Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise in support and commend the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) and others for raising H. Con. Res. 81 to mark the 2-year anniversary on the latest crackdown on human rights in Cuba. This is simply the latest crackdown. These have been occurring for more than 45 years now.

I also commend those who have come to this city to encourage more travel to Cuba and allow more travel to Cuba. Recently, Fidel Castro's government issued an edict to all state employees, which is by definition everyone on the island, saying they should have minimal travel with tourists and travelers because it is, for one thing, promoting individualism. I would submit that is a very good thing, and we ought to want more of it. I would encourage this body to again, as we have done year after year after year, allow Americans the freedom to travel wherever they please.

Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

I rise today in opposition to the sugar cane ethanol pilot program. This proposal, the problem with it is that it combines two programs, and both waste taxpayer money.

First, the sugar subsidy artificially raises the price of sugar that you buy every day. Whenever you eat a candy bar or drink a can of 7-Up, you are paying more because the government artificially raises the price of sugar.

Now, if you want to raise the cost of gas by forcing taxpayers to put fuel mixed with processed subsided sugar in your tank, it just seems strange in this bill, because I thought the purpose of this bill was actually to lower the cost of energy.

Second, ethanol is simply another taxpayer subsidy that could only find support in Congress, certainly not in the marketplace. Study after study demonstrates that it actually uses more energy to produce than it actually yields at the end.

And ethanol subsidies came about decades ago. It was just to jump- start the industry. And soon it will be on it own; the market will take over. Well, guess what, decades later we are still subsidizing ethanol. Well, why in the world should we do this and turn this to sugar now?

When grain-producing States have long found a way to keep ethanol alive, now sugar-producing States want into the act. My district has a great supply of prickly pear. Now, some people will eat it; it is sold at the airports. I would submit that is just as good a source of sugar for ethanol. If you use enough energy, you can turn anything into ethanol. But should we do it on the taxpayer's dime? I would say, no, we should not.

I enjoy it when the gentleman brings macadamia nuts into the committee; we enjoy those a lot. But I would not propose that we make ethanol out of it. It simply makes no sense at all to try to turn sugar, or for that matter corn, into gasoline.

Additionally, those of us who oppose ethanol need to stand up today to oppose this amendment because what may seem like a small program now, once sugar States discover what corn States have discovered, it will become much, much bigger and spending will become more and more and more. 10 million will become 20 and then 30 and then soon it is hundreds of millions of dollars.

This comes at the detriment of taxpayers who will pay more at the pump. Again, let me say that the purpose of this bill, the stated purpose, is during an energy crisis to bring down the cost of energy. And here we are employing programs that will simply make you pay, one, more at the pump, and, two, more in taxes because you are supporting this kind of subsidy.

I thought it was kind of strange, when I was a kid the worse prank you could play, it was hardly a prank, it was property damage, but was to put sugar in someone's tank. That was the worst thing you could do. And here you are going to ask the taxpayers to pay for it. It just seems wrong to me.

With all deference to my good friend from Hawaii, I just do not think that I can support this amendment. I am under no illusion, given the committee's support, the Republican's support for the amendment that I can beat it. But someone needs to stand up and say what this really is. It is another taxpayer subsidy that is going to raise the cost of energy.

For that reason I oppose it. Let us keep sugar out of your gas tank.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield my remaining time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. I just want to point out the cost of a can of 7-Up or Coke does cost more because we inflate the price of sugar.

The cost of a candy bar, I believe, is four cents more than you would pay otherwise because of subsidized sugar prices.

And the problem is what economists call concentrated benefits, diffuse costs. Nobody is going to come here to Washington to lobby against a subsidy that only costs them four cents; but, boy, the sugar industry, which reaps millions and millions of dollars in benefits from subsidized sugar is surely going to come to Washington, and that is why we are going to have this kind of amendment today.

Madam Speaker, a couple of weeks ago, the House Appropriations Committee floated a trial balloon in some of the newspapers that cover Congress. They indicated that they might allow earmarks into this year's appropriation bill for the Department of Homeland Security.

Not surprisingly, the announcement has elicited little reaction outside the Beltway where Americans pay little attention to the arcane ins and outs of congressional appropriation bills.

The same cannot be said for K Street where lobbyists can barely contain their glee at the prospect of another appropriations bill to fill with earmarks. By opening up the door to earmarks in the homeland security appropriations bill, we are opening a Pandora's box of government waste, pork-barrel spending, and weakened homeland security.

In the 2 years since its inception, the Homeland Security appropriations bill has been free of earmarks. House leaders have recognized that something as important as the bill funding national security agencies ought to be absent of earmarks.

I am puzzled as to why we now suddenly believe that earmarking homeland security funds is an acceptable practice. There are a number of reasons why earmarks would corrupt the homeland security appropriations process, but unquestionably the most serious is that it would jeopardize our national security.

A few months ago defense analysts complained, the news that earmarks in the defense appropriations bill had put the lives of our troops at risk. They argue that congressional earmarks had drained the pot of available money for supplies like body armor or Humvee armor for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. You can be sure that earmarking homeland security funds will have the same effect.

The Congress created the Department of Homeland Security to assess domestic threats to our country and address them. Now, after only 2 years of funding the department, Congress believes it knows how best to allocate these funds. Congressional oversight of this department is vital and that is why congressional earmarking is so dangerous.

Homeland security earmarks are also sure to slip down the pork barrel slope so many other appropriations bills have gone down. It will not be long before Members are inserting earmarks for projects with only a modest relevance to homeland security. A first responders hall of fame project, for example, or a port security museum. The possibilities are as endless as appropriators' imaginations.

Anyone who believes that such a scenario is a stretch needs only to give a cursory look at the more than 4,000 earmarks in this year's transportation bill. Members will be hard pressed to vote against a bill intended to protect our national security even if it is over budget or stuffed with pork. For that reason, lobbyists will view it as a must-pass vehicle for earmarks.

Adding earmarks to the homeland security appropriations bill is clearly bad policy, but I also believe that for Republicans it is bad politics as well. The earmarking process was abused by the Democrats, but I am sad to say that during Republican control of Congress we have made it much worse. It is no wonder that the Republican Party, the party of fiscal constraint since the New Deal, has seen public trust in its ability to balance the books evaporate.

For the most part, Americans no longer believe that Republicans are more fiscally prudent than Democrats. I cannot say that I blame them. Every Republican who values serving in the majority should be troubled by this trend.

Further, I worry that by opening up the homeland security bill to earmarks, we would let public distrust of our handling of fiscal issues spill over into national security. While it may be hard to tell the difference between Republicans and Democrats on spending, there is still a very real difference when it comes to national security. It would be a shame to let our growing appetite for earmarks jeopardize our ability to lead on national security.

Just how far Republicans have strayed for limited government orthodoxy was apparent recently when a current Member of this body ran for reelection a decade after he had first been in this body. He told of being approached by legions of lobbyists and local officials, each wanting to know how he would proceed to help them get earmarks for local projects. But I am a Republican, was his response. We know, was their retort.

What a sad commentary this is on our party.

I was elected to Congress with aspirations higher than groveling from crumbs that fall from appropriators' tables. I suspect that this is the case with each of my colleagues. Yet, we are quickly approaching a point where that would simply be an apt description of our jobs.

Madam Speaker, it is time to reverse course. To do so, we need to shoot down this trial balloon. The last thing we need to do is open up the $32 billion fund, the Homeland Security bill to pork barrel spending.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas for helping put together this package and for all the work that he has done on behalf of the Republican Study Committee and for all of my colleagues there that have worked so hard on this alternative budget.

I want to also commend the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) for the budget that is presented here. It makes cuts of .7 percent in nondefense discretionary.

Finally, we are actually doing what families would do when a large deficit looms in the future, though we need to do far more than that. This budget would cut 2 percent. When you look at what lies ahead, when you look at the unfunded liabilities that lie ahead, this is kid stuff. We are going to have to do much, much more in the future. If we are inching toward bankruptcy in Social Security, we are flat running toward it with Medicare. And when you look at the liabilities there, we added $7 trillion in unfunded liabilities with the Medicare prescription drug bill, for example, that we are going to have to somehow deal with, that our kids and grandkids are going to have to somehow deal with.

We have got to get ahold of this deficit. The problem is not tax cuts. That is part of the solution. We need more revenue coming in. You do that by cutting taxes. We have seen that time and time again. The problem here is spending. There is a culture of spending in this institution that is just difficult to stop. This alternative budget makes some progress toward that end, but I again want to stress this is kid stuff compared to what we are going to have to do in the coming years to get a handle on this culture of spending.

I commend my colleagues for putting this forward. I urge this House to support it.

Mr. Speaker, I was regrettably absent from the Chamber today during rollcall votes 66, 67, and 68. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay'' on rollcall 66, ``yea'' on rollcall 67, and ``yea'' on rollcall 68.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, in years past, I have offered this amendment as well. My concern with the highway bill is that there are so many earmarks totaling over $11 million in last year's bill and somewhere similar this year that those earmarks come off the top, and it decreases the amount of money made available to Arizona in the end.

My amendment would fund the earmarks under the line, meaning that the earmarks would come out of a State's formula, not off the top, meaning that my formula in Arizona would be diminished for earmarks in Vermont or Alaska or another State.

My amendment, I should point out, would neither strike nor prevent Members from securing earmarks for their district. It would, however, put the discussion for State priorities where it belongs, at the State levels or among State delegations. Members of my delegation from Arizona, for example, could get together and say we are not convinced that our State Department of Transportation is putting the right priority on this area or this area, or, politically, they are ignoring my district, for example. Those are decisions that could be made there; but other States should not be penalized by our earmarks. And that is what has happened in years past. I just want to make sure that it does not.

I would like to ask the chairman or the ranking minority member if they are willing, after offering this amendment, my understanding is that the manager's amendment actually contains language to fund earmarks below the line and do much of what my amendment intended to do.

My concern is that the criteria for earmarks that will still be funded above the line may be a little too loose and that, in the end, those earmarks will end up coming out of my State's formula as well.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, my understanding of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), if he will clarify, my understanding is that the manager's amendment did contain language to actually fund the earmarks below the line, meaning that they actually will and much of this amendment is actually contained in the bill already. Is that not the case? Because if so, there is no way we can come anywhere close to reaching the 92.6 that has been, if not guaranteed, bandied about.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Reclaiming my time, if the chairman would chair, my understanding is, and if the gentleman would clarify, that the guts of this amendment is already contained in the manager's amendment. If that is the case, then I am willing to consider withdrawing. But what I want to make sure is that the earmarks that are still funded, and according to news reports this morning, earmarks will still be funded above the line that are regional in nature or regional in national significance. I just want to make sure there is criteria for those that will not start pulling other earmarks above the line, therefore diminishing the amount of return that my State gets.

I yield to the gentleman from Alaska.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I do, with the understanding that we do reach the 92.6 and understanding that we can only do that if we include earmarks under the line. Frankly, if my colleagues do the math, that is the only way we can. That is why I was pleased to see that the manager's amendment did contain that provision.

My concern is, and the gentleman from Alaska, my good friend, did mention that every dollar goes toward transportation. It is simply not the case. I read the bill last night, and some of it, some of it, but I did not have to read all of it.

I have the right to close. I do have a minute to close.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the transportation bill. I offered an amendment earlier today, and time constraints prohibited me from really explaining the amendment, what I was seeking to do and the problem with the bill as it currently is or may become once it gets through conference.

During debate on the bill, the chairman of the committee said that every

earmark in the bill was related and being spent on transportation. He actually stated that every dollar in the bill was for transportation.

I am holding here some 200 pages of earmarks, over 3,300, about 30 per page here. Let me just give you an example of some of them, and you can decide for yourself whether or not they are related to transportation.

You the taxpayer are spending $3 million in the bill to renovate and expand the National Packard Museum and adjacent Packard facilities in Warren, Ohio.

You the taxpayer are spending $7,268,486 for the Vermont Association of Snow Travelers to build a snowmobile trail in Vermont.

You the taxpayer are spending $750,000 to construct horse riding trails in the Jefferson National Forest.

This is in the transportation bill, mind you, all dollars that are supposed to be spent exclusively on transportation.

You the taxpayer are spending $540,000 to establish a transportation museum on Navy Pier.

How about $3.2 million to acquire site, design and construction of an interpretive center, whatever that is, and enhancement of trail corridor for the Daniel Boone Trail Wilderness Corridor?

How about $1.7 million for reconstruction and conversion of Union Station to establish a transportation museum?

On and on and on it goes. Here is the last one, not the last, but another one: $1 million you are spending to fund reconstruction of the home of James Madison in Orange, Virginia. Now, one might argue that, when a visitor is visiting the home of James Madison, he is not on the road, and therefore, he is freeing up available space for the other motorists. Perhaps that relates to transportation. I am stretching here, but they must be stretching for spending our taxpayer dollars that way. But certainly, I think the taxpayer is owed a better explanation than that.

The problem with the transportation bill, to add insult to injury, is that, too often, these earmarks in other States come out of your State's formula. Arizona is a donor State; we give far more than we get back from the Federal Government, and too frequently, these earmarks traditionally have been taken out of our formula. An earmark for $7 million for a snowmobile trail in Vermont comes out of Arizona's formula, because Arizona is a donor State. It is simply not right.

In this bill, the amendment I offered, I withdrew it, because my amendment was largely included in the manager's amendment, meaning that earmarks will now be under the line, meaning they will be counted against a State's formula. So, theoretically, an earmark in Vermont will not come out of Arizona's formula.

I worry about that, however. I worry if that will hold in the end when this bill gets through conference, because if we have that kind of criteria for earmarks in the bill itself, then the criteria which identifies programs of regional and national significance, programs and earmarks that are above the line that will not come out of a State's formula, if they are as loosey goosey as these criteria by which we claim these earmarks are related to transportation, the regular high priority earmarks, then we are going to see our formula dollars taken once again and spent on earmarks where they should not be.

Obviously, Mr. Speaker, what we need is a turn-back bill. It is estimated that it would cost about 3 cents, rather than the 18.4 cents we are currently spending per gallon to maintain the interstate highway system. Instead, we are sending all 18.4 cents to Washington. Some of it makes it back. What does come back, comes back with mandates and stipulations that decrease the value of those dollars that we actually do receive back. It is no wonder that the roads and the infrastructure in this country are suffering so badly.

We need that turn-back bill. I have introduced it; it is awaiting action. In the meantime, certainly, we need to instruct and plead with the conferees on this bill to ensure that earmarks stay below the line, meaning, you can take all the earmarks you want, but they come out of your State's formula, not everyone else's. I urge the conferees to do this.

Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting experience to be here and listen to the debate tonight on Social Security. I found it interesting in particular to listen to the gentleman from New Jersey read accounts from town hall meetings where Republicans have been attempting to explain the problems that we are facing with Social Security and how many groups, moveon.org, AARP, and others have come to disrupt those meetings.

I do not know if liberals or the Democrats are proud of that, that their supporters are going in to heckle and boo. It seems they are. What does that contribute to the debate? Not much in my opinion. There is a saying that you are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.

If we look at the facts on Social Security, there are the following: when Social Security started in the 1930s, there were some 42 workers per retiree. In the 1950s, that went to 16 workers per retiree. Today we are down to three workers per retiree. By the time I retire, there will be probably two workers per retiree. You cannot argue with the demographics, and that is where we are headed. Those are the facts. With those facts you have to understand we have got to do something different. This pay-as-you-go system simply is not a model that is going to work with demographics like that.

Fact number two, it was just mentioned a few minutes ago there is a trust fund that is going to pay out until the year 2042. Where is that trust fund and what does it contain? It is a couple of file cabinets in West Virginia that contain a couple of IOUs. There is no trust fund; there is no money. It is just IOUs. As soon as we start taking out more than we are paying in, we are simply going to incur more debt upon debt we already have. You can talk about the year 2042 and we do not have to worry until then, that is assuming there is money in a trust fund. If somebody knows where that money is hidden, please tell us because it simply is not there. It is a file cabinet with IOUs in it.

Fact number three, there is no easy fix. I just heard one so-called solution that we simply lift the earnings cap so people like Bill Gates who make millions of dollars every year would pay more than just Social Security on the first $90,000 of income. That sounds good; but upon review, if we included all of the millionaires and others making more than $90,000 a year, we asked the actuaries what it would do, and it would postpone insolvency just 6 years. So we are just talking on the margins.

Raising the payroll tax, we have done that since the 1930s 19 times. We simply cannot continue to go down that road. I would like to hear somebody seriously propose that. What do we set it at? How much more do we want to tax people?

We have to harness the power of compound interest. We need a new model. That is what the President is proposing. I think it was Albert Einstein who said the most powerful force in the universe is that of compound interest. We have to allow individuals to harness that.

I commend the President for taking the position he has taken. The difference between being a leader and a follower is when you are a leader, you recognize that the people may not be with you and you may need to persuade them and convince them and go out and tell them there is a problem.

There are formidable foes out there, the AARP and others, who will put out information and say there is no problem, there is a trust fund somehow and we do not have to deal with this issue for another 40 years or so. So there is a lot of educating that has to be done. That is what a leader does. A follower says that is where the people are, I do not have to convince them, I just have to join them, and we will just heckle and boo anybody who proposes a solution. That is not leadership, and I am glad the President is actually leading on this, and I commend my colleagues for leading on it as well.

Mr. Speaker, this is a serious issue. There is no more serious debate that we will have in this coming decade domestically than how to deal with this issue. How do we give individuals the freedom to be more secure in their own retirement. I tend to believe that in the end if you present Americans out there two politicians, one who will stand and say, yes, there is a problem,

we need a fix, and the other who will say there is no problem, there is a trust fund somewhere that will fix it, I think in the end Americans will believe the politician who fesses up to the fact that there is a problem. Demographics do not lie, and we have to deal with it in the future. I commend the President and those moving towards a real solution and who are presenting actual proposals that will move us in the direction we need to go.

Mr. Speaker, last week we heard projections that the prescription drug benefit is going to be far more expensive than we figured. Now, many of us never believed that it would cost just $400 million, and the fact that it is much higher than that is not surprising at all.

I would encourage the President and our leadership to work with us to be able to rein in this monster that we have created.

Over a period of 75 years, the initial estimates were that this would add $7 trillion in unfunded liabilities. I should point out that every dime to pay for this new benefit is borrowed. Therefore, every dime will be paid for by our kids and our grandkids.

It is time to get the bridle on the horse before the horse leaves the barn, and we need to work now, before this benefit starts next year, to make sure that we can reign in the costs.

Mr. Speaker, last week the White House released budget projections that show that the cost of the prescription drug benefit that Congress added to Medicare last year could balloon to $1.2 trillion over the next ten years. The initial price estimate of the new entitlement was $400 billion.

Frankly, the initial estimate of $400 billion was more than many of us could stomach, but we knew that $400 billion was a lowball estimate and the real cost was sure to be higher. Having said that, it gives none of us pleasure to say ``see, we told you so. ``

When President Bush first proposed the new prescription drug benefit, it was targeted and means-tested for low-income seniors who did not currently have prescription drug coverage. President Bush's plan also coupled the new benefit with some needed reforms of the Medicare program.

It should come as no surprise that by the time Congress was done with the package, it looked nothing like the President's proposal. Congress expanded coverage to all seniors and yanked the reforms that would have helped curb future costs from the bill.

What does come as a surprise is President Bush's recent threat to veto any attempt by Congress to go back and fix our mistake.

Shortly after Congress passed the new prescription drug entitlement, and the initial cost estimate was already going up, I introduced a bill that would cap the cost of the program at the initial estimate of $400 billion. If the cost overran the estimate, my bill would have required Congress to offset the difference or scale back the entitlement.

I plan to reintroduce that legislation shortly, and I urge Congress to take it up quickly. Whether or not Congress acts on this specific piece of legislation, we need to begin talking about ways to control the monster we created.

President Bush sent over a budget to Congress a couple of weeks ago that proposed cutting or killing over 150 programs. Of course, Members of Congress immediately began maneuvering to make sure that their pet projects did not get the axe. I think the President is on the right track by trying to pare back congressional spending and I will certainly be doing what I can to help him in that effort. However, the truth is that, compared to federal mandatory spending on entitlement programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social

Security, Congress and President Bush are quibbling over pocket change.

If President Bush is serious about controlling federal spending, and I believe that he is, he ought to reconsider his threat to veto any attempt to pare back the prescription drug entitlement.

President Bush's initial prescription drug benefit was much more fiscally responsible than the proposal he signed into law. I hope that if there is an effort in Congress to make the prescription drug benefit look more like President Bush's original plan, he will embrace it rather than fight it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me this time. And I appreciate his bringing this amendment to the floor, and I support it.

It is absolutely critical that we secure our borders. Those of us who live in Arizona know that our borders are simply not secure. Arizona has become a doormat for illegal aliens. There are thousands and thousands that are apprehended every week and thousands more who are not apprehended. They slip through. The cost to Arizona is considerable.

Now, I happen to believe, along with my colleague, that we need comprehensive immigration reform that has to be part of our long-term plan. But in the interim, we certainly need to do some things, and this amendment goes a long way toward doing them. We need vulnerability and threat assessments. DHS needs to see what kind of technology, what kind of personnel and equipment is going to be needed.

All of us have viewed over the past couple of years the new technologies in land surveillance, surface surveillance, and they are promising. They are things that can be done that are not being done. We need a good assessment and recommendations made for us to follow through on.

We have aerial work that is being done; not enough, more surveillance is needed there. Also, this amendment calls for increased communications, better communications between those on the ground and those of us here as policymakers and those who implement the policy. We simply need better information to be able to have recommendations that we can follow up on.

We have, obviously, limited resources at our disposal. We need to make sure that they are employed in the best way possible, and this amendment will go a long way toward ensuring that.

Again, I commend the gentleman from Arizona for bringing this forward, and the chairman for insisting that this bill be brought forward.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.

Mr. Speaker, the House is scheduled tomorrow to take up the REAL ID Act which, among other things, will prevent illegal immigrants from obtaining driver's licenses. It will require States to issue driver's licenses to foreign nationals that expire no later than their visas expire, and it will expedite the completion of a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border along California.

Last year the bill's author, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner), took a lot of grief for holding up passage on the intelligence reform bill over many of these provisions. The press and others lambasted the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) for holding up an important piece of legislation over what they called ``unrelated immigration provisions.'' I want to commend the chairman for hanging tough.

This debate has, unfortunately, been cast as one that pits those who support the President's temporary worker plan with those who support the provisions in the REAL ID Act. Nothing could be further from the truth.

There is no greater supporter of President Bush's proposals to reform our immigration laws in this body than I am. I believe that a comprehensive temporary worker plan is the best way to enhance national security at the border. Support for a temporary worker plan is consistent with support for the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Chairman Sensenbrenner) bill. In fact, I voted against the intelligence reform bill last year precisely because the gentleman from Wisconsin's (Chairman Sensenbrenner) provisions were not included. Further, the provision on driver's licenses in the Sensenbrenner bill largely mirror provisions that I introduced in a bill in 2002.

Critics of the President's immigration reform bill use words like ``unsafe,'' ``insecure,'' and ``dangerous'' when talking about a temporary worker plan. But those of us who advocate such a program are no less concerned about national security than our counterparts. In fact, national security is probably the best case that can be made for a meaningful temporary worker program.

Right now we have somewhere between 8 and 15 million illegal immigrants in this country. The vast majority of these people came here simply to work, but we can be sure that a small number are here with more sinister intentions. But given the number of illegal immigrants who are here in the country, trying to find the terrorists, the drug smugglers, the human traffickers amounts to trying to find a needle in a haystack. But if we can offer a framework under which workers can register to legally come to this country and work, we can drastically reduce the size of that haystack and focus our resources on finding the needles.

Some will say that rather than implementing a temporary worker program, we simply need to enforce the laws against illegal immigration that are on the books. That is all well and good, Mr. Speaker, but enforcing the current law would require that we round up everyone who is here illegally and ship them home. Remember, there are as many as 10 million illegal workers here right now. I have not heard one of my colleague seriously recommend that we round all of them up and send them home, yet that is what enforcing the law means.

That said, it seems to me that we have just two choices. We can put in place a temporary worker program and register those who are working here illegally, or we can continue to pretend they do not exist, thus forcing them to work in the shadows, as they have been doing for years now. The latter course is obviously not in the best interest of our Nation's security.

This brings me back to the debate on tomorrow's REAL ID Act. I suspect that in the debate tomorrow on this House floor, there will be talk about how these measures cut down and crack down on illegal immigration. As important as this legislation is, it will do little to deal with the problem of illegal immigration. These provisions will help red-flag those who are currently in the country illegally, we all remember that many of the hijackers were issued valid driver's licenses that expired long after their visas did, but they will not do much to keep more illegal aliens from coming here and working in the shadows.

There is much more we need to do, Mr. Speaker, and it must start with an honest discussion about how we deal with this country's labor needs as well as our national security needs. I look forward to beginning that discussion as soon as we pass this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, as children we are taught the phrase ``sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me.'' I can tell my colleagues that the same rule does not apply to politics. The easiest way to kill an initiative is to apply an unpopular label to it, whether it fits or not.

Opponents of meaningful education reform know they can kill it by calling it ``vouchers.'' Those who do not want Social Security reform can poison the well by calling it ``privatization.'' It is easy to repeal the ``death tax,'' but it is more difficult to get rid of the ``estate tax.''

In a similar vein, critics of the President's immigration reform plan are trying desperately to kill it by attaching the dreaded ``amnesty'' label to it. These critics would do well to heed another childhood axiom that applies very much to politics: ``You can't throw mud without getting it all over yourselves.''

Under the President's immigration initiative, which largely mirrors the legislation that I have introduced along with the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) and Senator McCain, those who are here illegally would have the opportunity to stay as temporary workers provided they pay a fine and have no criminal record. Those seeking to become U.S. citizens would not be given preference over those going through the legal, orderly process in their own countries.

Now, according to the critics of the President's plan, this represents amnesty, because those who enter the country illegally would be allowed to stay for a period of time, even if they pay a fine and go to the back of the line. Now, the President's critics are welcome to use this broad definition of amnesty, but they should be aware that it applies to their own plans as well.

Noticeably absent from any proposal advanced by the President's critics is a plan to deport the estimated 8 million to 10 million illegal aliens who are currently in the U.S. workforce. Much is said about deporting criminal aliens, who number some 400,000; but if you are an otherwise law-abiding alien worker, you are apparently safe from deportation. Now, if you are wondering how this is any less of an amnesty than what the President is proposing, you are not alone.

The irony is for those searching for a get-tough policy, the President is offering a far more serious approach than that of his critics. Under the President's approach, after a date certain, every illegal alien currently working in the United States would have to be registered as a temporary worker in order to continue in his or her job. Severe employer sanctions would be leveled against employers who hire unregistered workers beyond that point, and every employer would, at long last, be given the tools to immediately ascertain who is here legally and who is not.

Contrast this with what appears to be the critics' approach: employers would be given the tools to ascertain the legal status of workers or new hires, but apparently would not be required to check the status of current employees. To do so would reveal the presence of some 8 million to 10 million undocumented workers that not even the President's critics have the stomach to deport.

Our current situation is this: we have millions of illegal aliens here in the United States who are a part of our workforce. We can pretend that these workers do not exist, but that will not make them go away. The call to ``enforce our current laws'' makes for good rhetoric, but it would require rounding up all undocumented workers and shipping them home, which makes it just that: rhetoric. Let me repeat, not even the President's critics are saying that we should round up all illegal aliens and workers and ship them home.

So that leaves us with just two options. We can continue with a wink and a nod to allow illegal aliens to enter the workforce with fraudulent identification and live in the shadows. If we thought this was acceptable prior to 9/11, we know it is certainly not today. Alternatively, we can create a legal, regulated framework under which workers can be hired and retained, as the President has proposed.

Now, those who question whether or not we can follow through and enforce the new law with severe employer sanctions have a right to be skeptical after what happened after the last round of major changes to immigration law in 1986 when we failed to address the future need for workers. The only certainty here is that we cannot afford to continue with the status quo. And failing to acknowledge that we need a temporary worker program, like we failed to do after 1986, simply ensures that the status quo continues.

Mr. Speaker, all of the name-calling in the world will not change that reality.

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in condemning the ongoing civil war in Southern Sudan and the genocide in the Darfur region of the same country.

I was with my colleagues of the House of Representatives on July 22, 2004, when we unanimously voted in favor of H. Con. Res. 467, a resolution declaring that the atrocities in Darfur, Sudan, are genocide. That same resolution commends the Administration's leadership in seeking a peaceful resolution to the conflict in Darfur and in addressing the ensuing humanitarian crisis.

I do not support H.R. 5061, Comprehensive Peace in Sudan Act, however, because I believe it limits the President's options in dealing with Sudan at a time when he should have flexibility. I expect continued resolve from the administration and believe that we should preserve whatever flexibility is needed to move toward effective solutions in Sudan.