Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, perhaps it is the eternal lament of a minority within a legislative body to focus constantly on process and to share their frustrations with process. But perhaps it is better to focus on policy and what this legislation, which I support, will do.

The 40th President of the United States, the late Ronald Wilson Reagan, enshrined these three words as part of American policy: trust but verify. The legislation on the floor today deals with verification. I say as one who opposed a trading agreement with China that this legislation brings the monitoring capacity necessary to understand what happens in international trade. Simply stated, Madam Speaker, if you want to get in the game, play by the rules.

While we have seen all sorts of counterfeiting and theft of American intellectual property, this legislation takes steps to put that to a stop and to monitor the behavior. Trust but verify. Vote ``yes'' on this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to come to the well to speak on a bipartisan resolution. Given the preceding remarks from the well, it may be difficult for international observers to detect the bipartisanship. Rather than succumb to the temptation of snappy rejoinders in the field of domestic political debate, rather than use this time as a pretext for a campaign screed that would criticize the opposing party instead of deal with the resolution at hand, rather than rephrase history about troubling campaign donations that emanated from the People's Republic of China, perhaps it is best, Mr. Speaker, to deal with the resolution at hand, and find some common agreement, apart from the grandstanding and campaigning that is so easily enjoined.

Fact number one: just as Dwight Eisenhower warned America about the growing influence of a military industrial complex, the fact is, there is a political business military complex in the martial markets of communist China. What do I mean by that? The communist Chinese do not enjoy free markets. They, instead, have a program of martial markets. American investment is kept in minority status; and every application, from the most innocuous widget to the fried chicken drumstick, eventually brings proceeds to the Chinese Red Army. And now we have the most graphic example, where the Chinese-owned energy company, with government, Communist government investment, seeks to buy an American oil company.

It has been said that information is power. Energy literally is power. Early in the 21st century, though we may look to new technological advantages, the fact is this: a nation that surrenders its energy concerns, its energy technology is a nation inviting vulnerability. And so I would enjoin Members of this House, Mr. Speaker, as tempting as political debate and one-upsmanship might be, not to succumb to the temptation, not to stand as Republicans or Democrats or Independent or Libertarians or vegetarians, but to stand as Americans. Support this resolution because we dare not yield our energy future to the Communist Chinese.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Arizona for the time.

I rise in opposition to the amendment. I do not doubt the sincerity of proponents of the amendment on either side of the aisle. Many compelling questions have been asked.

In the final analysis, it is my firmly held conviction that what many maintain would be re-evaluation, that this immediate reduction would send the signal of retreat.

We have heard criticisms of the taxation policies of Colombia. We have heard criticisms based on different political ideologies in the United States; but in the final analysis, as we conduct a worldwide war on terror, I would remind all in this House we are not just talking about Islamic fascism. We are talking about the rise of narcoterror.

For that reason I oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Arizona for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bipartisan amendment because it is important not only to the State of Arizona but to the entire Nation. As of last year, Mr. Chairman, 40 of our 50 States as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have passed charter school laws. My good friend, a member of the Committee on Appropriations, pointed out that charter schools are public schools, that charter schools in fact offer services to children with special needs. And we cannot stand by and allow the Department of Education by bureaucratic fiat to decide to cut off these funds to deserving children in what are public schools as set forth by State standards.

Education is a national priority and ultimately a local concern. And just as Arizona has taken the lead in terms of formation and the flourishing of charter schools, we want to see the funds there for the children who deserve them.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, in May 2004, the National Labor Relations Board overturned 30 years of its own precedent and ruled that it has jurisdiction over tribal government enterprises located on tribes' own sovereign lands. Where tribal law has governed relations between tribes and their employees, the NLRB seeks to replace that law with its authority in this area. This decision is a frontal assault on tribal sovereign rights.

The National Labor Relations Act expressly exempts States, cities, and local governments from its coverage; and the NLRB has ruled that territorial governments, such as Puerto Rico and Guam, are also exempt from NLRB jurisdiction. But the NLRB incorrectly decided that it should exercise its jurisdiction over tribal governments on their own lands. If this unfair decision stands, the only governments that will be subject to NLRB jurisdiction will be tribal governments.

The NLRB misunderstands that tribal governments, like State governments, rely upon government-owned enterprises to generate revenues to support governmental purposes such as reservation, law enforcement and fire services, and programs for the health, education, and welfare benefit of tribal members. Consistent with the policy behind the NLRB exemptions for governments, private parties such as labor unions should not be able to hold government-owned enterprises hostage when disagreements arise.

Ironically, the NLRB specifically ruled against the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, a tribe based in Southern California that has enacted into its tribal law a tribal labor relations ordinance with greater labor union rights than the National Labor Relations Act.

In fact, the tribe has a collective bargaining agreement with the Communication Workers of America. The heavy-handed activist NLRB overlaid an incompatible legal regime where a tribal one, agreed to on a government-to-government basis with the State of California, was in place and was working.

Now, San Manuel and other tribes have conflicting laws and great uncertainty about which one applies.

Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, make no mistake, sovereignty cannot be situational. To reverse 30 years of policy by bureaucratic fiat is wrong. Adopt the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, the bottom line here is not process or legislative jurisdiction. Until Congress can consider a permanent solution to this problem, this amendment simply calls for a temporary time-out to allow us to work together for a more substantive solution, to avoid additional confusion among the tribes.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, quoting the words of my friend, the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy) to Indian Country Today Newspaper, he said he would push for a compromise bill through Congress that would support on-reservation tribal sovereignty against the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board, while accepting the board's role as arbiter of labor-employee disputes and union organizing on off- reservation tribally owned business.

The only workable bill is an authorizing bill, H.R. 16. As I have pointed out, we come here with this recourse because of uncertainty and because of bureaucratic fiat. Adopt this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, we would do well to heed the marketing advice, What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. What happens on tribal lands with their sovereignty should likewise be governed by the sovereign governments there. Sovereignty is not situational.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

My friend from California proves my point. He admits that in a government-to-government relationship, as the San Manuel Band has done already, they actually put together an agreement with greater union rights than the NLRA. That is precisely the point. Tribes should have the sovereign ability to decide that if they want to bring in those expansion of rights, yes. But it should be their decision.

Sovereignty is not situational, and any attempt to paint this otherwise is wrong. That is why the amendment should be passed.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 45 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, after the rhetorical display, I know my friends did not mean to insinuate that tribes are composed of bums and scoundrels. Yet, what we are hearing here is that somehow the very worst in human nature would come out.

Mr. Chairman, this is my time, is it not?

I thank the chairman. We are making the point that we are dealing with sovereignty. Yes, this is an imperfect world. But I scarcely imagine that a gross violation of human rights will transpire when we live up to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which says: The Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, States, and with the Indian tribes.

Tribes have sovereign immunity. They have sovereignty. It is not situational, no matter what some leaders in the AFL-CIO may say.

Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. During the course of my previous presentation, was the extra-curricular activity outburst included in my time when others sought control of the microphone?

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, do I have the right to close?

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the choice is simple, either you support the premises of sovereignty as reflected in article I, section 8 of the Constitution or you equivocate or you try to give the National Labor Relations Board preeminence over the Constitution of the United States. I do not believe that sovereignty is situational. This is a mechanism where we can actually correct the wrong and put in place what had stood 30 years previously respecting sovereignty.

Vote for the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry. We have been working to introduce new language that I believe both sides have agreed to on this particular amendment, and my inquiry is, do I have to offer an amendment to the amendment?

I do not. I stand corrected. So we do have the new language.

Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.

Modification to Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Hayworth

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified.

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

Mr. Chairman, I will not take the full 5 minutes. I will simply say to both the majority and minority staff of the Committee on Appropriations and to Members on this side, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson), the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan), who were all prepared to speak on this amendment, we thank them for their involvement.

This revised amendment ensures that a proposed Social Security totalization amendment or agreement with Mexico now fully subscribes to what has been signed into law, H.R. 743, the Social Security Protection Act. And this ensures that any proposed totalization agreement would not have funds going to anyone from our neighbor to the south employed here illegally.

I thank both sides for their cooperation on this, and though we may have sincere differences in the challenges of the day, I do appreciate everyone's constructive attitude on this amendment. It shows the American people that, yes, we can get things done.

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

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

Again, I thank the gentleman. I may have a little different interpretation and assessment of what the amendment does, but I am pleased to see we could work this out, and we will enforce existing law.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Offered By: Mr. Hayworth

Amendment No. 15: At the end of the bill, before the short

title, insert the following new section:

Offered By: Mr. Hayworth

Amendment No. 14: At the end of the bill (before the short

title) insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to this debate with interest. And I rise in support of the rule and in support of a realistic foreign policy that some in this Chamber apparently misunderstand.

The actions of September 11, 2001, were not criminal acts; they were acts of war against this Nation.

One of the fundamental problems when you separate all the venom and vitriol that we have heard in this debate and certainly from someone in the other body who compared American fighting men and women to the Soviets with their gulags and the Third Reich and Pol Pot's regime in Cambodia, one of the fundamental problems seems to be the willingness of many to equate this with some sort of law enforcement problem. It is not.

And to those who are expending such efforts and such rhetoric on behalf of the alleged rights of enemies of this country, let me remind you that the Constitution's first three words are ``We the people,'' not ``they the terrorists,'' or ``they the insurgents,'' or ``they the accused.''

In wartime the Constitution is a mechanism for the survival of the Republic. And as Mr. Justice Jackson pointed out years ago, the Constitution is not a suicide pact. This need not be a partisan controversy. One look only so far as the History Channel as columnist Thomas Sowell pointed out 2 weeks ago. Do you know what happened at World War II to unfortunate combatants; that is, those without representing a nation state or wearing the uniform or insignia of a military nation or state during World War II?

When those unlawful combatants were apprehended, they were lined up and shot. The Commander in Chief at that time was Franklin Delano Roosevelt. That was in adherence with the Geneva Convention.

We are in a war where people behead Americans. It would be nice to see one-tenth of the passion on behalf of American citizens that we see for the terrorists and their alleged rights. Vote in favor of the rule.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King) for offering this amendment. It is sorely needed as we examine both the plight of Palestinian refugees and the propaganda that emanates from those who prey upon the frustrations of Palestinian refugees.

Mr. Chairman, UNRWA stands for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine refugees, created in the wake of hostilities in 1948. This seeks first on a humanitarian basis to aid those who have been afflicted, and as is so often the case, the United States of America, maligned internationally by many, has stood front

and center and has borne the financial burden of one-quarter of the world's expenditures for UNRWA. And others around the world, we should point out, have also stepped in. But the fact is that the United States, Sweden, Japan, and Italy pay individually into UNRWA more than all the Arab nations combined.

It is a fair question to ask in terms of geopolitical proximity, i.e., neighbors living closest to those experiencing the problems, why do those nations not step forward to pay their fair share? Why do those nations who in their satellite news organizations that chronicle the plight of the Palestinians, why do those same nations not step forward? Saudi Arabia ranks 16th in contributing country with $1.8 million in funding. A nation that earns billions from its natural wealth of petroleum offers less than $2 million. This amendment is wise and fair. Adopt this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to this appropriations bill today that reduces United States contributions to the United Nations regular budget by 50 percent.

Mr. Chairman, the sad facts are these: Although plagued by scandal, the U.N. refuses to take reform seriously. Despite continued reports of U.N. employees taking advantage of the very people they are supposed to protect, allowing billions of dollars to be misspent in the oil-for- food relief program, twisted allegations of U.N. peacekeepers offering minors food in return for sex in the Congo, providing seats for China, Sudan and then Cuba at the Human Rights Commission, Kofi Annan refuses to consider necessary reforms to clean up the U.N. Indeed, Mr. Chairman, in as recently as today's headlines, we read of alleged connections and knowledge by the Secretary General into the dealings of the Swiss firm Cotecna in this horrible oil-for-food scandal.

The United Nations' regular budget is nearly $2 billion per year. Of that amount, the U.S. regularly contributes 22 percent. The underlying bill earmarks $440 million for the next year's U.N. budget, and even after, even after a $218 million reduction in dues, the United States will be the second largest contributor to the U.N. budget and the largest contributor to all other U.N. programs, including peacekeeping missions, voluntary programs and membership organizations.

Mr. Chairman, it is easier to amend the Constitution of the United States than the Charter of the United Nations, yet when we come to this floor at the outset of every Congress, we raise our right hand and express our allegiance to the Constitution of the United States.

It is time to restore the proper priorities. There is no clearer message, there is no clearer way to impact public policy, than to reduce the budget, to reduce the expenditures of the American taxpayer to this international budget.

I ask approval of this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I would simply point out to my friend, the distinguished subcommittee chair, I appreciate his passion, and I appreciate his pioneering work in terms of what has happened at Darfur. But this amendment was brought to this House in the previous Congress, and again we were told to wait. The fact is, as constitutional officers, it is incumbent upon us to move to stop abuses.

I would point out that this amendment does not change our funding for peacekeeping missions, voluntary programs and membership organizations.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Chairman, do I have the right to close?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.

I thank my colleague from Arizona for his comments. I do not believe that his analogy about withholding tax payments in protest to the government is apt because, Mr. Chairman, our responsibility first and foremost, yes, even as a Member of an international body, is to make sure that American interests are protected and, by extension, the interests of those in the world who have been abused, such as the Iraqi people, such as those innocent, young people in the Congo who have been sexually assaulted. And with a corrupt world body, we have incumbent in this amendment an obligation to seriously reduce the funding and, by extension, might I add, allow others within the international community to pay their fair share.

I look forward to the bill from the chairman of the Committee on International Relations, but I would ask my colleagues to join with me in acceptance of this amendment, because enough is enough.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Virginia, the subcommittee chairman.

I welcome the remarks of my friend from New York because, Mr. Chairman, it gives me an opportunity to clear up any misconception about this amendment. This does not withdraw United States participation from the United Nations, nor does it change our funding for peacekeeping missions, voluntary programs, and membership organizations.

What we are saying, and what duly elected, constitutional officers here in the people's House will say with passage of this amendment, is that in terms of the regular framework of budgeting for the United Nations, a process that my colleagues admit is horribly flawed, we will reduce that funding by one-half and invite others in the international community to come forward and pay their fair share.

My friend from Virginia has been very gracious with the time, and I thank him.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Hayworth

Amendment No. 33: Page 65, line 20, after the dollar amount

insert the following: ``(reduced by $218,000,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, it is my sad duty to inform this House and the people of this Nation of the passing of a dedicated public servant. The vice mayor of Fountain Hills, Arizona, Kathleen Nicola, passed away last week as the result of a boating accident.

A longtime Arizona resident, Kathleen Connelly Nicola moved to Lake Havasu City, Arizona, in June of 1967. After a move to Mesa in 1985, Kathleen and her family settled in Fountain Hills in 1989.

Kathleen's service to the town of Fountain Hills began in 1990 when she began working for the municipal court after a brief period of volunteering her services. During her tenure as administrator of the court over the following 9 years, Kathleen's extensive duties included budget preparation and day-to-day management of that court.

Kathleen's responsibilities likewise included the court's compliance with local, county, and State statutes, rules and administrative orders, in addition to statistical and financial reports; and with that involvement and background in government, Kathleen Nicola decided to run for the Fountain Hills Council in 2002, serving there with distinction, rising to the post of vice mayor prior to her tragic death last week.

Kathleen earned a Bachelor of Science degree in Justice Studies from the College of Public Programs from Arizona State University. She graduated from the Arizona School of Real Estate and Business, making a career change in the summer of 2000 to become a licensed real estate salesperson. A local real estate professional, Kathleen was an active member of the Fountain Hills Chamber of Commerce and the Scottsdale Association of Realtors.

Kathleen Nicola, one of those in America who understood that public service can be expressed through many avenues of citizen involvement, finally choosing to run for public office, serving as the vice mayor of the town she loved.

Residents of the fifth congressional district, the town of Fountain Hills join as one to express their sympathies and condolences to the Nicola family. And, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that all Americans would remember the Nicola family in their prayers during these difficult days.

The legacy of Kathleen Connelly Nicola, a woman called to service, service in her town, service in public office, service in her profession. She will be

long remembered, and she is most definitely missed.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Goode amendment, and I do so with the utmost respect for the preceding speakers on the other side of the aisle. Because in pointing out the symptoms and the challenges of the problems we confront on our border, rather than arguing against the amendment, as is the intent of my friends from Texas, in fact they are bolstering the argument for the very reason we should support this amendment.

Here is why, Mr. Chairman. National security and border security are one and the same. As my colleagues from Texas, who share a common border as I do in my home State in Arizona, as we share a common border with the Republic of Mexico, I would remind my colleagues that to our north there is a border stretching with Canada that is close to 8,000 miles, when you take a look at all the ins and outs. So it is not directed absolutely at our neighbors in the south. There is a danger to our north.

This has little to do with morale or professionalism of border patrol agents. Instead, it has to do with the incredible job we ask our border patrol to do across that vast northern border and across our important southern border. It is because of the tenor of the times, in the wake of 9/11, and, Mr. Chairman, precisely because of what we heard our former colleague, Mr. Goss of Florida, now Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, say in an open session to a committee in the other body, that his greatest concern is the introduction of some sort of weapon or some hostile action taken by those crossing our porous borders.

My colleagues from Texas just pointed out, in terms of those other- than-Mexicans coming across our southern border, and as the Director of the FBI confirmed to a subcommittee of this House, there are individuals coming in to this Nation through our southern border who are coming from nations that export Islamofascism and terrorism and they are adopting Hispanic-sounding surnames as their aliases. And my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz), took a direct hand in pointing out those who are involved in creating security risks along our border. He mentioned the threat of the MS-13 gangs and all that is going on.

My colleagues, the Goode amendment is needed now more than ever. And I say that as one from a border State who stood in opposition to amendments of this type during my previous years in Congress. But the bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is this: yes, we have troops in the field; we have troops far from home fighting on the streets of Tikrit so we do not see a fight on the streets of Tucson; fighting on the streets of Baghdad so we do not see this on the streets of Boston.

But by the same token, 1 week ago, when we discussed the challenges that we were confronting in terms of border security and national security, I would suggest that a vacuum exists, because we hear so much debate in this House about resources for first responders.

Mr. Chairman, I would recommend and I would suggest that there is an interim vacuum that we should take into account. Not only are men and women in uniform on the offensive around the world in a global war on terror, but we also must deal with the ability of the Secretary of Defense in coordination with the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to utilize our military personnel. If we had in place the adequate manpower and resources for first defenders on our borders, perhaps the first responders would not be needed.

Mr. Chairman, I respect my colleagues from Texas. I understand their concerns. Indeed, there is much on this topic where we have agreement. We understand the danger we confront. But we have seen the results of force multiplication, or at least the presence of American citizens on the border in my home State. Force multiplication, and another option here is what is needed. Support the Goode amendment.

Mr. Speaker, on May 27, 2005 a courageous and distinguished Marine

will be laid to rest in Arlington National Cemetery. Major Eddie Whitehead, a respected Vietnam veteran who proudly served his country in the United States Marine Corps for 28 years, will be laid to rest today among other great American heroes at Arlington National Cemetery. On February 25, 2005 Major Whitehead lost his battle with cancer, and all who knew and loved him will miss him, including his wife Bonnie, son Eddie Jr., daughters MitziLynn Keegan and Christian Thijm, sister Mitzi Datres, and grandchildren Derek and Casey Jene. Let us pause to remember him and thank an American hero.

Madam Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 3\1/4\ minutes.

I rise in strong opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague from Texas. As you heard in her opening remarks, sadly, this amendment is an attempt to discredit worthy, nonviolent volunteers who dedicated their time and their energy to protect our Nation's borders last month. The Minuteman Project, Madam Chairman, is simply an outgrowth of the public's frustration with the Federal Government's failure to secure our borders. Indeed, what the Minutemen did was follow a time-honored tradition of petitioning our government for legitimate redress of grievance.

It is true that in terms of the political landscape, the ACLU and the Government of Mexico protested the group even before the patrol began; but the Minutemen effectively shut down a 20-mile stretch of border without a single credible report of violence committed by those citizen volunteers.

With reference to the notion of a study, Madam Chairman, I would simply say this: the records are intact. I will make them a part of the record right now. Attacks on border patrol agents by alien and drug smugglers are on the rise. In the Tucson sector alone during the first 6 months of this fiscal year, there were reported 132 assaults on agents, 14 more than all of last year. That is in the first 6 months of the fiscal year. Border patrol agents in Arizona are attacked once every 2 days, 64 times in a recent 3-month period.

Six border patrol agents assigned to the Tucson sector have been killed in the line of duty, including a 27-year-old agent fatally shot in June of 1998 near Nogales as he sought to arrest four men hauling marijuana into the United States. When I had occasion to visit with border patrol agents in March, they told me how snipers from the Mexican side of the border will actually shoot border patrol vehicle windshields out if the Mexican snipers deem these vehicles are parked too close to the border.

In 2004, border patrol agents arrested over 650 suspected terrorists. Madam Chairman, let me repeat that. In 2004, border patrol agents arrested over 650 suspected terrorists from countries of national security interest trying to cross our southern border. They expect the number will rise this year. In January of this year, border patrol in the Tucson sector impounded 557 smuggling vehicles, almost 35,000 pounds of marijuana, and 35,704 illegal aliens.

This amendment fails to address the violent attacks on our border patrol agents. It implies that citizens of the United States seeking redress and putting an end to the influx of terrorists and the illegal invasion of this country are wrong. The committees on Homeland Security and the Judiciary oppose this amendment. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Jackson-Lee amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goode).

Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time to make this point to my colleagues. I am sure it is not the intent of my colleague from Texas to try and imply that citizens engaged in lawful protest are somehow attempting to inspire violent acts. I know that is not the intent of my colleague. However, that would be the perverse result if this House would support that amendment. This House would then be on record saying that the lawful rights of citizens should be abridged to accommodate illegal acts by noncitizens. That is something this House and this government and the citizens of this Nation will not countenance.

Therefore, because of that, I would ask all my colleagues to join me in opposition to the Jackson-Lee amendment. Vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for this time. I rise in strong support of this conference report as the people's House at long last takes care of some unfinished business. In the closing days of the 108th Congress, some in the other body objected to commonsense provisions that deal with our national security and our border security, to wit, the notion that when you apply for a driver's license or another legal document, you should be who you say you are, and you should enjoy legal status in this country.

This supplemental conference report includes the REAL ID Act, and at long last the Congress of the United States gets real and understands that border security and national security are one and the same. Pass this to help protect our borders and help protect our national security.