Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, America is at a critical time in moving forward with our efforts in the fight against the global war on terror, and it is time for this House to act.

In the coming days this House will consider legislation to ensure that we can try terrorists in military tribunals and military commissions while protecting America's most vital secrets. That legislation will also give those brave Americans who confront suspected terrorists on the front lines of the war on terror and those who interrogate them with the guidance on what they can do to protect our citizens.

We will also be considering legislation that will officially sanction the NSA's terrorist surveillance program that is critical, absolutely critical, to help keep our Nation safe.

Mr. Speaker, we have not been attacked here at home since the horrific attacks on our Nation of 9/11 in large measure because these programs have worked. I ask the Democrats to put aside their partisan posturing and to join with us in protecting America.

The Democrats must recognize that we are at war against terrorists, and that their political rhetoric and demagoguery in search of votes will not make America more secure. They have an opportunity to join us, and I sincerely hope they do so. The security of our Nation depends on it.

Mr. Speaker, certainly the fundamental building block of our democracy for the last 208 years has been a constitutionally guaranteed right to vote. Prior to my service in Congress here, I had the great honor and privilege to serve as my State of Michigan's chief election officer and the secretary of State.

In that role I viewed it as my duty to ensure the integrity of our elections process, to ensure that every eligible voter had an opportunity to vote, to ensure that every registered voter would turn out on election day, and to root out any fraud, any type of fraud in our elections process, and to ensure that every vote that was cast was properly counted.

I would like to think that I do have a deep understanding and certainly a respect for our Nation's electoral process, and not from a partisan tint. In fact, after the 2000 elections, the NAACP gave my administration the Nation's highest grade of any of the secretaries of State in the entire Nation for election reform.

Mr. Speaker, since the 2000 election, this Congress has also taken action to improve the process through the Help America Vote Act, that they authorized and appropriated millions and millions and millions of dollars for, which has improved the quality of our voting equipment and improved the registration voter list throughout the Nation.

Now, today, we have another positive electoral initiative that will help ensure the integrity of our process. H.R. 4844, the Federal Election Integrity Act, will require voters in Federal elections to show a photo ID to prove their identity and to be sure that their vote is counted.

I know that we are hearing concerns from the other side that for very partisan political reasons that this is going to disenfranchise voters, but nothing could be further from the truth. This important reform will ensure that every voter who presents himself at the poll, is who they say they are, and will limit diluting the votes of lawful voters by rooting out fraud.

Mr. Speaker, the call for photo identification at the polling places is not simply coming from Republicans. In fact, in my home State of Michigan, during the 2005 Detroit mayoral race, we heard calls there from both candidates, both camps about electoral improprieties that were happening in the city of Detroit. Both of the candidates engaged in that process and in that election were Democrats.

In fact, Freeman Hendrix, who lost that close race, actually came out after the election with a litany of things that we needed to do in the State of Michigan for election reform and paramount, a priority amongst them from him, was that we needed to have photo identification.

In addition, as has been mentioned on the floor already, the bipartisan Carter-Baker Commission, that is Jimmy Carter, former President Jimmy Carter, the Carter-Baker Commission on Electoral Reform recommended that we require photo ID at the polling places, again to ensure the integrity of our electoral process. I don't think there is anybody in the Nation that would accuse former President Jimmy Carter of being a Republican or a partisan Republican. We need to enact the photo identification requirement.

Another problem is that from some estimates, we have as many as 12 million illegal aliens in our Nation. Many of my constituents are concerned that votes of our citizens are being diluted by noncitizens illegally participating in the electoral process. This legislation actually builds on the REAL ID Act, which ensures that no States issue either driver's licenses or State identification cards to illegal aliens, and it assures the validity of the documents which establish the identity and the citizenship of the individuals.

This legislation will be yet another safeguard to ensure that those who are in our country illegally, or who are not citizens, do not participate in our electoral process. It also ensures that citizens who do not now have a government-issued photo ID, or cannot afford one, will have access to free, literally free, identification.

So there are a lot of reasons as to why people don't vote. Perhaps they think, they are very apathetic, they don't like the negative campaigning, or they don't like their choices of candidate, or they might think that there is too much fraud in the system and that their vote will not count, for whatever reason.

I truly believe that enhancing the integrity of the process will be an impetus to show people that their vote does count, that it is going to be counted, that it is going to be counted properly. In fact, this bill has the potential to actually increase voter participation.

Mr. Speaker, this is commonsense reform that will make our democracy stronger. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, let me say this as simply as I possibly can: The American people are fed up with our porous borders and illegal immigration. If you had the conversations that I had with constituents over the August recess, then you all know how the American

people feel about the problems at our southern border with illegal immigration.

I had an opportunity in July to travel to the southern border with Speaker Hastert and Chairman King, and I saw the situation firsthand. I saw some of the fencing being built in Yuma, by the Kentucky National Guard actually, who was there at that time. We need this fence.

I also was proud during the month of August to welcome the House Armed Services Committee to my district, which shares a very long, liquid border with Canada. I live in Michigan, of course. There we had this hearing to investigate the issue of northern border security.

As a result of that hearing, this legislation also requires the Department of Homeland Security to conduct a study that will allow us to field a state-of-the-art barrier system on the northern border. And let me say that it is very much needed. Every day smugglers are bringing drugs and people and other contraband across our northern border, which is met with little or no resistance. Terror cells have been rounded up in Toronto, which is literally only a 3-hour drive from my district.

While it is very important to secure our southern border, I am glad that this House is not losing sight of our northern border as well. I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, Osama bin Laden himself has stated that victory for the extremists in Iraq will mean America's defeat and disgrace forever.

The terrorists clearly see Iraq has the central front in the global war on terror.

On Monday evening, the fifth anniversary of the attacks of 9/11 and the beginning of the war on terror, the President clearly stated the importance of success in Afghanistan and Iraq and winning that war. He understands the resolve that we need to meet the significant challenges faced by our Nation.

And what is the response of the Democratic leadership? To attack the President for even mentioning Iraq as a part of the war on terror. They seek, once again, to distract and divide America to score cheap political points.

For whatever reason, they do not take the terrorists at their word with regard to Iraq, or they do not care because they see a political benefit in undermining U.S. efforts.

The Democrats must understand that America must be united. We must have the resolve to defeat the terrorists in the heart of their power so we do not have to fight them on our own streets.

One has to wonder if the Democratic leadership cares as much about winning the war on terror as they do about winning the election in November.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, on September 11, 2001, terrorists murdered nearly 3,000 of our fellow Americans who were simply going about their everyday, daily lives. Their goal: to attack our freedom and change our way of life.

They believed America to be decadent and weak. They believed that we would not forcefully respond. They believed that America would recoil or retreat, and they could not have been more wrong.

That horrible day broke our hearts, but out of our collective broken heart came everything that is great about this great Nation, America.

Police officers and firefighters ran into burning buildings, risking their lives to save people they did not know. The passengers aboard United Flight 93 who, knowing the intention of the terrorists, built the resolve that they would not allow the terrorists to determine their fate, they fought back to give America our first victory in the war on terror.

This resolution shows that we in this House share that resolve to defeat terror. This resolution honors the victims of 9/11 and the sacrifice of so many who have fought for our freedom since that day.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all our colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing a great deal lately from the Democrats about their ideas on how to fight and how to win the war on terror. But yesterday I was listening to the White House press secretary, Tony Snow, give his daily briefing. I thought he summed up the Democrats' position on the war on terror very clearly.

He said: ``There have been some in the Democratic Party who have argued against the PATRIOT Act, against the terrorist surveillance program, against Guantanamo. In other words, there are some who say that we should not fight the war, we should not apprehend al Qaeda, we should not detain al Qaeda, we should not question al Qaeda, we should not listen to al Qaeda. In other words, they are all for winning the war on terror, but they are against providing the tools for winning that war.''

Mr. Speaker, now those same people want America to entrust them with power, to set national policy in the war on terror. And this month we will be addressing many issues important to the security of our Nation: defending against terror, prosecuting terrorists, securing our borders. I urge every American to watch how each Representative and each party votes on these very important issues, and they will each know which party truly stands for security from terror.

Mr. Speaker, the nation of Canada is really a great friend to America in so many ways, but it is not very neighborly to unapologetically dump your garbage on your neighbor, and that is what has been happening in Michigan for decades.

Every day in Michigan, hundreds of huge trucks loaded with Canadian garbage come across the Blue Water Bridge in my district, and they dump their garbage in Michigan landfills. For decades, the Michigan legislature, both Republicans and Democrats, have tried to pass laws that would stop this ridiculous situation, but we have always been told that only Congress has the authority to stop it by passing legislation in both the House and the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I, along with my colleagues in the House, both Republicans and Democrats, have pushed and prodded and persuaded the House leadership to allow us to vote on this legislation.

This legislation will allow the State legislatures the right to block foreign trash while the EPA promulgates a rule over a 2-year period to make the ban permanent. If the House passes this bill today, and I sincerely hope

that we do, the House will have done its duty.

But according to Michigan's two United States Senators, companion legislation which has been languishing in the Senate has little, if any, chance of going forward because you see, Mr. Speaker, Michigan's two Senators secretly negotiated a personal agreement with the Province of Ontario that effectively stops our ability to stop Canadian trash. Michigan's two Senators agreed not to push any legislation in the Senate and not to push any inspection fees of those trucks and agreed not to do anything apparently on this issue for the next 4 years.

And in return, the Canadians have agreed to phase out over the next 4 years about one-third of the garbage that they dump in Michigan today. What about the other two thirds? Apparently there is no problem. We are going to just stand back and let those trucks keep coming.

No wonder the Canadians have been celebrating in the last week. They cannot believe their good luck. Just when the United States Congress finally is set to pass legislation that will stop Canadian trash, the two Senators from Michigan save them.

I am not going to question the motives of my two Senators. Obviously, they want to stop Canadian trash, but the motivation of the Canadians is very clear. In fact, when asked by the Canadian media why they would have agreed to this deal, the environmental ministry spokesperson said, ``Our garbage trucks could have been turned back from the border as early as January of 2007. We needed to find a solution to avert that.''

The Canadians knew very well we were going to have this vote today. They needed a solution. I hope they haven't found it.

In fact, I had one reporter tell me in fairness to the Senators, they thought their agreement was for all of the trash. They didn't realize it was only for one-third. Well, we should have had some other people included in the secret negotiation with the Canadians, and somebody could have pointed that fact out.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, to vote ``yes'' on this bill and to work together to encourage action in the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, House Republicans have demonstrated their commitment to immigration reform by passing a very strong border security bill that focus on strengthening our border and enforcing our law. I think that the House Republican bill does reflect the majority of Americans.

Unfortunately, Democrats have decided to go a different way. The Reid-Kennedy immigration bill would, one, allow as many as 60 million more immigrants over the next 20 years; two, Mexico would have to be consulted regarding construction of a barrier on our border; and, three, guaranteed Social Security benefits would be provided for illegal immigrants for the time they were in the country illegally.

So if an American citizen broke our Social Security laws, he or she would face jail time. But if an illegal immigrant broke the laws to get here and then broke our Social Security laws, we are going to reward them.

Mr. Speaker, House Republicans are doing the right thing by taking this issue to the Nation. We are holding hearings around the country to gain input from our citizens. Already a common theme we are hearing is that people would rather have no bill than a bad bill.

So in the interim, as Congress remains in a stalemate with the Democratic Senate bill, how about this as a concept: Enforce the current immigration laws.

Mr. Speaker, politics unfortunately, can be

a very tough business, and the low road is often taken by political adversaries in an effort to gain power.

But the video released by the Democratic Campaign Committee hit a new low. This cynical attempt to raise campaign cash actually uses photographs of those who made the ultimate sacrifice. It shows photos of coffins draped with the American flag. Those coffins, of course, are occupied by American soldiers.

Mr. Speaker, our incredibly brave men and women in uniform did not make the ultimate sacrifice so that the DCCC could raise campaign cash. They made that sacrifice in defense of freedom and liberty and democracy. The Democratic leadership should be ashamed, and every Democratic Member of this House should be ashamed and call upon their leadership to remove this video which is an affront to our fallen soldiers and to their families.

It is appalling that the Democrats have sunken to such a new low as to employ doctored photos and tasteless videos in their pursuit of power. The American people and our fallen heroes deserve more.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me say that I wholeheartedly support the passage of the Voting Rights Act, the renewal of it. I think it is very, very important, critically important for this Congress to act on this issue today.

And let me say to my friends in the Congressional Black Caucus, obviously I have never had the African American experience, but I am sincerely moved when I hear such great civil rights leaders as John Lewis, and others who have spoken today with such passion about the injustices that happened in regards to voting.

Before I came to Congress, I served for 8 years as the Michigan secretary of state, with the principal responsibility as my State's chief election officer. So I feel I have some credibility to speak to this issue, because during those 8 years I actually had the occasion to have to actually threaten legal action against an African American clerk who I thought was disenfranchising African Americans in the city of Detroit of the right to have their votes counted.

I am also very proud of the fact that in 2001 the NAACP gave me the highest grade in the entire Nation for any secretary of state for election reform and for voter integrity programs.

I am also proud to be a member of the party of Abraham Lincoln, and while I strongly believe in clean elections, fair elections, and voting integrity, I also believe in States' rights and local control.

This amendment is all about States' rights and local control. It has nothing to do with the immigration issue. It has nothing to do with racial equality. It simply says that the Federal Government does not mandate to the States or the local units of government that they provide bilingual ballots. And if the State or local units decide they want to do so, fine, that is their option.

Mr. Chairman, consider for just a moment that in southeast Michigan alone we have the largest Arabic population in the Nation and we have the largest Macedonian population in the Nation. My home county has an Italian cultural center, a German cultural center, a Ukrainian cultural center, and a Polish cultural center, which are a reflection of the very proud ethnic heritage of the area. If the local election officials want to provide them with bilingual ballots, that should be their choice, not a Federal mandate. And the same should be so all across our great Nation.

Vote ``yes'' on this amendment

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, following the absolutely horrific attacks on our Nation of 9/11, the news media condemned our government for not connecting the dots on how we could have prevented those attacks. We have had government employees who spoke of their inability to gather necessary information or to share that information with others in government.

The 9/11 Commission stated the need to be more aggressive in gathering information on those who seek to murder our fellow citizens. To address this problem, Congress authorized the administration to take all appropriate measures to track down the terrorists; and the administration has done so, with the appropriate oversight by our Intelligence Committees.

But now some in government service who have been entrusted with Top Secret classified information have repeatedly taken it upon themselves to illegally leak those secrets; and they have leaked those secrets to a news media, some of them all too willing to give our playbook to the enemy, giving them the opportunity to adapt and to evade, the same news media that had previously condemned our government's inability to uncover terrorist plots.

By illegally leaking and irresponsibly publishing our secrets, the lives of our fellow citizens, our fellow Americans and our brave men and women in uniform who defend our freedom are endangered.

It is certainly disappointing, but not surprising, that my colleagues on the Democratic side see this issue in light of how it might be used to their political advantage, rather than wondering how it might seriously undermine our national security.

I would urge my colleagues to send a very strong message that this Congress will not stand idly by while loose lips are allowed to cost innocent lives.

Mr. Speaker, over the weekend and just now on the floor, we have seen leading Democrats spin themselves into the ground when reports came out that the general in charge of operations was making plans to lower the number of American troops in Iraq.

Democrats seem more interested in who gets the political credit for the troops coming home than allowing themselves to achieve their mission. They see bogeymen around every corner.

In fact, the Senator from my home State of Michigan said that he knows the administration intends to withdraw troops in advance of the election simply for political gain.

Well, if they actually believe that the President is going to bring the troops home, why all these resolutions calling for a timetable for a withdrawal? Do they fear a withdrawal that happens due to the heroism of our troops and not Democratic political maneuvering?

The policy which has been backed by both Houses of Congress is that, as the Iraqis are increasingly able to stand up and provide for their own security, our forces will be able to stand down and return home with their mission accomplished.

Arbitrary timelines and calls for immediate withdrawal are nothing more than political posturing that will not change conditions on the ground.

God bless our troops.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself as much time as I might consume.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment has the potential actually to impact millions of property owners, millions of them, property owners that live on, near or around the Upper Great Lakes, which is essentially everything in the Great Lakes Basin upstream from Niagara Falls. So Lake Superior, Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, Lake Erie, Lake St. Clair, and then the rivers of Saint Mary, the Saint Clair River, the Detroit River and the Niagara River.

Mr. Chairman, FEMA is currently engaged in doing what the Congress directed them to do, and that is to update and to modernize flood maps across the entire Nation. And I certainly recognize that with new technology, we can and we should update the maps to convert them into a user-friendly digital format which will account for property development and growth as well as changes in topography. So I certainly want to make clear that I support authorizing funds so that this important work continues.

However, I do believe that property owners on the Upper Great Lakes are being treated unfairly by this process, because I can show over and over and over again how these property owners, who very rarely flood nor have the potential to flood, are actually being abused by the National Flood Insurance Program. Just those in the current floodplain are already paying in substantially more in premiums than they will ever, ever receive in claims out. And now FEMA wants to include more. And they want more.

Mr. Chairman, I would submit that if any private insurance company was trying to get away with this, the State insurance commissioners in the Great Lakes States would be revoking their licenses to sell insurance. Let me just give you one example: in regards to FEMA's proposal for remapping in the Great Lakes region they are basing raising the base flood elevation an additional 14 inches, they say to accurately reflect the risk of flooding.

But this is predicated on data from 1988. This was 2 years after the absolute high recorded rate levels for the Great Lakes ever. And during that time, none of the new properties FEMA is talking about bringing into the floodplain actually flooded, nor was it in danger of flooding.

Since that time, in Lake St. Clair alone, the lake levels have dropped over 3 feet and they are now, it is now almost 5 feet below the current flood elevation. And most importantly, if you really want to look at historic averages, the lake level has only changed an average depth of less than 6 inches per year. Yet, if FEMA goes ahead with their proposal, the new base flood elevation will be 6 feet above the current lake levels. And for the lake levels to rise that much, I think that the polar ice caps would probably have to melt next year. And I don't believe even Al Gore is predicting something like that.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment simply asks for FEMA to do no more harm, to keep their status quo on the Great Lakes property owners and base their new maps on updated data.

My amendment would require that the Army Corps of Engineers would

have to wait until they have the results of a 5-year study, which is currently being undertaken by the International Joint Commission, the IJC. I believe they are 2 years into their 5-year study. This will be the most comprehensive lake level study completed. And certainly we can all agree that using sound science when literally hundreds of millions of dollars are about to be assessed against American property owners is the most prudent course of action. I would urge my colleagues to support the Miller amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the arguments opposed to my amendment. I did not say that we never thought that the lake levels would ever rise or that we would flood. Obviously, I think there are a lot of factors that go into the lake levels rising. You have factors that are manmade, like the Chicago diversionary canal. You have got the Sault Locks. You have got the St. Laurence Seaway. The biggest factor has nothing to with man, and that is God. God makes the lake levels go up and down, I think.

But I would say this: I think this is an issue of financial fairness. I really do believe that. And the brutal reality is that FEMA actually needs more money to pay for all these flood insurance claims that they have had in recent years. Let me just cite this statistic, and let me ask anyone to tell me with a straight face that it is fair and equitable: between 1978 and 2002, there were 10 States that received more in claims than what they paid in policies, in fact, over $1.5 billion more. And the average premium for policyholders in those States was $223.

Michigan, on the other hand, paid almost $120 million more into the program than it received back in claims. Yet the average premium for our policyholders was $260. And this is a common element in all of the Great Lakes States, the same States that are paying year after year after year, decade after decade, much more than others. And I think they are being taken advantage of by the flood insurance program.

Again, I would urge my colleagues to support the Miller amendment. This is a good bill. I think my amendment makes a good bill better.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this rule and certainly the underlying legislation as well.

You know, President Reagan said the government is too big, and it spends too much. That is a very simple statement, but it really goes to the heart of why we need to have a line item veto.

The American people are demanding something be done to get a handle on some of the out-of-control spending that does happen here, and the legislation we are considering today will go a very long way to bring fiscal restraint and greater accountability to government spending.

The line item veto has actually worked in many, many States across our great Nation, including in my home State of Michigan, and I believe it can work here as well at the Federal level.

Currently the only way that a President can make a stand against wasteful spending is to veto an entire bill, even though perhaps only a few provisions in that might be offensive. We have seen that not only this President, but others before him have been extremely hesitant to do so.

So often we hear about some particular egregious pork-barrel spending slipped into what is otherwise a very good bill, and right now there is really nothing that can be done. This bill gives another tool. It is another way for the administration to work with the Congress to address spending in a responsible and a reasonable manner.

This bill is common sense, and I think it will require lawmakers to be more careful about the spending that they are advocating and also to be able to justify that spending. I think this is a great start toward fiscal responsibility, and I urge my colleagues to support this rule and again to support the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule as well as the underlying legislation.

We are a Nation engaged in a global war on terror, and it is critical that during this time we focus our spending on what we need to defeat our terrorist enemies. This bill does that. We have learned an awful lot during this conflict as to the vulnerability of our forces, and this bill addresses those vulnerabilities.

This bill allocates $1.5 billion to test and field new jammers to counter improvised explosive devices, which have been such a deadly threat to our troops.

We also provide an additional $725 million for other force protection equipment, such as body armor for our troops in the field.

This bill also fully funds the President's request for a 2.2 percent pay increase for the members of our armed services, a pay increase that is well, well deserved.

This bill also restores $557 million to the Army Reserve and National Guard above the requested amount to reflect newly authorized troop levels. Our troops need to know that the Congress of the United States is working hard to recognize their needs and to address them forcefully.

This bill also allocates $50 billion for ongoing operations in Iraq and in Afghanistan in hopes of avoiding future supplemental appropriation bills. We are at war, and it only makes sense to appropriate funds under regular order to pay for the cost of the war.

Mr. Speaker, the news today is that North Korea is threatening to launch a new ballistic missile which has the capability to reach our shores. It validates the inclusion of $9 billion in this bill for our missile defense shield.

Back in the days of the Cold War, people used to call President Ronald Reagan ``crazy,'' or they called him a ``warmonger'' for even advocating missile defense. Well, today he doesn't look so crazy. Actually, today he looks visionary, and we need to do everything that we can to defend our citizens from terrorist states and rogue nations like North Korea who threaten world peace and stability.

The news today that our missile defense is on high alert in case of a launch is very good news, and the American people should know that we recognize threats to our security, and we will do all that we can to protect our Nation.

Also, Mr. Speaker, earmarks and various Member projects have come under question and scrutiny recently. This bill does the responsible thing by limiting those projects to $5 billion, $2.7 billion less than last year's bill. And for those projects that remain in the bill, every Member who advocates for a project or asked for an earmark should not be afraid to stand up on this floor to defend it.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you about one of those projects that I asked for in this bill which is centered at Selfridge Air National Guard Base in my district. As our Nation seeks alternatives for everyday energy needs, we also need alternatives for the military.

This bill provides $2 million for the second phase of a project to turn waste into fuel and electricity. NextEnergy, a nonprofit alternative fuel research cooperative in the great State of Michigan, is working with the U.S. Army on this important project. This fuel would help run a generator that would produce high-quality electric energy that every military unit needs. This is a very important project to support our troops.

Mr. Speaker, this is a reasonable rule to manage an outstanding bill. It has the right priorities. And we need to make sure that our military remains the best trained, the best supported, the best equipped and the most lethal fighting force that the world has ever seen.

I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.