Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, just a few short weeks ago, the Prime Minister of Israel addressed a joint session of Congress. He said, in part, and I quote, ``There has not been 1 year, 1 week, or even 1 day of peace in our tortured land.'' He went on to say, Madam Speaker, ``Over the past 6 years, more than 20,000 attempted terrorist attacks have been initiated against the people of Israel.''

Madam Speaker, less than 2 weeks ago, the war which has gone on for more than a half century was rekindled with the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers, with the strategy manipulated by Iran and Syria, by a cynical, sick, cycle of violence that diplomacy has not cured.

I listened with great interest to my friend from Ohio who preceded me, who again said that diplomacy was the solution.

Madam Speaker, Israel was told by the international community, you must give up land for peace, land for peace. Israel gave up land, and there is no peace.

Madam Speaker, my colleagues, I rise in strong support of this resolution, not to embrace war or violence for its own sake, but instead to pursue a true peace and to reaffirm.

Madam Speaker, I stand in this well at this hour to reaffirm the basic truth of this resolution and the right of the sovereignty and existence of the State of Israel from a historical, from a legal and, yes, from a scriptural perspective. Let it be clear from this, the last best hope of mankind on Earth, that we stand foursquare with our allies in Israel, and we understand the nefarious misbegotten schemes of those who seek to spread Islamofascism and terror around the globe, and we categorically reject that behavior and those actions as we stand in solidarity with our ally, a democracy, an oasis of democracy in a desert of desolation.

Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join us in strong support of this resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Iowa for the time, and I would like to ask my good friend, the sponsor of this amendment, to engage in a brief colloquy.

Mr. Chairman and my colleagues, as a long-time advocate for the sovereign rights of Native American tribes and in recognition of the importance of preserving those languages indigenous to America, I do need to ask the gentleman from Iowa for a few points of clarification.

First and foremost, does this amendment restrict a tribe or local government's ability to print a ballot in any language it deems necessary to better serve its voting population?

Mr. Chairman, current Federal law allows a voter to receive necessary assistance from someone while in the voting booth. This statute makes it possible for a tribal elder, who may be more comfortable communicating in an indigenous tribal language, to be aided by a translator while participating in the democratic process.

Does this amendment in any way restrict any American from receiving such assistance?

I thank the gentleman from Iowa for clearly stating his amendment does not infringe on tribal sovereign rights to print ballots in native languages or on the ability of a tribal member to receive translational assistance while voting.

With this assurance, I will support this fiscally responsible amendment before us, which removes a costly and unfunded Federal mandate currently being forced upon these local tribal and State governments.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments of my friend from Virginia, and perhaps at a later time, he can elaborate on what he said at a town hall meeting recently where he was quoted as saying he looked forward to earmarking the heck out of future spending bills, should his party take control.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to talk about the border security hearings we held last week in California and Texas. I attended the hearing in California and noted with interest the comments of Sheriff Rick Flores of Webb County, Texas, who said in response to our questions that the first goal of this government, and our first priority, should be enforcement of the law and enforcement of our borders.

Mr. Speaker, that is a clear message. The American people likewise want to see enforcement first, no tricks, no triggers, no amnesty, enforcing existing laws and closing loopholes to reaffirm that our great Republic is, in fact, a nation of laws.

Mr. Speaker, when your house is on fire, do you hold a hearing? When you need emergency treatment, do you take time for a hearing?

I rise in support of this resolution because at times we need not be prisoners of process but instead champions of policy.

What is past is prologue. The year 1944, early in that year, General Dwight David Eisenhower steps before the war correspondents and says, with reference to D Day, Fellows, I want you to know it is going to be in early June.

The war correspondents to a man stopped writing. One asks, General, why did you tell us?

And Ike responds, Because you are good Americans and I know you won't endanger the lives of other Americans.

The question before this House is just that stark and just that simple. In wartime, despite partisan differences, will we stand together knowing that information is sensitive in wartime and some information should remain secret to protect the American people? That is all this resolution says, that we abhor the leaks and that they must stop and together we must win this effort. Our future depends on it.

I thank the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee for this time as we again return to the well of the people's House; and how interesting it is, Mr. Speaker, that so many arguments are devoid of real facts and taken perhaps as articles of faith.

I heard the minority whip come to the well and attempt to whip up partisan passions as if this bill had some grand nefarious design. No, Mr. Speaker, that is not the case. And I will avoid pointing out the obvious outlook of my friends on the left who basically take as an article of faith that people who succeed should be penalized.

I rise in strong support of this commonsense compromise because, according to the Joint Committee on Taxation, this legislation would permanently protect more than 99.7 percent of all taxpayers from ever paying this egregious estate tax and would reduce the harmful economic distortions caused by the current law estate tax.

And, again, this is not a partisan argument. The standard bearer of the Democratic Party in the State of Arizona, now a decade ago, has constantly contacted me as a Member of Congress saying: When are you going to take longlasting action on the estate tax? Because I cannot pass my business down to my children in the current conditions.

Why would we penalize those who succeed, and on top of that, by extension, penalize the very people my friends on the left purport to help? Because business owners create jobs. The government does not create the jobs.

For increased economic activity, for a good, solid, consistent policy that helps the most people in the best ways, support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, again we return to the people's House to discuss the people's business and the central question that cuts to the very core of our existence: free men and women engaged in an armed struggle to advance freedom elsewhere in the world; our all-volunteer military, standing in the breach against Islamofascism and terror in Afghanistan and in innumerable other places around the globe. But the central front for our discussion this evening in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution, in support of the troops, in support of this mission, as I often recall the words of Mark Twain that history does not repeat it, but it rhymes.

I review the debate that has gone on in the people's House today, so many willing to compare this to Vietnam. So many coming to this floor using the term ``quagmire,'' and yet any dispassionate, objective evaluation of what has transpired would be remiss if we did not include not one, not two, but three elections where we have seen turnout by the Iraqi people exceed on each occasion what had gone on before.

We see a nation being born, fighting terror, and we see American troops, volunteers, stepping forward.

Others have made the point, Mr. Speaker, that there is no more solemn and sacred obligation than casting a

vote to put our military into harm's way. I have been at Walter Reed with one of my constituents prior to surgery. I had that young man say to me: Congressman, I am a cav scout. That's my job; that's my profession. Help me do all I can to get back with my unit.

The men and women of our military are professionals doing a tough job. I don't doubt the sincerity and intent of those who oppose this resolution, but I do respectfully take issue with their judgment.

If not us, who? If not now, when? We have no choice. Failure is not an option, and to those for whatever reason eager to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, al Zarqawi is dead. A democracy is being born. Freedom is on the march. This remains an imperfect world with mistakes and challenges that likewise remain, but let us stand steadfast, true to the course, true to the cause, true to freedom. Vote ``yes'' on this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California for the time, and I appreciate my friend from New York who will be leaving this chamber, and I salute him for his own energy efficiency in producing a lot of heat but very little light in this regard.

Here are the facts we confront. No one is against conservation. No one is against alternative fuel sources. Indeed, as the author of the resolution on a solar tax provision passed in the energy bill and one who wants to extend that, I think I offer tangible testimony to embracing new technologies, but the fact is, in our current situation, sadly, we are dependent on foreign oil.

It is a fair question to again put before this House: Mr. Speaker, should we use environmentally responsible ways to explore for energy, especially where there is a proven energy reserve? We have such a reserve in ANWR. And understand the scope of the argument: The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the size of the State of South Carolina. The area where we would like to explore for the energy is about the size of John Foster Dulles Airport outside Washington, D.C. We should vote for this responsible measure.

Mr. Chairman, the state of Arizona has a rich history, much of it left to us by Native Americans from centuries past. One way in which the great tribal traditions and cultural stories of our native predecessors are passed down is in the form of petroglyphs. These scenes, pictures and designs carved into rock formations tell the stories of the first Americans, and it is important that we give special attention to the preservation of these artifacts.

One of Arizona's largest collections of petroglyphs is housed at the Deer Valley Rock Art Center in Phoenix. Conceptualized with the intent to both preserve and educate, the center is operated and maintained by Arizona State University and the 47 acre facility is home to over 1,500 petroglyphs.

I would like to encourage the Bureau of Land Management to engage in conversations with the Deer Valley Rock Art Center in order to see where the agency might be able to provide assistance to the center. It is my hope that strengthening the relationship between the agency and the center will make it possible for Arizona's historical treasures to continue to be preserved, allowing the center to remain a valuable educational tool for generations to come.

Madam Chairman, I thank my colleague from Oregon for this time.

I rise in strong support of the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act and would like to highlight a few of the more than 100 diverse groups that share in my support of this legislation. While these groups range in background and represent interests from across the country, they all strongly support the timely restoration of our precious public lands.

A number of professional firefighting groups support this act, including the International Association of Fire Chiefs. In addition, the National Association of State Foresters, National

Association of Federal Employees, National Wildlife Suppression Association, and Pacific Wildfire International, which collectively represent 25,000 firefighters, all support H.R. 4200.

In fact, the State Foresters say, ``As a leader in wildland firefighting, the National Association of State Foresters supports H.R. 4200 as a tool for restoring forests and reducing long-term fire danger, thereby reducing risk to communities and wildland firefighters alike.''

Twenty-three wildlife and outdoor sports groups, including the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Wildlife Management Institute, all support this legislation as well. The Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation comments, ``This legislation's commitment to timely responses to catastrophic events by allowing for rapid restoration of ecosystems, utilization of damaged trees before they lose economic value, protection of adjacent lands from subsequent wildfires, and the opportunity for public participation and recovery planning is consistent with our members' expectations and is simply common sense.''

The Society of American Foresters, or SAF, which represents more than 15,000 scientists, professional forest managers, researchers, and consultants from across the country likewise supports this legislation. According to the SAF, ``Catastrophic events will forever alter our forests, but we can bring them back quickly with timely and thoughtful science and experience-informed management . . . this act would also provide for additional research to help improve actions forest managers take in responding to catastrophes . . . We urge you to support the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act.''

Moreover, a wide variety of associations, such as the Southern Forest Products Association, the American Forest & Paper Association, and the National Association of Home Builders, all support this bill. And a host of our State and local government partners have written letters of support for this legislation, including the National Association of Counties and the National Association of Conservation Districts.

The comments of support this bill has received consistently express one key theme: When catastrophe strikes, the Federal Government must have scientifically proven, commonsense policies in place that allow us to act quickly to restore and reforest public land. This legislation allows us to do this.

I urge my colleagues to join us in support of this bipartisan legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the difference of opinion in the people's House. I listened with great interest to my friend from Texas. Indeed, when this question was before the House on prior occasions, at least a couple of times in my time in this Congress, I sided with my friend from Texas.

And yet, we have been overtaken by current events and a literal admonition from the Constitution of the United States, article IV, section 4: ``The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion.''

Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, regrettably, in my home State of Arizona, especially along the width and breadth of our southern border, our Nation is being invaded. And not only is it those coming to our country illegally seeking work, the sad fact is, according to the Department of Homeland Security, in the year 2004, 650 people from nations of a ``national security interest'' to the United States, in other words, enemies of this Nation, at least 650, crossed the border illegally.

It has been documented in my State that nightly between 6,000 and 6,500 attempt to gain illegal access to the United States of America. Some within that group are people who intend our Nation harm.

People say we are in a nonemergency situation. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, I say quite the opposite is true. I say, and I believe Members of this House and the American Nation as a whole understand, that in many areas, our borders, sectors of our borders, have essentially devolved into de facto war zones.

``Yes'' to this amendment. ``Yes'' to dealing with this emergency. ``Yes'' to our military on the border. ``Yes'' to stopping this invasion.

Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague from California, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, for this time and as always, I listened with interest to my good friend from New York, and I think it illustrates some very real differences.

Tax relief should not be partisan. And part of what we actually do here in the people's House is practice the art of the possible. And so before this House today we have much-needed tax relief.

The alternative minimum tax, or AMT, has become Uncle Sam's ATM. Too much, too often have we seen the Federal Government reach into the pockets of middle-income taxpayers, and with this legislation today, we put a stop to using the AMT as Uncle Sam's ATM. That is something that the American people want to see.

And there is other thoughtful tax relief here because, in stark contrast to the bleak picture painted by my friends on the other side of the aisle, we understand that there is no reason to penalize people who succeed. By extending the 15 percent rate on dividend and capital gains taxes through 2010 and extending the increased small business expensing through 2009, we are not punishing people for succeeding. That is vital.

Is it important to Wall Street? Yeah, Mr. Speaker, it is important to Wall Street. But it is important to Main Street and it is important to your street, Mr. Speaker, every street in this Union, every neighborhood, because it helps to generate wealth and investment and that is what we are about here.

I ask the House to adopt this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California, the chairman of the Rules Committee, for the time to speak on behalf of this rule.

And one of the challenges we confront in an institution that, yes, has a partisan composition and is made up of, admittedly, imperfect beings is that there are numerous examples of imperfection and, dare we say, partisanship brought to this debate.

But the question in the final analysis, despite the seeming inevitability of incrementalism, which in itself in this case is not fatal or does not flaw this positive action, is that the short-term temptation to attempt to gain partisan advantage is not completely negated on this floor. And, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, we would be naive if we thought that it were.

I listened with great interest to my friend from Virginia, a member of the Judiciary Committee, offer some legal case history, although his amendment was not germane to this bill. I could point out, just as a citizen, we could look at other challenges faced by other Congresses and other majority in a landmark work entitled The Ambition and the Power that dealt with the challenges of a previous majority.

What is past is prologue. What we have an opportunity to do in this House today, despite admitted imperfections, despite the temptation of partisanship, is to take a meaningful step forward for reform.

I listened to constructive criticisms from those who say the bill does not go far enough. I listened to other criticisms that perhaps are partisan in nature. But the question before this House is will we stand up clearly and take a step in favor of reform?

This Member says yes. Let it begin with this rule. Vote ``yes'' on the rule and ``yes'' on the legislation and ``yes'' for real reform.

I thank my friend from Georgia for yielding, and I thank my friend, the chairman of the Rules Committee, for literally a last-second update as I step into the well.

But despite these courtesies, I rise in opposition to the rule. And let me detail the reasons why. There are obviously, to put it mildly, strong differences of opinion on this question. Indeed, I heard my other colleague from Florida just say the key was comprehensive reform, which translates into a guest worker program, which many advocate, though I do not.

The distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House, was quoted in a publication this morning, saying this: ``First of all, we have to convince the American people that we can secure the borders. And then we also have to be able to convince the American people that we can sustain the laws. We also need to look at this guest worker issue so we can fulfill the need for jobs, but I do not think that is something we should do right away.''

Point well taken, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues. It leads to the following questions. How long then do we wait? Will we wait for the catch-and-release policy to go into effect late in 2006? Will we wait until we have operational control of the borders? The Secretary of Homeland Security says that could take 5 more years.

Will we wait for the worker verification program to be fully implemented? That will not come, in this legislation, until the year 2011. Will we

wait until the fence is completed on our southern border?

Fair questions to ask, fair questions to be debated.

I heard from my friend from Florida that he favors comprehensive reform. I would invite the leadership of this House to come to this floor and affirm that they would not support a conference report that includes a guest worker plan.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, where do I begin?

Acknowledging that one of the central tenets and challenges of the legislative process is incremental reform, we can all understand that. But also understanding that in terms of truth in labeling, are we in fact engaged in enforcement first or are we engaged in enforcement maybe part of the way, awaiting bureaucratic implementation.

Now, if I can return to my point and to the reason why I must, in reluctance, oppose this rule, I do appreciate the courtesy of my friends, with whom I agree on many issues, but with whom I disagree this morning.

I proposed the following amendment that has been disallowed. It is the sense of Congress that a new temporary visa program or amnesty program shall not be enacted until each of the enforcement provisions in this act have been fully implemented and a measurable enforcement of United States borders and the interior of the United States has been demonstrated.

This is not included. We do not have any way to measure the progress. Regrettably, I oppose the rule.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Chairman, the amendment I plan to offer today simply cannot be considered outside a comprehensive immigration reform effort, which, respectfully, this bill is not. Therefore, I would like to use my time to discuss the principle reflected in my amendment, one that thus far has been absent from this debate.

Madam Chairman, as we consider ways to meet our legitimate labor needs, the choice before us is not limited to doing nothing or jumping into a guest worker plan we all know will never work and I promise we will one day regret. There is another way.

Madam Chairman, we already have an immigration system in place that we can amend and change to reconcile economic demands with other important priorities, such as diversity of admissions. The worker scheme is based on the same defeatist notion that we cannot stop it, so we might as well legalize it, used by proponents of legalizing drugs and prostitution. Legalization has not worked for those vices and it will not work for illegal immigration.

Some have the audacity to claim a guest worker plan is not amnesty because it does not, in the President's words, place undocumented workers on an automatic path to citizenship. Madam Chairman, what does citizenship have to do with it? Most illegals do not come here with a copy of the Constitution in their back pockets yearning to become Americans. They come here mostly for one reason: a job. You can call it legalization or earned status adjustment or regularization, but a guest worker plan that lets illegals keep their jobs is amnesty.

Madam Chairman, do not take my word for it. Here is what the President of the National Council of La Raza said of the distinction between legalization and amnesty: ``The net effect is the same.''

Madam Chairman, under a guest worker plan, illegal aliens would be pardoned for all their document and employment-related crimes, get credit toward Social Security benefits for what they have earned illegally, and get to bring in their families and unfairly gain for their children born here one of the most coveted distinctions on Earth, that of American citizenship.

Madam Chairman, my colleagues, as we consider ways to stop illegal immigration, we should be guided by two principles: number one, do not reward law breakers, including illegal aliens or those who hire them; number two, do not create incentives for even more illegal immigration.

A guest worker scheme violates both. It also has something else going

against it, Madam Chairman: history. There has never been a successful guest worker program, not here, not in Europe, not anywhere. Those rioting in France are the children of temporary workers who never left. Saudi Arabia's 6 million guest workers live under conditions that have been called modern-day slavery. A guest worker plan would likewise create an American caste system that would insult our heritage. Our own bracero programs were ended because they lowered wages for American workers, exploited foreign workers and illegal immigration.

Guest worker proponents say our economy needs illegal alien workers; but under a guest worker plan, they would have to leave in 6 years.

Madam Chairman, are we supposed to believe we will stop needing them at that time? And what happens when guest workers do not leave as required? Will all those now promoting this discredited idea be out there leading the cause to round them up, or will they instead move to grant them citizenship?

Madam Chairman, if we are feeble enough to allow a guest worker plan to be added to this bill, it will be 1986 all over again: amnesty now, enforcement never, and an unending wave of illegal immigration.

Again, there is a better way: reform our legal immigration system to attract the kind of high-skilled workers that our economy really needs.

Madam Chairman, immigration must serve the national interests, not just the interests of businesses hooked on cheap labor or left wing political activists out to reshape American politics and culture.

Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be withdrawn.

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield.

Madam Chairman, I thank my friend from California.

Madam Chairman, I would say to my friend from California, my votes on procedural questions speak for themselves in this regard. I thank the gentleman for his time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the aisle from Florida for yielding me this time. I rise in part because I disagree with the previous speaker in the well on many points dealing with the immigration question and border security. But I rise to oppose the rule precisely because of our disagreements.

I rise in reluctance, but these are the circumstances in which we confront this. Here we are rushing toward the Christmas holiday break and at the last nanosecond of the 11th hour, we are going to debate this important question. The American people deserve more.

No, there will not be unanimity on this question. Illegal immigration threatens our sovereignty, our security, and our reverence for the rule of law. It discriminates against American workers, particularly those who struggle to survive at the lowest rung of the economic ladder.

It also locks illegal aliens into a permanent underclass to be exploited and discarded. It demands that we give serious deliberative attention to the question of illegal immigration on our economy, on the health care system, our public school system and our criminal justice system. Because it is so important, we need more time to deliberate and debate and make the right choices. Vote no on the rule.