As we honor those people lost five years ago and the heroes who helped rebuild an injured nation, let us also remember the men and women who are currently serving in our armed forces, who did not expect nor invite what would follow after September 11th. The people living in the San Diego region that I represent understand as well as anyone what kind of sacrifices come with military service. They have agreed to put a greater interest above their own and are the cornerstone of our Republic. They are defending the very thing the terrorists tried to destroy and we will never forget their service or sacrifices.

The truth is--we survived the worst and we still stand tall today. Bound by a common spirit of enterprise and a love of liberty, we have moved beyond the shadows cast by the events of 9-11 and persevered. The terrorists may have succeeded in tearing down structures, but no deed can extinguish the flames of freedom, or the American spirit.