Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, we have already made a down payment of $10.5 billion. We will do another $50 billion likely later this week, as we should.

I want to encourage my colleagues in our leadership to seek out offsets. When a family has an emergency, they will sometimes put it on a credit card or plan for it some other way. Our credit is just about at its limit, and we have to dig deep within ourselves and say, how are we going to pay for this? What else are we going to cut?

I have many suggestions. A prescription drug benefit that will go into effect next year has about a $40 billion price tag for 1 year. That will be a great place to start. We just passed a massive transportation bill that we ought to have revisions on. There are many ways that we can look for the money, but we have to find the money somewhere, and we should not simply assume that we can spend new money and that everything will go along just fine.

We have to be responsible with the Nation's resources.

Mr. Speaker, this bill that we consider today, the transportation bill, ought to carry the same warning that drivers see on their rear view mirror: Items are larger than they appear.

This bill contains a rescission on the last day authorized by the bill several years hence which rescinds about $9 billion. It is a gimmick. It is nothing more than a gimmick to allow us to spend more than the President said we need to or he would veto the bill.

Mr. President, please veto this bill. We are out of control here on spending. And this bill goes far over the mark that you have laid out.

It also bothers a lot of us Republicans to hear it described as a ``jobs bill.'' We are hearing jobs, jobs, jobs. We are not all Keynesians here. We do not believe that taking money out of taxpayers' pockets is the best way to create jobs. The best way is to leave it with them.

Mr. Speaker, we ought to have a transportation bill that reflects what is in the trust fund--nothing more. And it ought to be distributed in a way that does not include 6,000 earmarks.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today feeling a little like a skunk at a wedding, or probably more accurately, road kill. I will cast later today what I am sure will be a lonely vote against this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I hope this is the last highway authorization bill we do in this fashion. In 1986, President Reagan vetoed the bill because of what he said were excessive earmarks or projects. I believe there were some 150 in that bill. There are nearly 6,000 in this bill today. That is no way to spend money.

As more earmarks come, fewer dollars as a percentage actually go to critical needs. It is spent in other directions, and it is not the direction we ought to go. Equally troubling in this bill are budget gimmicks, the biggest one being that we rescind on the last day of reauthorization $8.6 billion to bring this under the number that the President said he will not veto.

I would submit that nobody actually believes we are going to rescind that money. Let us be honest about this: This is busting the budget. I urge Members to vote ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, today the Senate will hold hearings to start the process for comprehensive immigration reform. We will soon start those same hearings hopefully in the House.

As we begin this, I simply want to remind everyone here that we believe in the rule of law. We need to enforce the rule of law. We need to enforce our Nation's laws, but in order to do so, we have to have laws that we can enforce.

Those who say let us enforce the law, the current law, and then have a temporary worker program have yet to offer a proposal to actually enforce the current law, which would require that the 10- to 15 million illegals who are now, most of them, working in jobs would actually be deported to their country of origin and subject to a 10-year bar from reentry.

If that is what people mean by enforcing the current law, then please offer a proposal to do so. But, if not, then let us work together on a comprehensive plan for comprehensive immigration reform that has a guest worker plan and also a provision to enforce the new law. That is what we need to do in this country.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Pence amendment.

It is important to remove this language in H.R. 22 that reserves one seat on the Postal Board of Governors for a representative of labor unions.

The U.S. Postal Service is a government-owned corporation and, as such, is technically owned by the U.S. taxpayers. Reserving one space exclusively for labor representatives confers preferential status and, in my view, undue influence to one interest group at the expense of all other stakeholders in postal operations, particularly first-class mail users.

I think it is a good amendment. I think it is something that I believe this kind of set-aside may not be in the Senate version of the bill. It is certainly a topic that needs to be debated and taken up in conference, and I would encourage my colleagues to accept it.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

My amendment is quite simple. It establishes a pilot program in at least 20 test communities, which would sunset in 5 years, to allow the U.S. Postal Service and the Congress to simply gather information. This pilot program would test the feasibility and desirability of alternative methods for the delivery of postal services.

The pilot program would test the current following assumptions about the Postal Service: Are consumers better off if the Postal Service remains a monopoly? Does the current postal infrastructure allow for as many delivery offerings as possible? Is the total value of the universal service model for postal delivery worth the expense?

Now, universal service by the Postal Service would continue to be provided, but participating postmasters would not be limited by the current monopoly statutes on first-class delivery and the use of postal mailboxes. If the postmaster so chooses, alternative providers, such as commercial enterprise, nonprofit organization, or a labor organization that satisfies a strict set of criteria could serve as an alternative provider for postal services. They would also be able to use the equipment and facilities of the USPS at the discretion of the postmaster for fair market value.

Mr. Chairman, with the dramatic reduction in first-class mail volume, coupled with the inability of the Postal Service to control costs, the Postal Service and Congress must have many well-tested alternatives for the future of mail delivery in the U.S.

Many European countries are well ahead of the U.S. on some new innovative ideas for structuring their respective postal delivery services. The pilot program is simply a test program to provide the Postal Service and Congress with useful information to make future changes to postal services, if needed.

I might add, Mr. Chairman, we know that some changes are needed. We are running into deficits; and every 4 years, we are bailing out the USPS. I do not want to be here 4 years from now doing the same thing. So let us test some alternatives. Let us see what else works. Let us see what other countries are doing that we might adopt to control costs and improve quality.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

I should point out to the gentleman that postmasters would have full authority under this legislation, under this amendment to actually contract out or not. They can disband the alternative at any time.

Now, under the law, only the government can do it right, and we ought to take over the entire economy. If we do not trust the private sector to deliver services more effectively and more efficiently than the government can, shoot, why do we not get in every business.

We know that that is not the case. We know the private sector typically can do it better, faster, cheaper, smarter than government.

Every 4 years, we are back in again to bail out the USPS. This simply says, why do we not try something, try some alternatives that are working in other countries; try some things that might work, that might lower the cost, that might be more taxpayer-friendly than this. That is what this amendment is all about.

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

Mr. Chairman, before yielding 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana, let me just say that asking the Postal Service to give up what might lead to giving up their monopoly or a portion of their monopoly is unreasonable. We need to prime the pump a little. No private business would in their self-interest do that either. That is why this amendment is important.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. I will go ahead and wrap up.

Labor costs consume 80 percent of the Postal Service revenue, whereas UPS and FedEx spend only 56 and 42 percent of their revenues on labor.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I am often critical of this process and have been known to be critical of the Committee on Rules on particular bills that have come through, but I have to say with this process and with the committee on which I sit, the Committee on the Judiciary, we have seen a very transparent, open process. We have had a series of 12 hearings over the past year, and we had a markup that went over 12 hours in which we considered more than 50 amendments, I believe, there.

I was successful, with a few of my Democrat colleagues, in attaching a few amendments at that time. I believe there are four that have my name on it that have been approved for today. A few of them have to do with Section 215.

Mr. Speaker, I am not unsympathetic to the concerns that the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders) has. I in fact voted for his amendment on the floor the other day with regard to 215 and library and bookstore searches and sales. I believe that we have addressed it sufficiently in this bill in the amendments that will be offered.

We will offer an amendment later, myself and the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), that will require the Director of the FBI to actually sign off on any request for documents from a bookstore or library. That will help substantially.

We also have another amendment to 215 we did in committee that clarifies it to make sure you can consult your lawyer, not just to respond to the order, but to challenge it as well. We have various other amendments that have been approved today, national security letters on the so-called delayed notification that have already been approved.

I look forward to this process. I hope my colleagues will support this rule. I know it is a tough job the Committee on Rules has. I have worked, frankly, with a lot more Democrats than I have with Republicans on this issue over the past year. We formed the PATRIOT Act Reform Caucus, and a lot of us have worked very hard on these issues, and I am pleased to say that many of these amendments have been approved and will be offered today.

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage my colleagues to support the rule.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment with my colleague the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), a Democrat.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment simply states that the Director of the FBI must personally approve any library or bookstore request for records by the FBI under section 215 of the PATRIOT Act. This amendment provides a higher standard for the use of section 215 by the FBI.

At a minimum, what it will prevent I think is some kind of fishing expedition that might be undertaken by an overzealous agent or official at the Bureau. Having the Director of the FBI sign off on the request, it also sends a signal to the library and bookstore owners that a request for information from the FBI is well thought out and comes from the highest level.

This amendment compliments other amendments I have offered in the Committee on the Judiciary, two of which were accepted by the chairman and the committee. Those were: With regard to section 215, we clarified that if there is an inquiry, you not only as a respondent have access to an attorney to respond to the inquiry, but also to challenge it. The other had to do with another section in committee. We will stick with this one.

With these two amendments on 215 combined, I think we have provided strong protections for the contested section of the PATRIOT Act. There has been a lot of attention, as has been noted here, across the country at this provision, which has been termed the library provision. It obviously has a lot more to do than with libraries. Libraries are not even mentioned in it. But we see the need to make protections to be sure that no overzealous agent at the FBI or anybody goes and searches somebody's library records or bookstore purchases. So that is what this amendment is prepared to do.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), the cosponsor of the amendment.

(Mr. SCHIFF asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), a valued member of the Committee on the Judiciary

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), another member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I just wanted to say that the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) brought up the point that the buck stops here, and that is what we are really trying to do with the FBI Director, to ensure that that person is in charge and there is less likely to be a fishing expedition by a lower-ranking official. When you combine that with what we already have in law, which is a requirement that the FBI Director report to Congress every 6 months about the use of this statute, you really have a strong provision and strong protections.

Think of it: you have the FBI Director himself, or herself, saying, I want to use this authority for this specific purpose, and then having to report that every 6 months to Congress. I think we really have curtailed the possibility for abuse.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Issa), another member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

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

Let me just conclude by thanking the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), for running a fair and thorough process.

Much has been said about these things being rushed through. I can tell my colleagues that over the past 12 months or so, we have had 12 hearings on this subject, 35 witnesses. We have gone through this very thoroughly. On each of these sections that we are dealing with, we heard excellent testimony from the administration, from other witnesses, from experts in the field; and that is why these amendments have been crafted. We have sought to protect the civil liberties of Americans every bit as much as we can here, while offering effective tools for the war on terrorism, giving the administration the tools that they need to fight this war.

I am persuaded that we have done well with this section, with section 215, that we have put the protections that we need in place; and I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment with my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt). I want to assure my colleagues that this amendment has nothing to do with exporting freedom to Cuba. We have teamed up on a few of those items. We are also teaming up with other Members of the PATRIOT Act Reform Caucus, the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), on this amendment.

The Flake-Delahunt-Otter-Nadler amendment provides critical reforms to national security letters. We have heard a lot about this today.

First, this amendment specifies that the recipient of a national security letter may consult with an attorney and may also challenge national security letters in court. A judge may throw out the national security letter by request of the government ``if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive to the recipient of the national security letter.''

The amendment also allows the recipient to challenge the nondisclosure requirement in the national security letter request. A judge could modify or remove the nondisclosure requirement of the national security letter ``if it finds that there is no reason to believe that disclosure may endanger the national security of the United States, interfere with criminal counterterrorism or counterintelligence investigation, interfere with diplomatic relations, or endanger the life or physical safety of any person.''

Another important reform to this amendment is that it modifies the nondisclosure requirements so that recipients may tell individuals whom they work with about the national security letter request in order to comply with the national security request.

The amendment also contains penalties for individuals who violate the nondisclosure requirements of a national security letter and requires that reports on national security letters by Federal agencies to Congress must also be sent to the House and Senate Committees on the Judiciary so we can exercise proper oversight.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank again the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and his staff in helping to write and to work with me on this amendment. It is important to strengthening the rights of average American citizens who receive these national security letters, and I urge my colleagues to accept this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren), a member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, what the PATRIOT Act did was to move or to change the standard to relevance. There has to be a finding of relevance. If it is relevant to an investigation, then it is in my view proper they should be able to compel records.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, there is a disagreement on what the court was actually ruling on, whether they were ruling on the access to counsel or, my understanding of it, whether or not the request itself was unconstitutional. If that is the case, let the legal process take its course.

But I think what we need to do here is make sure that the agencies have the tools they need, offering the protections we are offering here.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would continue to yield, we are offering in this amendment additional protections. We are ensuring that those who receive these letters, and we have in other amendments as well, have access to counsel, not only to respond to the inquiry, but also to challenge in court.

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

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, part of what we have done in this amendment is offer individuals the opportunity to challenge the scope of the request. So whether or not it applies to them or additional people is challengeable through this amendment. That is part of what we are doing here.

The bank can make the challenge itself. The bank can challenge the scope. They are the recipient of the national security letter.

That is correct.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for the gentleman from New York. I tend not to be as concerned as he is at this point. I share many of his concerns about the overall PATRIOT Act, and we have worked to put many of the amendments in place to put ourselves at rest. I thank him for his involvement. We have had great involvement from both sides of the aisle here.

These amendments that I am offering today, virtually all of them, are offered with Democrat support and cosponsorship. My name is not even at the top of some of them. We have had good cooperation. I feel good about this amendment, about the protection we have offered here, and also to ensure that in cases where it is needed, we offer additional tools for compliance with these requests as well. I am pleased with the amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Yes.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I just want to say in closing, this has been a collaborative process. I appreciate those who have worked with us, and again my appreciation goes to the chairman of the committee for having such a thorough process and allowing us to have amendments. As I mentioned, we had a markup that lasted over 12 hours. Many of these amendments were discussed at length, as were other amendments. I appreciate that and urge support of the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Let me just briefly thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for working on this amendment. In the committee, with regard to other bills that we have considered, one having to do with providing a death penalty for terrorist criminals, this issue came up as well. ``Domestic terrorism,'' is that too broad a term and how should it be applied? If one causes injury to a Federal building by mistake, are they then subject to these fines? And nobody really believes that the death penalty would be imposed in that case; however, the threat of something like that is out there, acts as a form of intimidation to people from engaging in lawful protest. So the overly broad definition does come up as a problem sometimes, and in this case it comes up as a problem when it has to do with seizure of assets.

So I thank the gentleman for bringing this amendment forward. I am glad to join him and I am glad the chairman has articulated so well the need for this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am offering this amendment today with the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter), my fellow co-chairman of the PATRIOT Act Reform Caucus.

This amendment addresses two important issues regarding delayed notification of the so-called sneak-and-peek searches. The amendment removes the clause that allows judges, when deciding whether initially to grant a sneak-and-peek search, to allow it for the reason that it would unduly delay a trial to notify the target of the search. This amendment strikes ``unduly delaying a trial'' because we believe it is too low a standard to allow for a delayed notification search under the adverse impact clause of section 2705 of title XVIII.

This amendment also requires on an annual basis that the Administrative Office of the Courts must report to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees on the number of search warrants granted and the number of delayed notices authorized. The AOC would also be required to indicate the cause of delay in each instance. This important information will help improve Congress' oversight role on delayed notification for so-called sneak-and-peak searches in the future by providing Members with this information on an annual basis.

Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) and his staff for once again working to address the concerns we had on delayed notification. I urge my colleagues to accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).

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

(Mr. OTTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time to conclude briefly, simply to say that the distinguished ranking minority member of the committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), mentioned that the amendment represents half a loaf, and I will freely concede that it does. Rarely do you get an amendment to a bill that represents the full loaf.

But I should point out that in committee we considered another half- a-loaf amendment, if you will, to section 213; and that amendment by myself and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) clarified or, not clarified, but actually put in some false stops with regard to delayed notification searches where you have to appear before a judge after 80 days to justify delayed notifications. After 90-day increments beyond that time, you have to appear again and justify that search as well. That is the other half a loaf.

We have also had many other amendments in committee, and here on the floor, that could be considered half a loaf. With that, I think we got a pretty good product in the end, and that is what we are seeking to have here.

I would urge support of the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I am probably the last person expected to speak on behalf of the committee or the leadership in general. I tend to be critical sometimes of committees and the leadership and the process here. But let me tell you, I have watched the process here in the Committee on the Judiciary over the past couple of years on this issue. I have watched us hold hearing after hearing, 12 just in the last several months, 2 in the last Congress, and I have watched us adopt amendment after amendment in committee. We held a 12-hour markup there, a serious markup. I am often critical of the way we do business here, but here I saw it work. We did exercise effective oversight.

Mr. Speaker, nobody loves sunsets like this Arizonan. I was very supportive of the sunsets we had in the bill initially. I am very supportive of the sunset we have, the 10-year sunsets on the two controversial provisions. I think those ought to stand, and I hope they make it through the process. But I have learned on issues like this you do not get everything you want. I did not get every amendment I wanted. I got a few, and a few of the ones we did get were substantive.

We have made amendments to section 215, to section 213. We have tightened up the requirements of national security letters. These are substantive amendments. They are good. Sometimes, as my hero in politics said once, in one book, Barry Goldwater said, ``Politics is nothing more than public business. Sometimes you make the best of a mixed bargain. You don't always get everything you want.''

We got good substantive reform here and we have sunsets. They are a bit longer than I am comfortable with at times, but we have them here. I think we ought to make the best of what we have. It is a good product. I commend the chairman and the others.

And I should say it is not just the Committee on the Judiciary that has gone through this process. The Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence has had hearings as well. They have had a markup process and have worked collaboratively, Democrats and Republicans.

My own amendments, virtually every one of them, had Democrats on them. I have worked with them and we have worked together on this. I helped form the PATRIOT Act Reform Caucus over a year ago. We have worked to make sure these changes have been made. This is a good product. I urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit and ``yes'' on the underlying bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the sponsor of this amendment. It is important. I think that we need to do all we can to make sure the feeder documents, the primary documents upon which passports are issued, are safer than they are today. I think it is important that the Secretary of State and those in responsibility have a more thorough reporting process to us as to how these can be made safe.

So I want to commend the gentleman for bringing this forward. It is a good amendment, and we ought to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time.

I did not plan to come and speak before the amendment was offered, but hearing the debate on the floor now, I am wondering which amendment is being described. Surely it cannot be the one we are offering, because the one we are offering does not scrub the project and does not say it cannot go forward. It simply says it should go forward only if the minimum requirements that have been laid out are met in terms of it being economically viable and useful. That is all we are saying. It is a pretty darn low bar.

We are saying, let us take the bottom standard that the corps, the National Academy of Sciences, CRS, and other groups have said is feasible in order to make the project go forward. If it is not, it should not be built. If it is met, it should be built.

I heard some discussion about, well, we would not go to your district and say you should not build that road or should not build that waterway or whatever if it is something you want. Well, if I say I need a road and it is going to carry 1,000 people per day, and over the next 3 years we find out it is only going to carry 800 per day or 500 per day, I hope my colleagues vote against it. They ought to. That is why they are here. That is why we are all here in this position.

We have a near-$400 billion deficit this year; a nearly $8 trillion debt. If we are not willing to husband our resources better than that, what hope do we have of getting ahold over this debt and deficit?

Our amendment, again to be clear, does not say this project should not go forward. It simply says it ought to meet the requirements that have been laid out by those who are advocating the project itself. So this amendment that has been spoken of, I can assure all of my colleagues, it is not being offered. The amendment that is being offered, the Flake-Blumenauer amendment, says that the requirements simply need to be met. It needs to be economically viable and feasible.

Mr. Chairman, we need to protect taxpayer resources and make sure that they are spent prudently. That is what this amendment is all about; and I would urge my colleagues, when it comes time, to vote for the Flake-Blumenauer amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

This amendment, contrary to what has been said on the floor earlier, in

fact, a Dear Colleague just went around that somebody brought my attention to that says that this project would prevent this critical piece of infrastructure modernization from going forward, this amendment would do nothing of the sort, unless the tonnage requirements that the corps has actually put forward on its own are not met that would justify the project. This simply says that this project only goes forward if the benefits outweigh the costs. It will not go forward under this amendment if the costs outweigh the benefits. It is a simple amendment. I would encourage my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Again, I am going to sound like a broken record by the time this is through. All this amendment says is that based on the corps' own assumptions, river traffic is going to have to reach 35 million tons. That would be required to justify the project. If that is not met, the project will not go forward. If it is met, it will go forward.

We are simply saying that the corps' own assumptions need to be met, need to be satisfied, in order for the project to go forward. Again, this is not scuttle the project. This simply says it needs to be justified by their own figures.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Let me just say, again, I am sympathetic to the needs, and I have seen the locks. In fact, last week I was in Keokuk, Iowa and saw a lock not unlike the ones that are going to be funded by this project. And they are old. They do need maintenance. We are providing a lot of money for that now. We have been ongoing for the past several decades.

But this is new dollars, new money for new locks. And it seems to me that if we are fiscally conservative, we ought to say there ought to be a justification. There are ways one can justify it. They could say it is going to create a lot of jobs, a lot of people are going to be working on that project, but that all makes sense if we are all Keynesians now, and I hope we are not. I hope that we believe that taxpayers ought to be protected, and they spend their money best, unless there is a justified need. And here all we are saying, as the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) said, this is a carefully constructed compromise saying that it should move forward if there is an economic justification for it. If there is not, then it should not move forward. That is all we are saying here.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

I appreciate the debate that has been had on this topic. Again, we have this year over a $300 billion deficit. It is better than we thought it was going to be, but it is still over $300 billion. We have a debt near $8 trillion now. If we, as stewards of the taxpayers' money, cannot step in and when a project does not meet its own goals to move forward, if we cannot step in and say we are not going to do this, we are not going to spend the taxpayers' money on this, we are going to wait and get a project that is justified, then who are we as Members of Congress? We will never get a handle on this debt or deficit.

I would say that, if one is fiscally conservative, this amendment is a lock.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to issue a challenge to my colleagues, those who have criticized the comprehensive immigration reform that has been offered as legislation. In the last Congress, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and myself and Senator McCain in the Senate offered comprehensive immigration reform. We have offered a similar bill this year. There have been a lot of critics who have taken the floor and have said that we should not do this; what we need to do rather than have comprehensive immigration reform is to simply secure the border and enforce the law, enforce the current law.

Let me just run down what that actually entails. If we were to enforce the current immigration laws that we have, it would mean that we would literally round up between 10 million and 15 million illegal aliens who are here presently, uproot them from their jobs, often from their families, and ship them home to their home country where they would be subject to a 10-year bar from reentry. After that 10 years, then they would get in line to go through the legal orderly process, which would probably take another 20 years.

Now, when I explain that to those who are critics of our immigration bill, they often say, well, we do not mean to enforce the current law as it is. Let us selectively enforce it. Let us go after the criminals, not after those who are legally law-abiding here. Well, that is called selective enforcement, and some will actually use that term. We need to selectively enforce the law. I ask the critics of comprehensive immigration reform, how is that any less of an amnesty than what has been proposed?

Under our legislation, anyone here illegally, who has broken no other law than crossing the border illegally, would be required to register, pay a fine, and wait as many as, at least 6 years until the current backlog of those going through the legal orderly process in their home country is complete. Then they would be forced to pay another $1,000 fine. How is that an amnesty, when simply selectively enforcing the current law is not?

Please explain. For those who are criticizing comprehensive immigration reform, how are you going to secure the border and enforce the law without a temporary worker program? Our legislation realizes that there are many here, probably around 8 million, that are in the workforce currently. Unless we are willing to uproot them and send them all home, then we have to have a temporary worker program or a guest worker program before we can enforce the law. That is why we have to have comprehensive immigration reform that says we need the rule of law.

In order to have the rule of law, we must have a law we can enforce. That is what this is all about, and that is the challenge I issue to those criticizing the comprehensive immigration reform that has been offered, the McCain-Kennedy-Kolbe-Flake-Gutierrez bill. Please come up with your own. Explain how we are going to enforce the current law unless we have a temporary worker program.

People say, let us secure the border first, enforce the current law, and then see if we need a guest worker program. I have already explained what it means to enforce the current law. If you believe that is what we need to do, please proffer a bill. Write legislation. If that is what we need to do, then, please, stand here and suggest it. Otherwise, join us. Join us in our quest to actually have a law that we can enforce. Let us have the rule of law. That is what this country was built on. That is what we need to return to.

It is not a healthy situation to have 10 million to 15 million people here illegally who are below the law, who work in the shadows. That is not healthy for national security. It is not good for our economy, and it is not humanitarian either. We simply need to change the law.

So I invite my colleagues, please, submit legislation. Join this great debate that we have, but do not criticize unless you are willing to offer legislation yourself.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I had assumed that a point of order would be raised. I know that those opposing this amendment don't want to talk about this amendment, and I can understand why.

Carlos Lazo escaped from Cuba in the late 1980s. He hopped a raft, but unfortunately he was caught; he was caught by Castro's forces. He was taken back to Cuba where he spent 1 year in Castro's prisons.

A little later he decided that the pull from freedom was strong enough that

he would try again, and he did. He got on another raft and this time he made it. He made it and he became an American. Not only did he become an American, he became a soldier. Not only that, he went over to Iraq and served us proudly. In fact, Sergeant Lazo was recently awarded the Bronze Star for bravery in action in Iraq.

Last June, when he came home from Iraq, he wanted to visit his two sons who are still in Cuba. He is divorced. They and their mother live in Cuba. He tried to do so. He went to the Miami Airport only to find that since he had been in Cuba once in the past 3 years, he couldn't go again for another 3 years. He was prevented from going to see his family.

Here we are, our government, telling one of its finest, a soldier who put his life on the line in Iraq, a soldier that we trust in Iraq, but don't trust to be able to go and see his family more than once out of every 3 years. We acknowledge that he should be able to go see his family, but only once every 3 years.

What kind of a policy is that for us to have? And who would object to that? How hard-hearted do you have to be to say a soldier serving his country cannot go home and see his two kids?

Those on the other side might say, well, why don't we just bring his family over here? And he says, well, I have a good relationship with their mother and she wants them to stay there, and who am I to say any different? He also would like to see his grandmother and relatives while he is over there, that couldn't come here.

The notion that we should tell him what is best for him is at the root of this whole policy of denying Cuban-American families the right to see their families. If this amendment is indeed ruled out of order and we are unable to decide the fate of Sergeant Lazo, the only alternative is to vote for the Davis amendment that will be offered shortly.

Point of order

Mr. Chairman, let me point out again, this is another thing that the other side doesn't want you to hear. That is why I was just interrupted.

The only way we can allow Sergeant Lazo to see his family is to vote for the Davis amendment, which will allow him and other Cuban American families to go see their families better than once every 3 years.

I think Sergeant Lazo says it best. He says, Cubans pray every day that their parents die 3 years apart if their parents are in Cuba, so they are able to go see them.

Who are we? Who are we as Americans to tell other Americans that they should only be able to go and see their family, their mother, their father, or their kids in this case once every 3 years? What kind of policy is that?

Again, I am not able to offer this amendment. It is going to be ruled out of order. So the only way we can allow Sergeant Lazo or other Cuban Americans or others to see their families more than once every 3 years is to vote for the Davis amendment that will be offered shortly.

Again, Cuban Americans are only allowed once every 3 years. If they have a mother in Cuba and she dies and they decide to attend her funeral, if their father's dies 2 years later, they cannot go to his under this policy unless we vote for the Davis amendment.

I ask my colleagues to please look at their hearts here, see if this is what they want to do as an American to deny another American the right to see their family in Cuba. That is what this amendment is all about. Because we are unable to offer this one, that is what the Davis amendment will be about.

When we are debating the Davis amendment, I suppose we will hear on the other side, as we have heard in the past, hey, we oppose this, we live in a Cuban American community, we know that they do not want to go see their families. Perhaps the people they know feel that way, but I can tell my colleagues, I represent some Cuban Americans as well. People do all over.

Sergeant Lazo comes from the State of Washington, and they would like to go. And who are we, who is anyone to tell others that they cannot go there?

At the root of what we are trying to do is to give people the freedom to make that choice themselves rather than imposing that choice upon them, a choice whether to go see their families, to be able to visit their kids, as a soldier. And there are other soldiers as well; he is not the only one.

I would ask Members to please vote for the Davis amendment if we are unable to vote for this one.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, I would rather respond to the questions on this. What this amendment simply does, those who are opposed to change in Cuba have said let us keep the current regulations. Let us keep the current exemptions that we have. Let us keep it all the same. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) just stood and said the dissidents are saying that, let us keep it exactly the same.

This amendment, with regard to the religious exemption that exists, says keep it the same. That is what we are doing with this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I offered this amendment to see what the other side would do on this, and just to let this body know how far we are going here. They claim to respect religious liberties and to allow religious visits to Cuba. Yet, when I say let us protect that current exemption that exists, they say we might want to go further. We might want to apply a religious test and, in fact, it is happening right now in Miami. There are groups that are going down under a certain religion, and now we have our own Department of Treasury and the Congress apparently saying we are not sure you are really that religion, we are not sure you really believe that. And so we might restrict that further.

In fact, regulations were just issued a few months ago to say that, you know, we think, and this is without approval of Congress, just new regulations saying it ought to only be 25 people that could go at one time. Anything else is unreligious apparently. That is where we are going. It just baffles me to see where we are going here.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, believe me, given the history of this issue, the last thing any of us worry about is for those who oppose changes on the Cuba issue to liberalize or to allow more religion and more religious travel, because every effort is to restrict, is to tell people we know better than you. We apparently can define whether you are really religious or not or whether you really believe in that faith. That is what this is about. We are simply trying to protect it.

I would love the President to say, hey, let us open it and I would sponsor legislation to do that certainly. I have. But the last thing we are worried about here is for religion to be opened up because every effort by those who oppose the freedom to travel to Cuba has been to restrict people's freedoms and rights and religion.

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

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

Mr. Chairman, I offered this amendment to allow people to see what this is all about. And the notion that what the other side wants to defeat this amendment for, because they might allow more religious travel, is pretty much laid bare by opposition to the other amendments that have been offered, allowing family members to travel or military members to travel, or support for regulations in the past to restrict religious freedom; to say, hey, if you are of a certain religion, then we at the Department of Treasury, we are going to decide how many are really in your congregation, what kind of religion you have or whether it is really a religion at all. That is what this is about.

But I am cognizant of the fact that if this is twisted, like many of the amendments offered on Cuba are, and people misunderstand it as this is something to lift the whole embargo, in fact, the talking points just read refer to a different amendment because it talked about lessening.

I am talking about keeping. I am cognizant that if this were to go down, that would embolden this side to restrict religion even further, saying we have license. The House has said, let us restrict religion even further.

That is the last thing I want, and I will not be party to that.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I inadvertently voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 346. I intended to vote ``aye'' on rollcall No. 346.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Sanders

Madam Speaker, I rise today to draw attention to the case of Carlos Lazo. Sergeant Lazo has served our country honorably in Iraq. There has been a lot of talk about our soldiers in Iraq today. This sergeant returned from Iraq a while ago and wanted to visit his two children in Cuba. Carlos is a Cuban American who escaped that country on a raft several years ago.

He would like to go back, but our government will not let him. You see, he has visited Cuba once in the past 3 years, and that is all you are allowed under current policy. So this soldier, who received a Bronze Star in Iraq for his service and many other accolades, is not trusted by our government to visit his own family in Cuba.

This policy is wrong. The same policy prohibits a child with parents in Cuba from visiting them more than once every 3 years. So if your father dies one year, you go to his funeral. If your mother dies the next year, you cannot go to hers. How is that fair? Why is our government doing this?

We need to change this policy, Madam Speaker, and this week we may have an opportunity to do so. I would encourage my colleagues to join me in this endeavor.

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

This ruling did just come out, and in Arizona we have I think the largest number of charter schools in the Nation. Most of them serve low-income, special-needs kids. In this case, that is who they are serving, and the ruling simply came out and said IF they are structured as a for-profit; they cannot receive funds anymore.

Keep in mind, these are Title I funds. These are special education funds. And for a school to be told, all right, you are not going to receive them anymore, these are disadvantaged kids in most respects that are going to be held at a loss.

What we are saying is simply if the Department of Education needs clarification, we can do that with reauthorization, but do not in the middle of a process say to these schools, we are going to treat you differently just because of how you are structured; although, we did not think it before, now we think it is different.

So I think that the gentleman is wise to go ahead and accept the amendment, and as more information comes out, I am confident that everyone will feel comfortable with this decision.

I thank the gentleman for yielding time.

Mr. Chairman, I think the salient points have been made here. Our Federal Government says to hospitals, you have to treat whoever comes in your door. It is not the hospital's choice. I have toured the border hospitals. It is not just the border hospitals in Arizona. It is hospitals 100 miles from the border. It is hospitals in Tucson. It is hospitals in Phoenix. It is others. They do not have the luxury of deciding who they are going to treat. Yet this amendment would say, sorry, you have to treat them, and because of our failure to impose control at the border, you are just stuck with the bill. That is simply not right.

Nobody is more convinced than the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and me of the need for immigration reform. That is why we have proffered legislation to do that. I would challenge those who have offered this amendment, please join us or offer your own legislation. We cannot continue with the status quo. It is just eating us alive in Arizona, not just health care costs but education costs, criminal justice costs, across the board.

But let us find a solution. Let us not simply pretend that it does not exist, pretend that those who are here just do not exist. They do. We have got to do something about it. Let us work together and do it, not just say, hey, unfunded mandate, sorry, got to deal with it. And to say that, Well, let's not entice them further, let's not provide any of the funding until we get immigration reform, tell that to the hospitals who could not survive. They will be closed. They simply are doing what the Federal Government tells them to do in terms of admitting patients and under this they would simply say, Sorry, we can't fund it. We're going to have to close our doors.

I commend the gentleman for opposing the amendment. I join with him, and I encourage all of my colleagues to say, Let's find a solution. Let's have meaningful, comprehensive immigration reform that will deal with issues like this. But let us not bury our heads in the sand.