Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, I welcome the newest Member of the House from California; and I, likewise, welcome this commonsense amendment because in this amendment the gentleman from California encapsulates the challenge facing this House. We claim we are going to enforce existing laws. Let us begin here. Thirty-two cities and counties have not been cooperating. They say let us carve out an exception. Two states in our Union are sanctuaries, Oregon and Maine.

Ladies and gentlemen, if border security is national security, if we have found that we have illegally in this Nation over 80,000 convicted felons from other cultures, why should it be difficult for local law enforcement agencies to themselves obey the law? ``Yes'' on this amendment. It puts some teeth in the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the legislation precisely because of the challenges outlined by my friend from Mississippi.

As my friend from Michigan just pointed out, yesterday this House took steps to reignite the engines of economic opportunity, to deal with job creation and getting help to the people of the gulf coast. I would assure this House, Mr. Speaker, this is not some sort of abstraction.

As my friend from Mississippi knows, Brother Rex Yancey, the pastor of First Baptist Church in Pascagoula, is my wife's uncle. This is not some sort of statistic or abstraction. Just as Brother Rex and everyone in Mississippi and on the gulf coast are facing challenges, we need to work together to make sure the climate of economic opportunity exists for all.

Just as heartfelt as his concern is for his constituents, Mr. Speaker, I must correct the record. It does this House no service to come to this well, no matter the challenges confronted, and try to claim either class warfare or crass political opportunism in a quid pro quo. It is beneath the dignity of every Member of this House to suggest that somehow this has to do with contributions.

As my friend from Mississippi knows, the most philanthropic State in the Union where people step up to help neighbors in need, that example does not fall on deaf ears. I will say economic opportunity is important, not only for Wall Street, not only for Main Street but for your street, Mr. Speaker, for every street because we understand economic opportunity is not exclusive.

There may be some who believe that this modern economy is some sort of caste system. There may be some who always want to fill in the blank as follows: tax breaks for the blank, tax breaks for the rich. That is their story and they are sticking to it. No hope, no opportunity when the facts are otherwise.

We have had solid economic growth. Revenues to the government have actually increased.

And not only has there been some $69 billion in immediate hurricane relief given by this Congress and this government to the storm victims, but the promise of future help and economic prosperity as the people of the gulf coast get back on their feet.

Stand up for growth and opportunity. Pass this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 327) to allow binding arbitration clauses to be included in all contracts affecting land within the Gila River Indian Community Reservation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 327 was introduced by Representative Grijalva, my colleague from Arizona; and I join him as an original cosponsor.

This bill is to allow binding arbitration clauses to be included in all contracts, including leases affecting lands within the Gila River Indian Community in the State of Arizona. Without such binding arbitration clauses, many investors would not be interested in doing business with the tribe because there would be no means of enforcing contracts.

Unfortunately, an amendment to a related provision of law has made it unclear whether the tribe may put the binding arbitration clauses into all of its contracts and leases. This bill clarifies that the tribe may include binding arbitration clauses in all contracts for business developments on its reservation.

It is a simple, but much-needed, bill with bipartisan support. I am glad to see my good friend on the other side of the aisle here.

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

Mr. Speaker, again I thank my colleague from Arizona; and, likewise, I have no additional requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time and urge passage of H.R. 327.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation and welcome the bipartisan support we will see for its passage. I especially applaud the efforts of the gentlewoman from North Carolina (Ms. Foxx) for dealing with the key provision of treating combat pay as earned income under the earned income credit. It has been stated before on the floor but it deserves amplification again, especially in the wake of this House voting 403-3 in strong support of our men and women in uniform in the combat zone in Iraq.

Under current law, combat pay is ignored for the purpose of calculating the combat credit. Ignoring combat pay can reduce the EIC in some cases, but a special rule gives military personnel the option to include combat pay in their earned income calculation. This would extend the special rule by 1 year.

The criticism to the extent we have heard today is not based totally on partisan posturing. No, the criticism is inherent at times in dealing in an institution that is a deliberative body. Sometimes the clock catches up with us. We would note not in terms of criticism but in terms of fact that our friends across the Capitol in the other body do not return this week, indeed do not return until Wednesday of next week, so the work tends to accumulate. But we do have this venue of suspension to move legislation upon which we agree.

To the criticisms offered by my friend from South Carolina dealing with what this costs, I would simply point out that in the broader context of tax reductions, what we have seen by reducing the overall tax bite, what we see in so many ways with broader tax policy is that actually revenues to the Federal Government increase. It is not something that is especially partisan. President Kennedy offered it in the 1960s; President Reagan in the 1980s; President Bush and this majority in Congress now early in the 21st century, so actually to invigorate our economy, we reduce tax rates, and although some may quibble about some provisions, in general, a reduction in tax rates actually fuels the engines of economic prosperity. That is our intent.

People of goodwill may differ on that, but I expect we will see broad bipartisan agreement with this modest package of what is called in the trade extenders, and especially dealing with combat pay.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, here we are in America's House, having a debate that is altogether appropriate, because as our founders stated the goal, it was to form a more perfect union. And because we are human beings, there is always a gulf between the real and the ideal. This is not a personal debate to be personalized about the gentleman from Pennsylvania. He offered a point of view yesterday. Whatever his intent, here is how it was reported. The Washington Post called it immediate withdrawal. The New York Times called it immediate withdrawal. More ominously and sadly, Al-Jazeera called it immediate withdrawal.

The problem is this, ladies and gentlemen, as has been articulated. Another e-mail, my colleagues:

``I am a U.S. Army captain currently serving in Iraq and I am shocked and appalled by Representative Murtha's call for immediate withdrawal. Please, please, please convince your colleagues to let us finish this critical job.''

That is what is at stake. Vote ``no'' on immediate withdrawal.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Colorado for the time.

Mr. Speaker, S. 161 provides for a Federal land exchange that places some 35,000 acres of pristine ponderosa pine forest land and biologically diverse land, much of which borders an existing wilderness area, in the hands of the Forest Service.

This bill has been carefully crafted to ensure that the environment, ecosystem, watershed, and forest lands of northern Arizona are protected and preserved. I would particularly like to commend my colleague from Arizona, Congressman Rick Renzi of the first district, for his very hard work on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I know that we work here in a deliberative body, but it is not an overstatement to say that this bill has been a long time coming. Over half a decade ago, I originally introduced this bill in the House, working closely with my good friend, the late Bob Stump.

For several years now, details of this bill have been negotiated and many compromises made on all sides in order to come up with this legislation entertained on the floor of the people's House today. I do not believe that it gives every party everything they wanted, but it shows that the overarching goal of preserving forest land and doing something good for small towns and communities in Arizona has been given the highest priority by all parties involved.

The concept of a land exchange to consolidate the Yavapai Ranch lands just makes sense. Through this land exchange, the Federal Government will

receive environmentally sensitive, pristine forest lands that truly belong under the stewardship of the U.S. Forest Service to be preserved for future generations.

This exchange was originally initiated by the Forest Service to consolidate the largest remaining checkerboard parcel of land in Arizona and to protect the Juniper Mountains forested area from future development. Watershed management, wildlife habitat, and outdoor recreation in the consolidated land parcel will be preserved through this action.

Many of the land parcels the Forest Service will trade to accomplish these goals are eagerly sought by local communities for a variety of worthwhile civic purposes, including expansion of airports, parks, and other municipal facilities. Also, six summer camps that currently lease lands from the Forest Service will acquire those leased areas.

There has been considerable participation of local elected officials, Forest Service personnel, private citizens, and various citizen groups from northern Arizona and Arizona's Verde Valley in drafting this legislation. Their input and perspectives have proven invaluable, and I am confident that the bill now put forth by my colleague from Arizona addresses every major concern that has been brought forward.

This bill makes good common sense for our forests and for our people of Arizona. The cost savings for the Federal Government and, therefore, for American taxpayers associated with this land exchange are significant. The savings are accomplished through consolidation of Federal lands that allows for much greater ease in forest management.

But much more important, this exchange will ensure that one of the last largest pristine forested parcels in Arizona will pass out of private hands and be protected from potentially harmful development indefinitely.

It will prove good for this generation of Arizonans, future generations of Arizonans and for all Americans, and I join my colleagues from both Colorado and the Virgin Islands in urging passage of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Iowa; and before I get to the topic at hand, I, too, would like to offer a few observations about the preceding presentation in the people's House.

Those who have heard me speak from time to time know that quite often I cite the observation of that great American author, Mark Twain, who said, history does not repeat itself, but it rhymes. In the preceding hour, here on the floor of the people's House, we may have heard from the, quote, 30-Something Coalition, but it was that same old something, those tired and shop-worn charges, those assertions that the American people can only regard, to put it diplomatically, as unrealistic.

We heard a Member from Florida talk about cuts in school lunch programs. We heard a Member from Massachusetts repeat what was a blatantly false charge about Medicare withering on the vine, when in fact the discussion had to do with the bureaucrats in a four letter organization felony as HICFA.

Indeed, there are fundamentally different ways to address the challenges we confront. My friends on the left honestly and sincerely believe that Government is the answer; and though their rhetoric is devoid of it, they seem to be concerned with budgets that affect the care and feeding and the propagation of Washington bureaucrats and the employees' unions they engender rather than solving real problems affecting real people.

It is somewhat mind-boggling to hear the same old charges; and it is interesting, the selective memory of those on the left. For it was one of their celebrated leaders, John F. Kennedy, who said a rising tide lifts all boats, who said that by reducing taxation across the board and allowing the American people to save, spend and invest their own money economic prosperity can result.

And that is not a partisan argument, nor was it the sole domain of Jack Kennedy. Indeed, whether it was Calvin Coolidge or Jack Kennedy or Ronald Reagan or, more recently, George W. Bush, working with this governing majority in Congress, letting the American people have and keep more of their own money to save, spend and invest, we in fact have had an economic rebirth through the difficulties of 9/11, through the challenges posed by the natural disasters.

The American economy continues to grow. Are there challenges? You bet. Are there challenges we confront in energy? Absolutely. But the key is, as I was happy to offer, tax credits for solar energy in our sweeping energy bill, as many of us have embraced and asked us to take a look at new technologies, neither do we abandon the notion of maximizing existing supplies, using rational conservation and moving forward.

Of course, it cannot begin to compare with outlandish charges. This gets to the crux of the challenge. We have an awesome responsibility. It is to help govern this country. Our friends on the left, be they 30- something, or 40-something or 50-something, or 60-something, choose not to join us in governing. They choose to carp and complain and issue malicious and libelous charges. They offer no plan. They offer complaints.

In stark contrast, our governing majority has a plan to bring budget reform that results in real savings. And yet, even as they decry what they call fiscal irresponsibility, they attack the reform process that results in real savings.

One note about the incorrect information on student loans. We actually increased money going to students. We tightened down the margins on the lenders. We do not hurt the students. But, of course, our friends on the left always equate compassion with the amount of money taken from the American people to go to Washington bureaucrats; and I believe, regardless of the age, regardless of the time, that is precisely the wrong formula. Just as they mistakenly address compassion by the number of people on welfare. No, true compassion is the number of people who leave the welfare rolls and go to work.

And for those who cite curious cases played up in the dominant media culture about CIA agents who send spouses on trips around the world to offer talking points in a partisan campaign and somehow defend that and seem to act as if there is no connection between the former, thank goodness, the former dictator of Iraq who now sits in a prison cell awaiting trial and other perpetrators of islamofascism, for those who would so readily forget the lessons of 9/11, we say to the American people, yes, the challenges are grave. We live in challenging times. But we dare not shrink from the challenge and make the curious divorcement of, oh, yes, we support our troops but not the conflict.

As one observer explained, that is like saying, gee, I support a football team. I just do not want them to win the game.

Were it so simple to compare war to a game, but we know something far more serious is at stake. We know over very national survival is at stake; and we believe that we should support our troops, yes, and work for an outcome that results in victory.

That brings us to the subject at hand tonight, our border security and our national security. And despite the prattlings of the preceding hour, in many ways our Commander in Chief has answered the call in the wake of 9/11.

But when it comes to the border issues, the fact is the record is troubling, and it results in constructive criticism. Just as many within our party offered constructive criticism about the selection of a Supreme Court judge, reasonable people can offer constructive criticism.

Item. Congress Daily, this morning, Thursday, November 3, Homeland Secretary unveils border security initiative. Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff Wednesday rolled out a multi-year plan to secure the Nation's border and reduce illegal immigration, dubbing the proposal as the, quote, enforcement complement to President Bush's temporary guest worker program.

Constructive criticism number one, in accompanying documents released yesterday in Houston, Texas, Secretary Chertoff said his Department had a 5-year plan to gain operational control of the borders.

Mr. Speaker, the American people and our Nation cannot wait 5 years for operational control of our borders. The attacks of 9/11 came almost a half decade ago. Are we then to wait 10 years in wartime to secure our borders? That is wrong. That is the wrong time table. Border security at once because border

security is synonymous with national security.

The other troubling aspect of the dispatch in this morning's Congress Daily, the enforcement complement to President Bush's temporary guest worker program.

Mr. Speaker, I have introduced, and my colleagues who join me tonight on this floor have sponsored, the Enforcement First Initiative. The American people demand enforcement first. Call it putting the cart before the horse, but those who talk about a guest worker program have it exactly backwards. What we should do is enforce existing laws, close loopholes and then and only then engage in a debate about guest worker programs.

Indeed, this debate about border security, national security, illegal immigration, and the euphemism that accompanies it of undocumented workers, an Orwellian turn of phrase if there ever was one because many of these alleged undocumented have documents galore, and should we also point out that under the existing framework we have visa programs literally from A to Z under the existing legal framework, but again back to the situation at hand.

A fair question could be posed in this fashion: If people are not obeying existing laws, what makes us think they would obey any new laws? So Enforcement First offers a comprehensive approach saying that this government shall enforce existing law and that we shall work to eliminate loopholes that exist that result in the gaming of our system, that result in the drain on taxpayers and that deny this fundamental truth that even those who may profoundly disagree with us who preceded us here in the well certainly have to embrace and that is that this is a Nation of laws.

Therefore, if we are a Nation of laws and a Nation of immigrants, immigration should occur within a legal framework, not through the machinations of illegal schemes and scams that threaten our national security.

Why do I say that? Well, one need look only so far as the testimony in open session in the other body from our former colleague Porter Goss, now Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, joined by others, who offered the testimony that their major concern is that someone meaning to do harm to this Nation might utilize our porous border to do so, to come here illegally. Indeed, we have seen other reports that al Qaeda operatives and others who embrace Islamofascism have instructed their minions on a mission in this hemisphere to seek to gain entry to the United States through our porous southern border.

The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in testimony before a House subcommittee chaired by our friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson), confirmed the gentleman from Texas's (Mr. Culberson) assertion that illegals who come from nation-states embracing Islamofascism have attempted to gain entry into our country by blending into the mass exodus north of illegals and utilizing Hispanic surnames.

Mr. Speaker, I offer these words not to sow the seeds of panic, but instead to offer a renewal of a sense of purpose in the wake of 9/11, mindful of the challenges a sovereign Nation of laws confronts. We must have heightened border security. It leads to greater national security. There must be internal enforcement. There must be a closing of loopholes, and that is the idea behind the notion of Enforcement First.

So, Mr. Speaker, I say respectfully and diplomatically to the Secretary of Homeland Security, enforcement is not a commitment to a guest worker program. Enforcement is the long overdue step to protect our Nation from external threats in a time of war. And then once we do that, we can effectively discuss a guest worker program.

My friend from Iowa who was very gracious to yield time. I will remain, but I want to yield back to him because other friends join us tonight during this hour.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Iowa, and I look forward to hearing from our colleague from Pennsylvania who, again in stark contrast to those who preceded us in the well, takes a thoughtful look at the challenges we confront and offers some common-sense solutions, especially in the realm of natural gas and where we are headed as a Nation in terms of energy exploration for existing technologies and, quite frankly, bringing on-line new technologies to deal with energy.

But as I heard both my colleague from Virginia and my colleague from Iowa talk about the spectacle that occurred in the hallway of the Rayburn House Office Building yesterday, I just was astonished by the seeming triumph and insensitivity of the bureaucracy.

Two minders accompanying a law enforcement officer essentially to put him on notice that his role in his employment with the Federal Government could very well be threatened. We have visited totalitarian nations where there are minders who follow us, some very cleverly concealed, some as hotel personnel, but to see that spectacle in this grand republic and see it utilized really to try and supercede the legitimate questions of constitutional officers was very disappointing.

I would echo, Mr. Speaker, the words of my colleague from Iowa, there will be oversight. Count on it. The Congress will live up to its constitutional responsibilities. I will put those Washington bureaucrats on notice, those who believe they can get in the way of constitutional officers doing their jobs, that the people will demand answers through their constitutional representatives. But we understand the answer, in summation to our challenge for national security and border security, it is enforcement first. It is not amnesty. It is not the embrace of putting illegals in the front of the line and making a mockery of an orderly, lawful, immigration process.

Borders are necessary. There is graffiti written in Spanish on one of the borders adjoining my State which reads, Borders are scars upon the earth. Mr. Speaker, borders are not scars upon the earth. Borders are reasonable and necessary to maintain the sovereignty of nation states; and, as the poet wrote, good fences make good neighbors.

I salute the gentleman from Virginia joining with the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee with the True legislation today. I am pleased to be a cosponsor. I thank my friends from Virginia and from Iowa, others within the Immigration Reform Caucus. I thank them for the time, and I look forward with interest to hearing from our colleague from Pennsylvania with references to the challenges we confront here early in the 21st century for this Nation's energy needs.

Mr. Speaker, as American soldiers valiantly serve and fall in the defense of an enduring freedom this nation and its allies are bringing to Iraq and Afghanistan, I am pleased to recognize an extraordinary sisterhood of supporters dedicated to bringing comfort and assistance to our military widows. That is the purpose and legacy of the Society of Military Widows and its Desert Rose Chapter 14 based in Tucson, Arizona, as described in a recent news article that appeared in the Arizona Daily Star. With congratulations and gratitude for the marvelous work the Society is doing, I am pleased to enter the following article into the Congressional Record.

[From the Arizona Daily Star, Oct. 6, 2005]

A Sisterhood of Supporters--Society Ensures That Military Widows Are

Not Alone

(By Levi J. Long)

It was 3 a.m. when Dee Ruelas found herself in front of a

computer staring at the words ``military widow.''

They weren't easy for her to type. Her husband, Command

Sgt. Maj. David A. Ruelas, with the Arizona Army National

Guard, had died of a heart attack 1 month before. They had

been married less than 10 years.

``That was something I never thought I'd do so soon,'' said

Ruelas, a 57-year-old northeastern Tucson resident. ``It took

me a while to even utter the word `widow.' But there I was .

. . searching for something.''

What Ruelas said she found via the Internet that night was

direction and ``a sisterhood of supporters and friends.''

For 25 years, the Society of Military Widows Desert Rose

Chapter 14--based on Tucson's East Side--has been helping

widows of active-duty and retired military personnel by

lobbying on their behalf for health and retirement benefits.

The society also serves as a support group of sorts for

recent widows.

``Our goal is to support our members and to help them at a

time that can be difficult,'' said Pat Shecter, president of

the local society.

While recent widows are still in mourning, they often deal

with mounting paperwork involving health-care and survivors'

benefits, Shecter said. For some, the process can be hard to

navigate and understand, she said. ``We want people to know

that we're here to help.''

Over the last two decades, the society has worked on behalf

of military widows receiving survivors' benefits. A few years

ago, members started a successful grass-roots campaign to

lobby Congress to give widows and their dependents continued

health coverage after age 65 through Tricare for Life, a

medical insurance plan for military retirees.

``When our husbands re-enlisted, they were promised that

they would get free medical care for themselves and their

dependents,'' said Shirley Degan, a local member and national

chaplain for the society. ``We made sure it happened.''

Degan said the society also took on Congress when it

limited the amount of money widows were supposed to receive

through survivor benefits. Under survivor benefit plans,

military personnel could opt for their surviving dependents

to get 55 percent of their retirement pay after their deaths.

But a new law created by Congress limited the amount given to

survivors, capping it at 35 percent after age 62 when widows

became eligible for Social Security, Degan said.

Again the group lobbied against the cut and was able to get

the government to restore the amount to 55 percent, though

getting it to that amount is still a sore subject among

members, Degan said.

Annual 5 percent increments, starting this month, are being

paid each year. It's expected to be at 55 percent by 2008,

Shecter said.

``By the time it's back up, a lot of our members might not

be here,'' Shecter said of the members, who are mostly in

their 70s and 80s. Still, the group goes on with political

causes its members believe in.

Joining with the National Association for Uniformed

Services and other organizations, the society is part of an

effort to get a constitutional amendment passed that would

make it illegal to desecrate the American flag. It also wants

to ensure its own future. With more than 25 nationwide

chapters and 4,200 members, the society is campaigning to get

younger members to join. Most current members--including

the 230 local members--are widows of World War II, Korean

War and Vietnam War veterans.

``A lot of young women don't know we're here for them,''

said Marilyn Savage, a past president of the society.

``They're going to need to take care of their families. And

we can help them with securing what's due to them.''

Ruelas, one of the chapter's youngest members, is chair-

woman of the society's membership committee. She said she

wants to do her part to make sure the society continues to

exist. ``We want to be a resource for widows, especially

younger ones, who aren't familiar with the group,'' she said.

Though it's been two years since David's passing, Ruelas

said seeing little things throughout their house makes her

feel like he is still around. ``It's calming to know he's

here,'' she said. ``I can feel his presence and I know I can

go on.''

About the society: Society of Military Widows Desert Rose

Chapter 14 of Tucson is a nonprofit group affiliated with the

National Association for Uniformed Services. The society is

open to widows of active-duty and retired military. Call Pat

Shecter at 574-5338 for an application, newsletter and

membership information. For more information, visit the Web

site www.militarywidows.org.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Committee on Ways and Means for yielding me this time.

Members of this House from States directly affected by this natural disaster have come to this floor and spoken eloquently and movingly of the needs their constituents have. Just as a natural disaster does not distinguish partisanship, so too has this House moved forward to deal effectively and, yes, as a consequence of the Tax Code and the nature of what we do, methodically and sequentially to deal in a thoughtful and compassionate manner with what we confront as a people and as a Nation.

By the same token, Madam Speaker, Americans from coast to coast and beyond have opened their hearts, opened their homes, and opened their pocketbooks to help their fellow Americans in need. And as these are the worst of times for so many affected by this natural disaster, in many ways the best of America comes through with this compassionate impulse to help others. Fittingly and properly, many of the actions we take in this legislation are targeted directly at the people whose lives have been changed and affected by this storm, but also we take into account the generosity of fellow Americans and, in dealing with the Tax Code, a couple of provisions that we need to emphasize that affect people not only who call the gulf coast home but help those around the Nation.

Briefly, the fact that we are providing tax relief for housing assistance to dislocated persons; the fact that we are encouraging cash donations by individuals and by corporations, and moving in a way to encourage yet more giving by the incredibly compassionate people known as Americans is something that should be lauded and something that I believe will go a long way in Americans helping Americans and this House, as a collective body, reaching out to help those Americans most in need.

Mr. Chairman, as my colleague points out, under current law what does this mean? Let me offer an example.

If there is a child abuser in California who has been proven through the courts to have a history of child abuse, that history is on record in the State of California. But should that abuser decide to move to my State of Arizona, there is no documented history of his record of abuse in California that exists in Arizona. Currently, there is no national child abuse registry to show that this is a child abuser, no easy way, therefore, for localities to know this is a child abuser who is unfit to have children in their care.

This is the problem that our local governments currently encounter. Nothing is in place nationally that provides one State a direct way to report to other States that someone has an established history of child abuse, making the job for our local and State child advocacy services much more difficult.

Children are being placed in danger when child abuse offenders move to a State where their history is unknown. This national registry would be a commonsense and a necessary step in the fight against child abuse. Local authorities need a more certain way to uncover an individual's history of child abuse in another State, and this amendment will allow the Attorney General and the Secretary of HHS to work together to create this database that can be updated by data from the several States and utilized by States to keep children safe.

Child abusers can run, but they cannot hide. We will not let them hide. This amendment makes it possible to deal with this effectively. I congratulate my co-sponsor, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly); and I ask the House to move forward on this favorably.

Mr. Speaker, this morning's Arizona Republic carries encouraging news amidst the horrific challenges encountered by the colleague who preceded me on the floor and so many fellow Americans. It is the story of Doyle Smith and family. Doyle has six children, and yesterday he walked through and was given the keys to a five-bedroom home donated rent free to his family for the next 6 months. He says, ``This is going to be the beginning of a beautiful start. It really is.'' And his 6-year-old daughter, Annalyce, walked from room to room saying, ``I love it. I haven't been in a big house like this.''

Mr. Speaker, America has never encountered a natural disaster as big as this, but what has been reaffirmed from coast to coast is that Americans have big hearts and Americans step up to help other Americans. That has been demonstrated by the people of the Fifth Congressional District of Arizona who have called me personally, who have called our district office, who have called our Washington office saying, How can I help? I want to step forward. And it happened also to an Arizona couple, Jeff and Marie Whiting, who had purchased a guest house, saw a need, and decided to donate this house rent free to the Smith family. This is what Marie says: ``We are actually making a difference. If we reach across America and touch each other's hands, we can meet needs.''

Mr. Speaker, as representatives of Americans here in the people's House, we stepped forward to meet the needs of those who are the neediest among us. This legislation, H.R. 3672, the TANF Emergency Response and Recovery Act of 2005, gives the States, States like my home State of Arizona, where we see people reaching out to their fellow citizens, the flexibility needed to get benefits into the hands of these who have suffered from the hurricane so that those needy families can get back on their feet without long delays because the State might fear it would not be reimbursed for the funds spent.

We have put in place, or we will put in place, with this legislation even greater flexibility so that we step forward on a greater magnitude to take the actions that the people of our Nation demand as a compassionate society. This legislation puts the funds forward, has the flexibility there, and the accountability necessary.

Is this an imperfect world? Yes. Has it been the goal of our Founders and now our generation to form a more perfect Union? Yes. Will this legislation help those who need the help? Yes.

Support this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, as the calendar gives way to August, and 435 Representatives of our great country return to their respective districts to catch up with constituents, to spend time with family, to, yes, enjoy a portion of the summer, it gives us a chance, in what has been a hectic and

crowded legislative schedule, especially recently, to pause and remember what makes this institution unique, not only the representative government in the legislative branch of our constitutional Republic, but also those who serve herein, and those who have served.

Two nights ago, Mr. Speaker, it was my honor to welcome back to Capitol Hill one of my constituents, Betty Rhodes, the widow of our former Republican leader, John J. Rhodes, who passed away now two summers ago next month.

And as I was honored to be the Congressman for former Congressman Rhodes and certainly honored that his widow, Betty, remains one of my constituents, it is also important to reflect on another Member of Congress who called the Fifth District of Arizona home, and who recently passed on. His name, Joseph Karth.

He came to this institution being elected in the year of my birth, 1958, and served until 1977, representing the people of the Fourth Congressional District of Minnesota.

I stand to remember Joe not having a real personal relationship with him, but having this bond that we are among a comparatively few Americans who have been given the honor and privilege of serving in this constitutional office as a United States Representative.

Perhaps the best expression of what this honor means came earlier in our history from the man who served as the sixth President of the United States, John Quincy Adams. Many of us remember that, but few remember the fact that following his time as President, former President Adams ran for and was elected to the United States House of Representatives. And when he was elected to this body from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, former President, Congressman-elect John Quincy Adams said, ``There is no greater honor than serving in the people's House.''

And though Joe Karth came to this Chamber on the other side of the aisle, and though I am sure there would be many points of disagreement, as we survey the opportunities in America, as we perhaps typify different philosophies and different practices, there is this common bond that everyone honored to serve here understands. There is no higher honor than being elected to serve in the people's House.

Joe Karth did it remarkably well for the people of the Fourth District of Minnesota. He succeeded a man who served in the other body, Eugene McCarthy, who went on to run for the Presidency of the United States. But Joe Karth was more concerned during his 18 years of service in the people's House with getting his job done for his constituents.

Journalists remember that he was the kind of Congressman who would roll up his sleeves, the kind of Congressman who had intense interest in his constituents. And if there might be a problem with a Social Security check arriving late or not arriving at all, or if there might be a dispute about a veteran's disability, Joe Karth was the type of Congressman who would step in to make sure his constituents were represented.

Mr. Speaker, I would maintain that is a great lesson for all of us, regardless of political philosophy or partisan designation, that to truly represent the people, we have to listen to the people and respond. By that measure of service, Joe Karth was indeed an exceptional Member of this body.

History will record that it was Joe Karth, an avid outdoorsman, who introduced and had passed the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. His love of golf brought him to Arizona, and that is where he lived, and that is where he passed away earlier this summer.

To his family, to his many friends, to the people of Minnesota and to his neighbors in Arizona, we say we remember Joe Karth, and we salute him for his lifetime of service.

Mr. Speaker, if my friend would yield briefly, I just wanted to return to the floor first of all to thank my colleague from Texas and to state what is obvious to his constituents. He brings a dedication and a passion to this Congress in his first term that has won him notice in many quarters, and he demonstrates by tackling this issue that he indeed is being responsive to his constituents.

If I might just elaborate in terms of the Fifth Congressional District of Arizona, like Texas, sharing a common border with Mexico, earlier this summer I sent to my constituents a questionnaire, how do we deal with the challenges of border security and illegal immigration? Mr. Speaker, I would inform this House that in little more than 3 weeks' time, my office received over 10,000 responses.

The frustration that grows from the policies and the challenges that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) is outlining bespeaks not a universal, but a very convincing sentiment in my district where the respondents by an almost 9-1 margin said it is time to enforce existing law. I think we see across this country, whether in Arizona, Texas, or California, a need for this body to address the border security questions we continue to confront.

By almost a 9-to-1 margin, my constituents said enforcement first. By almost a 9-to-1 margin, they said the incredible costs that American taxpayers bear to essentially subsidize illegal behavior is intolerable. By a 9-to-1 margin, respondents said in this survey they understand full well that national security is synonymous with border security.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe) for allowing me to share this time. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the legislation offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson), and I will continue to listen to my constituents on how we will deal with this vexing problem and how we employ enforcement first, not a euphemism saying we will have an amnesty and a guest worker program, and, yes, we will really get tough on the border. That would be the status quo, and that would be unacceptable, and that would tend to encourage the Mexican Government and others, as outlined by the illustrations behind the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

So let us have enforcement first and tie this to measurable, attainable goals as we protect our borders, as we protect our Nation in a post-9/11 world, as we are a Nation at war.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and appreciate his leadership on this issue because he truly is hearing from his constituents, and he is representing them in very capable fashion.

Madam Speaker, I come to the well again, and it seems like only yesterday we were here. In fact, it was yesterday, was it not? And, Madam Speaker, I think we have just seen why my colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), is one of the most able members of the Ways and Means Committee, because he put to rest many of the criticisms offered by my friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin).

It was interesting to pick up on one of the criticisms. Let us just deal with it, lamenting the fact that this bill conveys a sense of Congress to the People's Republic of China, that it carries little consequence.

Well, I would invite every Member of this House, including my colleague from Maryland, to think back just a couple of weeks ago when a bipartisan sense of the Congress was offered on this floor from Democrats and Republicans alike, dealing with a possible Chinese purchase of Unocal.

It so incensed the Chinese Government, they told us to butt out. Now, that is very interesting, because if it is only a sense of the Congress, if it is only a useless exercise, it certainly awakened those in the Chinese Polit Bureau in Beijing; and I stand in this well again supporting this legislation today because the facts have not changed from yesterday.

The fact is, this legislation puts the Communist Chinese on notice: if you want to get in the game, you better start playing by the rules. And, Madam Speaker, I say this in all candor. As one who opposed the most favored nation trade status for China, I believe this is important legislation. At the end of the day, this is the dilemma for my friends on the other side: Does the upcoming midterm election and political posturing win out to make the perfect the enemy of the good, or do they stand with us, as they did in this well 2 weeks ago, not only conveying the sense of Congress, but putting teeth behind our policy to tell the Chinese enough is enough?

Support this legislation. Do not deal with domestic political obstruction. Strike a blow for freedom and putting Communist China on notice.