Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the very first amendment to the constitution provides that ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' This protects a right--freedom of religion--that is fundamental in any democratic and free society. Since the bill of rights was approved in 1791, several additional measures have been taken to safeguard this right. For example, the Civil Rights Act of 1871, now known as Section 1983, and the Civil Rights Attorney's Fee Award Act of 1976, now know as Section 1988, were enacted to provide all citizens with the means to protect all constitutional rights. Today, the Majority would have this Congress take a step back from these critical protections.

I oppose the legislation before us because it is unprecedented, it treats religious minorities unfairly, and it will interfere with meritorious claims.

First, H.R. 2679 is unprecedented. For the first time in our history, Congress will be singling out one area of constitutional protections under the Bill of Rights and prevent its full enforcement. The Congressional Research Service reports, ``[Section 1983] has not been substantially altered since 1871.'' Under this legislation citizens challenging Establishment Clause violations will no longer have the ability to recover attorneys' fees. Remedies will be limited to injunctive and declaratory relief.

On the heels of the Voting Rights Act reauthorization, I am troubled that we would take up legislation that would limit a person's ability to enforce his or her constitutional rights. The VRA reauthorization expanded a plaintiff's ability to obtain expert witness fees. This bill eliminates attorneys' fees and relegates those who seek to enforce their constitutional rights against state sanctioned religion to second class status.

Second, H.R. 2679 treats religious minorities unfairly.

Despite its name, this bill does not encourage the expression of religion. Rather, this bill leaves religious minorities without protection by promoting government sanctioned religion.

This Nation was founded on the principle of religious freedom, and the Establishment Clause forbids the government from forcing one religious viewpoint on all Americans. In 2005 in McCreary County, Kentucky v. ACLU, Sandra Day O'Connor explained, ``Voluntary religious belief and expression may be threatened when government takes the mantle of religion upon itself.'' H.R. 2679 cripples the First Amendment and religious minorities will pay the price.

Third, H.R. 2679 will deter meritorious claims. It is a fact of life in our society that bringing complex civil actions against the government is expensive. Since this bill would deny attorney's fees to a prevailing plaintiff, numerous suits challenging Establishment Clause violations will not be brought.

The point of Section 1988 is to provide victims with limited means an opportunity to have their day in court.

Unfortunately, H.R. 2679 will prevent a victim from protecting his or her constitutional rights against a defendant with large resources, such as the government.

It is interesting that so many religious groups strongly oppose this measure. These groups include the Baptist Joint Committee, American Jewish Congress, and the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations. The Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Lawyers' Committee, Alliance for Justice, Human Rights Campaign, and People for the American Way are also among the numerous organizations that also oppose this bill.

Please vote ``no'' on this legislation, which will cause great harm to the concept of freedom of religion in this country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Maryland, who has put so much of his time and intelligence into an examination of H.R. 5092, which is called the ``Modernization and Reform Act.''

This bill is taken up as the reported incidence of gun violence continues to rise. It is truly unfortunate that some would advance a proposal such as this, because this measure only threatens to make a troubling situation even more problematic.

Earlier this month, the Department of Justice told us that criminal gun violence grew by nearly 50 percent between the years 2004 and 2005. And up until now, what has been the majority's response to this growing epidemic? Well, simply to take up a bill that will only lead to an additional increase in the number of illegal firearms that on a daily basis constantly go on our streets and communities.

The measure before us, ladies and gentlemen, promises to all but eliminate the ATF's current authority to revoke the Federal firearms licenses of corrupt dealers. If enacted, it would make it virtually impossible for ATF to shut down rogue gun dealers by elevating current burden of proof requirements beyond that of any other major industry.

So let us understand: This is not about going after honest firearms dealers, which constitute the majority of those in the trade. It is not about that. This is about giving a break to the rogue dealers.

This is what is a bit disturbing, because we create in this proposal two vague classifications of gun laws: the serious and the non-serious. It allows for license revocation only for serious violations. But it, unfortunately, defines these violations in such a way that enforcement would be extremely rare.

It excludes many violations that are, in fact, quite dangerous, such as when a gun dealer has numerous weapons lost from its inventory with no record of sale. The bill would require Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms to automatically stay or postpone the imposition of a fine, a suspension or revocation pending completion of an administration hearing, no matter how egregious the violation.

This standard strongly favors the violator and should be changed so that the alleged violator is required to prove the likelihood of the success of his challenge, as is the current practice for most civil proceedings.

Keeping dangerous firearms out of the hands of violent criminals continues to be one of the most pressing concerns of our Nation. I know somebody besides me is going to talk about the newly released data that shows a total of 3,012 children and teens were killed by gunfire in the United States in one year. That roughly comes out to approximately one child every 3 hours, eight children every day, and more than 50 children every week.

This is what we are legislating under a suspension of the rules. I predict that this suspension is in big trouble, because more and more people are listening to the remarks of the gentleman from Maryland, who has made it clear that most of the community that enforces gun laws is against this.

Now, let's look at it globally. American children are more often at risk from firearm-related injuries and fatalities than any other industrialized nation on the planet. Firearms were reportedly used to kill 19 young people in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 153 in France, and a staggering 5,285 children in the United States.

As a concerned Member of Congress who serves on this committee, we need to do more to protect our children, and not less. To protect our children and adequately address such problems, we must empower the ATF with the necessary tools and resources to properly police unscrupulous firearms dealers. That is what this measure is about. Unfortunately, the proposals contained therein have taken us in the opposite direction.

So I conclude by pointing out why I join in opposition to this measure. Because the International Brotherhood of Police Officers is against this measure, because the International Association of Chiefs of Police is opposed to this measure, because the Major Cities Chiefs of Police is opposed to this measure, and because the Attorney General of California and two former directors of the Bureau are opposed to this measure.

So I urge my colleagues to let common sense prevail and let the interests of our citizens trump the rogue dealers who have a mysterious way of keeping losing weapons in their inventory with no record of sale. We are on to them. We know what it means. Nobody here is that naive.

So here, ladies and gentlemen, is going to be a very important test, and I hope that the majority of those that will vote on this measure will join me in causing a defeat in the suspension of this measure,

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to control the remainder of the legislation under suspension.

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

I rise in support of the legislation. It is a collection of a number of bills, a majority of which have passed favorably through the Subcommittee on Courts with little or no controversy.

There are five titles: the Pay Adjustment for Federal Judges; the Courts and Intellectual Property Legislation; the Jurisdiction of Federal Circuit over Patent Cases; the Diversity Jurisdiction of Federal Courts; and, finally, the Multidistrict Litigation in the Lexecon case before the Supreme Court.

The most important is the pay adjustment for Federal judges, because we provide a cost-of-living pay adjustment for 2007. The Federal judges do not receive such COLAs unless Congress provides specific statutory authorization each year. It is my hope that some day we will make it automatic. Members of the Federal judiciary deserve this raise. We have a number of Federal judges who are forced to turn back their appointment because the salary is inadequate to their basic needs.

We appreciate the hardworking men and women who serve; and to me, this is an important part of the constitutional democracy that we have formed here, and we must do everything to ensure that we attract and retain the highest quality of judges.

Now, these members of the judiciary are called to duty by a sense of honor, and the judges already make far less than most of them could earn in private firms. And while this pay disparity will exist, Congress should at least ensure that judicial pay does not effectively shrink. And so the failure to give judges a COLA would constitute in effect such a reduction in pay.

Title II contains a number of measures. We respond in part to the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina by permitting the Patent and Trademark Office director to extend deadlines during emergencies.

Section 202 is a resolution honoring the 25th anniversary of the Bayh-Dole Act, and that is Senator Bayh, Sr., who formerly served from the great State of Indiana. And this measure enhanced public and private partnerships for the commercialization of inventions.

Section 203 of the bill requires that each Federal or State court recognize out-of-state notarial acts that meet the following two conditions that are indicated in the measure.

Title III of the bill clarifies the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction to hear patent appeals, and that I think is extremely important. The goal of title III is to maintain the integrity of the patent system.

Title IV amends the laws governing diversity jurisdiction. And this is an important and critical area.

And then finally we have the Multidistrict Litigation, which has been passed several times, but never acted on by the other body.

This title would overturn the Supreme Court case called the Lexecon decision. While I have supported this legislation in the past, I have consistently noted several concerns that I hope will be able to be addressed in our discussions that I anticipate with the Senate. I urge my colleagues to support this measure before the House on the suspension calendar.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the Copyright Royalty Technical Corrections Act is just that. It is a major accomplishment of the Subcommittee on Courts and makes a number of technical corrections.

Two substantive improvements I would bring to the floor's attention at this point:

It clarifies the decisions of the new copyright tribunal will serve as precedent for later decisions, establishes consistency for written statements to the tribunal, and provides for fee waivers for those claiming royalties in excess of $1,000.

The other major substantive change resolves the ambiguity about when partial payments or distributions of royalties to content owners are allowed.

This measure before us would permit Copyright Royalty Judges, upon the motion of a claimant and after publication of a request for responses, to make a partial distribution of cable and satellite royalty fees at any time after the filing of claims for distribution if no eligible claimant has stated a reasonable objection.

I think the committee is in accord with this bill. I urge that Members of the House support this legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I support House passage of this measure, H.R. 683, as amended and passed by the Senate. An almost identical version of this bill passed this Congress with a roll call vote of 411-8 and subsequently passed the other Chamber as amended by unanimous consent.

The measure makes a number of changes to the Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995. The primary change amends the required standard of proof so that owners of famous trademarks can maintain protection of their trademark before actual harm occurs to the mark.

In addition, the bill clearly codifies the cause of action of dilution by tarnishment in order to prevent harm to a trademark owner's reputation, resulting, for example, from a disparaging usage of a same or similar mark by others.

Finally, this measure narrows the scope of what may be considered a famous mark by elucidating the specific factors necessary to meet the definition of a famous trademark.

There was support, I think it was unanimous for this measure, in the Judiciary Committee. I am happy to urge its favorable vote under the suspension of the rules proceedings today.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in disagreement with this bill, the Private Property Rights Implementation Act, just as I have done in the 105th and 106th Congresses. I also call to the attention of the Members of the House that this bill is different from the Kelo Supreme Court decision that dealt with eminent domain, another, to me, unhappy decision which I was not overjoyed about.

But this bill does little more than single out developers and corporations for a special fast track into the Federal court.

In November of last year, I was proud to join with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to protect property owners from takings in the name of ``economic development.'' Such takings did not constitute public uses and were found to be totally inconsistent with the fifth amendment to our Constitution. But today my friends on the other side of the aisle are arguing that the bill we are taking up today, 4772, is another effort to protect property owners. They say the bill simply makes it easier for property owners to have their day in court, in Federal court, that is.

H.R. 4772 will permit land developers to forum shop between State and Federal courts when they pursue regulatory takings claims against the government. And, unfortunately, instead of advancing our constitutional principles, this bill undermines longstanding interpretations of the fifth amendment. The Supreme Court has ruled on two different occasions, in Williamson County and in San Remo, that landowners must pursue remedies for just compensation from the State in a State court. This bill goes directly against that concept.

The Court has confirmed that a Federal court cannot properly consider a takings claim unless or until a landowner has been denied an adequate remedy. To do otherwise would make cases unconstitutionally ripe for Federal review and also limit a Federal court's ability to abstain from State questions.

Unfortunately, that is exactly what H.R. 4772 will do. It will allow regulatory takings claims into Federal courts prematurely. With the threat of Federal litigation, States and localities will be restricted in their land use decisions. For example, it will be harder for jurisdictions to protect against groundwater contamination or waste dumps or adult bookstores. This is a serious proposition, and once again I think the committee is moving in the wrong direction to bring it to the floor at this time.

Most disturbingly, this bill elevates the rights of property owners over all other categories of persons with constitutional claims. Are the rights of real estate developers more important than the rights of other Americans?

It is simply not true that there is anything special or unique about real property takings that warrants special protections for developers. This is unfortunate legislation which undermines equal justice under law, which, to me, is the very cornerstone of our legal system.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on this side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) who has studied this issue very carefully.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of the time.

There has been one other mischaracterization made that should be corrected here, because it has been said on the other side more than once that the plaintiff in these kinds of cases is required to stay in the State courts and that we are now moving him up in line with others, but there are many circumstances that require the exhaustion of a State court remedy before you can come into the Federal court.

For example, the termination of parental rights requires an exhaustion of State rights. The detention and violation of the sixth amendment right to counsel requires an exhaustion of the State rights before you move into the Federal court. Confinement for juvenile offenders in violation of the eighth amendment requires the same thing, so does denial of Medicaid benefits in violation of first amendment religious protections.

What we see here is the most incredible use of determining who goes into Federal court and who can go in quickly and easily, and we do not think that developers have done anything to justify that.

So in the name of all the local lawmakers, in the name of those who have any respect for the rights of States in these matters, who respect the traditions that have been well-established in the law for determining how we deal with these claims, we urge a ``no'' vote on

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

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

I am happy to rise in support of this legislation because immigration is one of the basic foundations of the Nation, and the contributions of immigrants are too many to be counted.

This legislation recognizes these principles, and in addition, authorizes the Homeland Security Secretary to dispense $5,000 to public and private nonprofit entities to host naturalization ceremonies. This purpose originally was authorized as a part of the 1996 immigration law, and I believe it deserves reauthorization.

I join with the chairman of the committee in urging our colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the bill

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

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor and recognize the 15th anniversary of Armenia's independence. Armenia's independence was first recognized on September 21, 1991, marking it as one of the first nations to declare its independence from the former Soviet Union. Building upon the foundations of the first Armenian Republic of 1918, today's Armenian Government has, in the years since independence, strengthened democracy and the rule of law, promoted free-market reforms, and sought a just and lasting peace in the region.

Since declaring independence from the former Soviet Union, Armenia emerged from its Soviet-styled centrally planned economy, based on industry and highly dependent on outside resources, to an economy developing and relying on new sectors, such as precious stone processing and jewelry making, information and communication technology, and even tourism.

With its steady economic progress, Armenia has rightfully earned increasing support from

international institutions. As the 2005 Transparency International Corruption Perception Index chart, where Armenia ranked 88th out of 158th, shows, Armenia has earned this support. Furthermore, according to the 2005 U.N. Human Development Report, Armenia has a Human Development Index of 83 out of 177, and ranks the highest among the Transcaucasian republics. Finally, in recognizing the country's continuing efforts to move away from its Soviet past, it cannot be overlooked that in this year's Index of Economic Freedom, Armenia ranked 27th best, tied with Japan and ahead of countries like Norway, Spain, Portugal and Italy. The rank puts Armenia in the category of ``Mostly Free'' countries, making it the most economically free state in the Commonwealth of Independent States.

No recognition of Armenia would be complete without acknowledging the fantastic contributions of the Armenian diaspora living here in America. It is estimated that the Armenian community in the United States numbers in the hundreds of thousands and represents the largest Armenian community in the world outside Armenia. In Michigan, my hometown of Detroit was itself one of the great historical centers where Armenians set down roots after they came to our great Nation. Armenian-Americans have also made contributions to every aspect of American life. Among the most notable have been William Saroyan, Academy Award and Pulitzer Prize winning author; Howard Kazanjian, producer of Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark; Raffi, children's singer and songwriter; System of a Down, multi-platinum alternative/ metal group; Steve Zallian, Academy Award winning screenwriter of Schindler's List; Ray Damadian, inventor of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), and, of course, Andre Agassi, professional tennis player.

However, our relationship with Armenia has certainly been by no means a one-way street. Our Nation's Armenian diaspora has provided the greatest number of high ranking officials in the new republic: the young Minister of Foreign Affairs, Raffi Hovannisian, a lawyer and political scientist, whose father, Richard, professor of Armenian history at UCLA, is the foremost authority on the first republic; the minister of energy, Sebuh Tashjian, also from Los Angeles; Jirair Libaridian, historian and former director of the Zoryan Institute, who is a personal advisor to President Levon Ter Petrosian; and Mathew Der Manuelian, a Boston lawyer with a high post in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

I'll conclude my statement by wishing Armenia and Armenian-Americans a happy independence day.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the 217th anniversary of the United States Marshals Service, our Nation's oldest Federal law enforcement agency. The men and women who proudly wear ``America's Star'' have been involved in some of the most historic events in our Nation's history, and I am proud to commend them on this significant occasion.

The first 13 United States Marshals were appointed by President George Washington in 1789 with their primary mission being to support the Federal courts. As times changed, so did the mission of the U.S. Marshals Service. However, they have answered the call to duty without exception.

In the early years, U.S. marshals and deputy U.S. marshals executed warrants, distributed presidential proclamations, protected the president, registered enemy aliens in times of war, pursued counterfeiters, and helped conduct the national census. The Marshals Service maintained law and order in the ``Wild West,'' kept the trains rolling during the Pullman strike, and enforced the 18th amendment during Prohibition.

On November 14, 1960, four deputy U.S. marshals accompanied 6-year old Ruby Bridges to elementary school after a Federal judge ordered the desegregation of the New Orleans public school system. In 1962, when James Meredith sought to legally become the first black person to attend the University of Mississippi, the duty of upholding the Federal law allowing him to do so fell upon the shoulders of 127 deputy marshals from all over the country. They acted with the highest degree of professionalism and honor during this turbulent season in civil rights history.

Their accomplishments in recent decades are too numerous to cite, but extraordinary in their commitment to law and order. The U.S. Marshals provided security to 18 airports in the hours and days following the attacks on 9/11, played an instrumental role in the ``D.C. sniper'' investigation, were deployed to the gulf coast after Hurricane Katrina, and provided security for the trials of Oklahoma bombing suspect Timothy McVeigh and AI-Qaeda conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui.

Over the past 217 years, the Marshals Service has grown and evolved into a modern law enforcement agency, still charged with protecting the Federal judiciary, but also apprehending dangerous fugitives, conducting protective operations, ensuring the security of witnesses and their dependents, providing for the custody and transportation of Federal prisoners, managing the Federal Government's seized asset program, and conducting special operations as required by the Attorney General. No other law enforcement agency has as many diverse missions as the U.S. Marshals Service. Among their most innovative efforts is their newly created Fugitive Safe Surrender Initiative, a unique fugitive apprehension program that has already netted the peaceful surrender of hundreds of fugitives across this country in a community coordinated and faith-based environment.

Every day, deputy U.S. marshals carry out complex and life- threatening missions with integrity, skill, and valor. I commend Director John Clark and the 5,000 men and women of the Marshals Service, who are justifiably proud of their agency and their history. I am proud of them as well, and appreciate their contribution to this Nation as they celebrate their 217th anniversary.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

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

While my neighbor and friend J.D. Hayworth is on the floor, let me gain his attention for just a moment. I am sorry that you do not want a comprehensive bill. Most people do in the Congress. And I would like you to respond to this inquiry: Were there hearings held on this bill in the Homeland Security Committee?

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

So, in other words, you do not know.

No. Let us ask the gentleman another question----

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Yes, ma'am.

Madam Speaker, thank you.

That was for your benefit.

Now, let me ask you another question. Were there Judiciary hearings, even though you are not a custodian of the record? Well, I can answer that one for you. I think you ought to listen to the Madam Speaker a little bit more. You cannot speak on the floor. I know you have been here a while. You cannot interrupt a speaker unless you are yielded to. And I would----

I would be very happy to yield to answer my question.

Is the answer yes or no?

Taking my time back, I assume that the gentleman knows that the Judiciary Committee did not hold hearings either.

And so we have this very urgent, important bill that has not had one hearing anywhere that I know of, and I think it explains something about the gentleman from Arizona's comment about what the American people want.

Because in today's newspaper, I am reading that only 25 percent in a poll voice approval of the Congress, an echo of 1994 findings. Links to special interests are cited. Standing of Bush also lags.

So I do not know if we are doing what the people really want that much. I think it is because we are not doing what the people want and are not moving an immigration bill which has passed this House, the counterpart has passed in the Senate, and we have not gone to conference yet. Somebody in the course of this discussion and debate ought to be able to explain why that is.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I now yield with pleasure to the ranking member of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Ms. Sheila Jackson-Lee, as much time as she may consume.

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that we are not focusing our attention on proposals that would actually make our Nation's borders more secure, but I think we find ourselves once again on the floor of the House engaging in a kind of a political gamesmanship that forecasts an election some 48 days from now.

By now many people in our country have lost their patience for political theater and expect movement toward comprehensive immigration reform. I used that phrase earlier, and it was rejected by a Member on the other side of the aisle as not being pragmatic.

The House and the Senate have passed bills on immigration reform and border security a number of months ago. Under regular order we should have had conferees appointed and been engaged in the process of reconciling the two bills. As a matter of fact, the chairman of this committee and myself as ranking member would undoubtedly have been two of the conferees.

However, in a substantial deviation from what is normal practice in the House, the leadership decided to launch a traveling road show of committee hearings in the States across the country in an attempt to make citizens believe that they were being active on this subject of comprehensive immigration reform. But most Americans, or at least many of them, saw through the charade and the hearings were condemned in the media across the country as both a waste of taxpayers' money and a waste of congressional time when we should have been focused on resolving the immigration differences that we have between the two committees.

Now here we are at the end of September. The nationwide hearings are over, some 21 hearings covering more than a dozen States, and we still have no notice of when we are going to have a conference on the two measures concerning immigration that have been already passed months ago by the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Now, by bringing parts of these provisions to the floor again, I don't think is going to give much encouragement to the citizens who are quickly losing confidence in the Congress. I think our ratings are down to 25 percent support. That's as of today. We may fall lower after these hearings because people are tired of theater, and they would like to have a little show, a little progress, a little action.

So here we are reworking many provisions that were already passed in H.R. 4437 last December. I think very few people are going to be fooled by what it is that is going on here.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren), a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary and a member on the Immigration Subcommittee, such time as she may consume.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to Ms. Lofgren.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Today, my colleagues, we are going through an exercise to convince the American people that now is the time for comprehensive reform, a week before recess, with continued disagreement between the House, the Senate, and the administration, and with narrowly repackaged bills.

These bills, and this one before us introduced just 2 days ago, are substantively flawed and do not provide for comprehensive reform.

H.R. 6095 is touted as a law enforcement bill, but it is opposed by our State and local law enforcement officials.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the comments of law enforcement associations and departments, police chiefs, sheriff associations, department heads across this country, and other law enforcement individuals to demonstrate how the policy is considered dangerous in this proposal.

This bill, opposed by State and local law enforcement raises the question: Why would they be opposed to a bill in which they are being invited in to take over some national law enforcement responsibilities?

Well, it is because it will strain the relationship between the police and immigrants and citizens. It will obstruct police in their mission of keeping our streets safe. Essentially the bill is asking the State and local police to pick up the slack for the Federal Government.

Now, title II of this same measure, the Alien Smuggler Prosecution Act, should really be examined carefully. Increasing resources for alien smuggling prosecution is quite appropriate; however, this bill will not decrease immigrant smuggling, and it will not resolve any of the fundamental flaws in our immigration system. The bill has nothing to do with the practice known as ``catch and release'' which has been referred to already. This proposal does little more than tie the hands of courts in immigration cases. Judges will be burdened with new requirements, and other civil cases will be denied their day in court.

Just like the field hearings between the bills passed in the House and the immigration bills passed in the Senate, today's bills are clearly meant to distract the American public. Too bad, though, this country has already gotten wise to the smoke-and-mirrors show. Americans want comprehensive immigration reform and secure borders, and once again this body is failing to deliver.

Proposals To Expand the Immigration Authority of State and Local

Police--Dangerous Public Policy According to Law Enforcement,

Governments, Opinion Leaders, and Communities

LAw ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATIONS AND DEPARTMENTS

International Association of Chiefs of Police, President

Joseph Estey--``Many leaders in the law enforcement community

have serious concerns about the chilling effect any measure

of this nature would have on legal and illegal aliens

reporting criminal activity or assisting police in criminal

investigations. This lack of cooperation could diminish the

ability of law enforcement agencies to police effectively

their communities and protect the public they serve.'' (IACP

press release, 12/1/2004)

International Association of Chiefs of Police, Legislative

Counsel Gene Voegtlin--``A key concern is that state and

local enforcement involvement in immigration can have a

chilling effect on the relationship with the immigrant

community in their jurisdiction.'' (``Cities and States Take

on Difficult Duty of Handling Undocumented Workers,'' The

Wall Street Journal, 2/2/2006)

Major Cities Chiefs Association--``Such a divide between

the local police and immigrant groups would result in

increased crime against immigrants and in the broader

community, create a class of silent victims and eliminate the

potential for assistance from immigrants in solving crimes or

preventing future terroristic acts.'' (Immigration Committee

Recommendations for Enforcement of Immigration Laws By Local

Police Agencies, adopted June 2006)

California State Sheriffs' Association, President Bruce

Mix--``CSSA is concerned that the proposed CLEAR Act will

undermine our primary mission of protecting the public. In

order for local and state law enforcement associations to be

effective partners with their communities, we believe it is

imperative that they not be placed in the role of detaining

and arresting individuals based solely on a change in their

immigration status.'' (letter to Senator Feinstein, 3/10/

2004)

California Police Chiefs Association, President Rick

TerBorch--``It is the strong opinion of the California Police

Chiefs'' Association that in order for local and state law

enforcement organizations to be effective partners with their

communities, it is imperative that they not be placed in the

role of detaining and arresting individuals based solely on a

change in their immigration status.'' (letter to Senator

Feinstein, 9/19/2003)

Connecticut Police Chiefs' Association, President James

Strillacci--``We rely on people's cooperation as we enforce

the law in those communities. With this [legislation],

there's no protection for them.'' (``Mayor asks for federal

help,'' Danbury News-Times, 3/26/2004)

El Paso (TX) Municipal Police Officers' Association,

President Chris McGill--``From a law-enforcement point of

view, I don't know how productive it would be to have police

officers ask for green cards. It's more important that people

feel confident calling the police.'' (``Immigration proposal

puts burden on police,'' El Paso Times, 10/9/2003)

Virginia Association of Chiefs of Police, Executive

Director Dana Schrad--``There's a real concern among [the

immigrant community] that [a new Virginia law] means police

are going to sweep through neighborhoods and pick up anyone

with immigration violations and deport them; that isn't true.

We are concerned we'll loose cooperation of law-abiding

residents who have helped solve crimes.'' (``Some Immigrants

Can Be Held For Up To Three Days,'' Daily News-Record, 6/30/

2004)

Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association,

National President Elvin Crespo--``The CLEAR Act jeopardizes

public safety, it undermines local police roles in enhancing

national security, it undermines federal law Enforcement

priorities, it piles more onto state and local police

officers' already full platters, it bullies and burdens state

and local governments, it is unnecessary law-making and most

significantly, it forgets the important fact that you can't

tell by looking who is legal and who isn't.'' (letter to

National Council of La Raza, 10/21/2003)

National Latino Peace Officers Association, Founder Vicente

Calderon--``The role of police is to protect and serve. Clear

Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal [CLEAR Act] will

greatly contribute toward hindering police from accomplishing

these goals.'' (letter to National Council of La Raza, 10/16/

2003)

Federal Hispanic Law Enforcement Officers Association,

National President Sandalio Gonzalez--``The CLEAR Act bullies

and burdens State and Local governments by coercing them into

participating, even though it means burdensome new reporting

and custody requirements, because failure to do so means

further loss of already scarce federal dollars.'' (letter to

President Bush and Congress, 9/30/2003)

Costa Mesa (CA) Police Department, Chief John Hensley--

``We're not going to be doing sweeps. We're not going to be

squeezing employers. We do not want to be the enemy of the

immigrant community.'' (``City puts itself on immigration

watch,'' USA Today, 1/26/2006)

West Palm Beach (FL) Police Department, Officer Freddy

Naranjo--``The major thing is to come out and report these

crimes, not hold back.'' (``Here Illegally, Guatemalans Are

Prime Targets of Crime,'' New York Times, 8/27/2006)

Phoenix (AZ) Police Department, Sergeant Andy Hill--``As we

move out deeper into the community, especially with reaching

out to the Spanish-speaking community, we believe there may

be other victims out there that haven't come forward,'' Hill

said. ``We want that information. We need that information.

There will not be sanctions to victims who come forward as

far as their status in this community other than the fact

that they are victims.'' (``Police want Spanish speakers'

help in serial killer search,'' Associated Press, 7/27/2006)

Phoenix (AZ) Police Department, Chief Jack Harris--``There

are a lot of folks here in the Valley that may have limited

English skills, and they can still very much be witnesses or

know something about these crimes, so we want to step forward

and go out to that community and seek their assistance.''

(``Police want Spanish speakers' help in serial killer

search,'' Associated Press, 7/27/2006)

Fresno (CA) Police Department, Captain Pat Farmer--

``Sometimes folks are here illegally, and they're the victim

of a crime. We want them to call us. If someone is a witness,

we want them to trust us. [A month earlier, after a shooting

outside a convenience store] there were numerous witnesses, a

lot of folks who were probably illegal. It was critical that

they talk to our detectives.'' (``Shift Work: Should policing

illegal immigration fall to nurses and teachers?'' Washington

Monthly, April 2006)

Fairfax County (VA) Police Department, Spokesman Jon

Fleischman--``Our job is to protect people. And I'm concerned

that people who are victims of a crime, whether citizens or

not, are not calling us because they're afraid we're going to

check [legal] status only.'' (``Va. Police Back off

Immigration Enforcement,'' Washington Post, 6/6/2005)

Gilroy (CA) Police Department, Assistant Chief Lanny

Brown--``We're not going out and doing sweeps for illegal

immigrants or anything like that, because we don't believe

that's the right thing to do. But it sure makes sense to us

if people are here--committing crimes, convicted of crimes,

and are here illegally--to turn them over to ICE so they can

be deported.'' (``Immigration Officials Ask for Police

Assistance,'' The Gilroy Dispatch (CA), 9/12/2005)

Princeton (NJ) Police Department, Chief Anthony V.

Federico--``Local police agencies depend on the cooperation

of immigrants, legal and illegal, in solving all sorts of

crimes and in the maintenance of public order. Without

assurances that they will not be subject to an immigration

investigation and possible deportation, many immigrants with

critical information would not come forward, even when

heinous crimes are committed against them or their

families.'' (``State orders cops to help U.S. immigration

agents,'' The Record, 9/20/2005)

El Paso (TX) Police Department, Chief Richard Wiles--

``There is no way that we would be able to take any time away

from an officer's busy day to enforce immigration laws.''

(``EP chief opposes bill to let police go after immigrants,''

El Paso Times, 10/6/2005)

San Diego (CA) Police Department, Chief William Lansdowne--

``The only time we work with the Border Patrol is if there is

a criminal nexus.'' (Police Chief William Lansdowne, ``Local

Police, U.S. Agents Differ on Raids,'' Los Angeles Times, 6/

6/2005)

Muscatine (IA) Police Department, Chief Gary Coderoni--

``These proposals are unnecessary, and counterproductive to

the public safety of our city residents. They will place an

added burden in our department and instill fear and non-

cooperation in the community.'' (letter to Congress, 6/2004)

Nashville (TN) Metropolitan Police Department, Chief Ronal

Serpas--``With great respect and deference to our federal

partners, we are not the INS (Immigration and Naturalization

Service). As long as I am chief of the Nashville police

department, I'm going to be steadfastly against police being

INS agents. It's just not our job.'' (``Hispanics press

police for more help,'' Tennessean, 2/24/2004)

Boston (MA) Police Department, Commissioner Paul Evans--

``The Boston Police Department, as well as state and local

police departments across the nation have worked diligently

to gain the trust of immigrant residents and convince them

that it is safe to contact and work with police. By turning

all police officers into immigration agents, the CLEAR Act

will discourage immigrants from coming forward to report

crimes and suspicious activity, making our streets less safe

as a result.'' (letter to Senator Kennedy, 9/30/2003)

Arlington County (VA) Police Department, Spokesman Matt

Martin--``[A] very likely outcome of local enforcement of

immigration laws is] an entire segment of the population

shutting down because they are afraid of you. And what you

create is a group of people who's ripe for additional

victimization.'' (``Some Laborers Arrested In Va. Face

Deportation,'' Washington Post, 10/27/2004)

Dearborn (MI) Police Department, Chief Timothy Strutz--``In

my opinion, the best way to fight criminals of all types,

including terrorists, would be to have an excellent,

trusting, working relationship with the community, with them

being your eyes and ears. I think much of that important

information would be stifled [if the CLEAR Act passed].''

(``Metro police balk at plan to hunt illegal immigrants,''

Detroit News, 5/11/2004)

Seattle (WA) Police Department, Chief R. Gil Kerlikowske--

``Traditionally we have seen that reporting of crime is much

lower in

immigrant communities because many are leaving countries

where the police cannot be trusted for good reason. Adding

the fear of arrest or deportation to this could have a

tremendous impact on the rate of reporting. At a time when

trusting relationships between immigrant communities and the

police are vital, the CLEAR Act would have just the opposite

effect.'' (letter, 3/4/2004)

Clearwater (FL) Police Department, Chief Sid Klein--``It

doesn't take very long for that open door of communication to

be slammed shut. Then we in local law enforcement (pay the

price).'' (``Immigration duty a burden, police say,'' St.

Petersburg Times, 7/19/2004)

Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Sheriff Leroy

Baca--``I am responsible for the safety of one of the largest

immigrant communities in this country. My Department prides

itself in having a cooperative and open relationship with our

immigrant community. [The CLEAR] act would undermine this

relationship.'' (letter to Los Angeles County Neighborhood

Legal Services, 10/6/2003)

Kansas City (KS) Police Department, Chief Ronald Miller--

``Our Police Department has taken the lead in establishing a

meaningful relationship with our minority communities,

especially the Hispanic community. If the CLEAR Act becomes

law, it will have a devastating effect on how we provide law

enforcement/police service.'' (letter to Senators Brownback

and Roberts, 11/19/2003)

Hillsborough (FL) Sheriff's Office, Spokesman Rod Reder--

``We obviously need [immigrants] to trust us. Our main focus

is on the crime itself. We're not immigration experts.''

(``Immigration duty a burden, police say,'' St. Petersburg

Times, 7/19/2004)

Montgomery County (MD) Police Department, Captain John

Fitzgerald--``We absolutely do not enforce any immigration

law. We encourage our residents to trust their police

department regardless of their immigration status. We want

them to know that if they are victims, we'll help them, and

if they're witnesses, we need their help.'' (``Groups Fret

Over Giving Police Immigration Control,'' Fox News Channel,

10/29/2003)

Tampa Police Department, Officer Brenda Canino-Fumero--

``[If the CLEAR Act passes], (immigrants) are not going to

come to police and report anything.'' (``Immigration duty a

burden, police say,'' St. Petersburg Times, 7/19/2004)

Lowell (MA) Police Department, Police Superintendent Edward

Davis III--``If the CLEAR Act were passed into law, residents

would be less likely to approach local law enforcement for

fear of exposing themselves or their immigrant family members

to deportation. This would make state and local law

enforcement officers' jobs nearly impossible.'' (letter to

Senator Kennedy, 3/9/2004)

Dearborn (MI) Police Department, Corporal Daniel Saab--

``[If the CLEAR Act passed] people would not work with us. It

would make it very hard for us to do our job.'' (``Metro

police balk at plan to hunt illegal immigrants,'' Detroit

News, 5/11/2004)

Ann Arbor (MI) Police Department, Chief Dan Oates--``I have

a great deal of concern about altering hard-won relationships

with immigrant communities. Having those communities think we

are agents of the federal government--that can do real

harm.'' (``Police could get more power,'' Detroit Free Press,

6/1/2004)

San Jose Police Department, Chief Rob Davis--``We have been

fortunate enough to solve some terrible cases because of the

willingness of illegal immigrants to step forward, and if

they saw us as part of the immigration services, I just don't

know if they'd do that anymore. That would affect our

mission, which I thought was to protect and serve our

community.'' (``CLEAR Act puts cuffs on police; Giving them

another duty, immigration enforcement, would make us all less

safe,'' San Jose Mercury News editorial, 4/15/2004)

Hamtramck (MI) Police Department, Chief Jim Doyle--``It is

important that people learn to trust us without looking over

their shoulders and thinking, These are the guys that are

going to deport us.'' (``Metro police balk at plan to hunt

illegal immigrants,'' Detroit News, 5/11/2004)

Orange County (CA) Sheriff's Office, Assistant Sheriff

George Jaramillo--``We wouldn't be interested in pulling

people over and trying to figure out what their status is.''

(``Police May Join Hunt for Illegal Migrants; Advocates see a

way to boost enforcement, but officers and civil rights

groups fear abuses,'' Los Angeles Times, 11/11/2003)

Bexar County (TX) Sheriff's Office, Sheriff Ralph Lopez--

``I'm totally against [the CLEAR Act]. It plays the race

card, and from that perspective it is just a bad act. We will

not go out and create probable cause just because we think

this person, who is dark-completed or speaks with an accent

or dresses different, should be automatically questioned

about their legal status. That is a total violation of due

process.'' (``Politicians are using fear to push through the

CLEAR Act, one of the most sinister changes in immigration

policy,'' The San Antonio Current, 12/11/2003)

Overland Park (KS) Police Department, Chief John Douglass--

``The CLEAR Act would be a detriment to all who live, work,

and visit Overland Park. We want all to know that the police

are available to protect them no matter whom they are or

where they come from.'' (letter to Representative Moore, 10/

29/2003)

Portland (ME) Police Department, Chief Michael Chitwood--

``As Police Chief of Portland, Maine and someone who has been

involved in law enforcement for nearly forty years, I can

tell you with certainty that the CLEAR Act is a bad idea.''

(letter to Congress, 11/11/2003)

St. Paul (MN) Police Department, Chief William Finney--

``How am I supposed to decide as a police officer who I

should ask for papers? `Well can't you look at them and tell

you should be asking them for papers?' No, I can't! . . . .

So I'd just have to ask everybody. All the `real Americans'

would be very offended, because they've got First Amendment

rights. But people that are brand new here don't. Well,

that's not what the Constitution says; everybody in this

country's got First Amendment rights.'' (``This is your

ministry,'' Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder, 12/11/2003)

Los Angeles Police Commission, President David S.

Cunningham III--``There are safety mechanisms in place for

deporting people who are criminally inclined. In the end, the

policy position on Special Order 40 is that we are a nation

of immigrants and we don't want to dissuade them from having

contact with police.'' (``Is L.A. soft on illegals?'' Los

Angeles Daily News, 11/15/2003)

Lenexa (KS) Police Department, Chief Ellen T. Hanson--``We

are, like many jurisdictions across the country, short on

resources and manpower and struggling to meet our citizen's

service demands. This mandate will magnify that problem and

force us to make cuts in other areas to comply with the CLEAR

Act. . . . The most troubling aspect of this act is that it

would cause members of certain groups to not report crimes or

come forward with information about crimes for fear of being

deported.'' (letter to Representative Moore, 8/26/2003)

South Tucson (AZ) Police Department, Chief Sixto Molina--

``We don't have the time and the personnel to be immigration

agents. Murderers, rapists, robbers, thieves and drug dealers

present a much bigger threat than any illegal immigrant.''

(Tucson Citizen editorial, ``Immigration role not for local

police,'' 10/15/2003)

Des Moines (IA) Police Department, Chief William McCarthy--

``When we don't acknowledge the reality of who is here, we

create our own problems, and we are a better society than

that, frankly. They (illegal immigrants) are family-oriented

people and underpin our churches and society in many ways.

Plus they are human beings. They are here. And we ought to

deal with them as human beings.'' (``Cops shouldn't be INS

agents,'' Des Moines Register editorial, 10/13/2003)

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to yield to a distinguished member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) for 5\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman).

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

I always like to hear the gentleman from Georgia describe these bills. He says it only targets violent felons, and I would love to find that place in the bill where that is the case.

Nothing in this bill says that State and local law enforcement are authorized to enforce immigration law but only to focus their efforts on immigrants who are serious felons. In a news release, the gentleman from Georgia said that this bill would provide funding for training and resources for State and local enforcement agencies to voluntarily enforce immigration laws. Nothing in the bill provides any money for training or resources for State and local law enforcement. Not a dime. And that is why I have 25 pages of law enforcement officers that are opposed to the bill. Chiefs of police, mayors, sheriffs are all opposed to this bill. Republicans and Democrats, I might add.

And, of course, I should remind everyone in the body that we can already detain criminals or anyone that commits a criminal act, whether they are an immigrant or a citizen, but the problem is that only the Federal Government can deport anyone. So anybody committing a crime is subject to being detained.

This bill isn't about immigration reform. It is further evidence of a failure of leadership for us to have this body connect with the other body to get a conference going.

The gentleman from California (Mr. Berman) offered to make a phone call. I would offer to bring the news of the passage of the immigration bill in the House to the majority leader of the Senate myself. I will deliver it if that would help them get the news that there ought to be a conference.

I think that patently it is obvious that they know about this, and somewhere in the Republican leadership there is a huge desire not to have a conference.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Becerra), a former member of the Judiciary Committee.

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

What we are witnessing in the last few days is an effort to make sure somebody believes that we have sincerely worked on immigration rather than going to conference with the two major bills left.

We tried during the recent recess by holding a series of hearings across 13 States, to make sure people thought that we were working and concerned about immigration. As the newspaper reports show, it failed dismally.

So what we are doing now is to say let's keep the immigrants out. Let's keep them out. Let's keep them out. But let's let them in through the back door. Republicans do not prosecute employers, but then they blame Democrats for talking about other ways to deal with those who are already working here. We all know that letting immigrants in helps corporations and businesses that are using immigrants as the cheapest labor that they can find to benefit their activities.

And the reason we are not at conference is because many in our business world need immigrant labor, and the companies that support the Republican Party that says, get tough on immigrants, are the same ones that then turn their back and do nothing.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to me that during the 40th Anniversary of the historic passage of the Voting Rights Act, that anyone could propose mandating nationwide photo ID requirements. Given the cost, difficulty and bureaucracy involved in obtaining photo ID for many minorities, elderly, and indigent, the idea of a national voter ID and proof of citizenship requirement amounts to nothing less than a 21st Century Poll Tax, that could disenfranchise as many as 20 million American voters.

a national voter id requirement will operate as a poll tax

We all know that the States will never fund an unfunded mandate, and even if they do, for many Americans it will be quite difficult, extensive, and time consuming to obtain the requisite ID cards. Georgia, which just enacted a new voter ID requirement did not even bother to provide an office in Atlanta.

Data developed during the debate over the Georgia voter ID bill indicated that 36 percent of Georgians over the age of 75 do not have a driver's license and that African-Americans in Georgia are nearly five times less likely

than whites to have access to a motor vehicle and thus even to need a driver's license.

Moreover, in Georgia, residents who do not have a driver's license must buy a State ID card to vote, at a cost of $20 for a five-year card or $35 for 10 years. For many living on a fixed or low income, $20 to $35 is cost-prohibitive. People should not be forced to choose between a bag of groceries, needed medications, or the right to vote.

In addition, the proof of citizenship requirements that are outlined in this bill will place on the voter the difficult, time consuming, and costly burden of obtaining the necessary documentation to prove citizenship in order to cast a ballot.

a national voter id and proof of citizenship requirement will lead to discriminatory implementation and will disproportionately burden people

of color

There is strong empirical evidence that photo ID requirements disproportionately burden people of color.

In 1994, the Justice Department found that African-Americans in Louisiana were 4 to 5 times less likely to have government-sanctioned photo ID than white residents. As a result, the DoJ denied pre- clearance for that State's proposed photo ID requirement because they found that ``it would lead to retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise.''

Moreover, in 2001, the Carter-Ford National Commission on Election Reform found that identification provisions at the polls are selectively enforced. Even in places that do not require voters to show ID, poll workers are known to ask certain voters to prove their identity, in many cases demanding ID from minority voters, but not whites.

many americans do not and will not have the requisite state-issued

photo ID or proof of citizenship requirements

In 2005, the Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform estimated that 10 percent of voting-age Americans do not have a drive's license or a state-issued non-driver's photo ID. That translates into as many as 20 million eligible voters who will not be allowed to vote on Election Day.

Moreover, proof of citizenship requirements, such as the one proposed in this bill, are impossible for members of some communities to acquire and very hard for others. It is widely known that in certain parts of the country, elderly African-Americans and many Native Americans were born at home, under the care of midwives, and do not possess birth certificates. People of color, people with disabilities, the elderly, and low-income citizens are among the demographic groups least likely to have documents in their possession to prove citizenship.

Further, for victims of natural disasters like hurricanes Katrina and Rita, it may be impossible to obtain birth certificates or other documents because they have been destroyed.

an id card system will lead to a slippery slope of surveillance and

citizen monitoring

A national voter ID card system would significantly diminish freedom and privacy in the U.S. because once put in place, it is unlikely that such a system would be restricted to its original purpose. A national voter ID system would threaten the privacy that Americans have always enjoyed and will gradually increase the control that government and business wields over everyday citizens.

conclusion

We all want clean elections. But that is not what legislation like H.R. 4844 will accomplish. A federally mandated voter ID and proof of citizenship requirement will make it harder for people to vote, and not just people generally, but lawfully registered voters who happen to be seniors, young people, living in cities, lower-income and minorities. That is an effect clearly at odds with our most fundamental values as Americans.

Voting is an invaluable right--the one that guards all of our other rights and ensures every American an opportunity to participate in our democracy. We must do everything in our power to make voting easier, not harder, and to resist the imposition of new requirements to vote that do not serve a fair and compelling purpose that actually promotes our democracy.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.R. 4844--the so-called ``Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006''.

Madam Speaker, I rise absolutely overjoyed at the action that has been taken by the Committee on International Relations. I begin by commending the distinguished chairman, Henry Hyde, a current member of the House Judiciary Committee, where he was once chairman; my dear friend from Florida, Subcommittee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen; and, of course, the esteemed Tom Lantos, the ranking member of the committee.

Ladies and gentlemen, I cannot tell you how thrilled I am to see a resolution come back to the floor for the observance of Global Family Day, One Day of Peace and Sharing. It has a long history that the gentlewoman from Florida remembers all the way back to the late Senator Paul Wellstone. And I join all of you as we in the Congress continue to search for a way to find peace in Iraq and Afghanistan, in every corner of the world.

There are widely divergent views about how we arrive at peace; but most of all, we are deeply concerned about the subject. We have families, constituents, individuals who are longing for peace in the world and an end to the suffering caused by poverty, disease, and hunger. Untold numbers of our friends, neighbors, parents, children are hoping that there can be more understanding, more generosity, more genuine friendship and more caring among people of all faiths and cultures. We struggle with military strategies and budgets, economic considerations, and international issues.

But there is one matter which we can come together on, and this is House Concurrent Resolution 317 that calls upon the President to issue an annual proclamation calling upon the Nation's citizens to observe Global Family Day. It has been done before in the year 2000, and we are so pleased that it is being done today.

I would remind you that in 2001 following the tragedy of 9/11, the United Nations General Assembly took the same action. In more than 20 nations around the globe, the leaders of those countries have personally endorsed this initiative. And here in the Nation's capital, Mayor Anthony Williams proclaimed just 2 months ago that January 1, 2007, would be a day for all Washingtonians to become peacemakers in whatever capacity that they can.

Frequently, this took the role of people breaking bread with someone, some family of another faith, of another community, and the idea was to get to know one another better. It provides a way of saying to the world that we understand that it is the individuals, the 6.6 billion people on this planet, interacting with one another that will allow this to happen.

So I thank the tireless advocates who have worked on this matter across the years. Organizationally, they include the Martin Luther King, Jr. Family Life Institute, the National Association of Former Foster Care Children of America, the Global Family Day Foundation; but, of course, it is the founder of this idea that came to us in the Congress years ago with young children who wanted to start doing something along with the former Senator from Minnesota, and that is Ms. Linda Grover, whose dedication and commitment has inspired all of us to this unique, creative way to bring us all a little closer together.

Again, my thanks to the floor leaders that have managed this.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

Yes. I thought that he was, but if he wasn't, he is now.

Mr. Speaker, back in June the Democratic Caucus began a series of weekly special orders and floor speeches as a part of our ongoing ``Iraq Watch.'' Midway through September, we're still watching, and what we're seeing is not encouraging. Other members will elaborate on the escalating death toll, the continued drain on our Treasury, and our inability to provide even the most basic services that might show the Iraqis that our invasion has improved their lives in some way. That there were no weapons of mass destruction, no link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, and no threat to America in Iraq continues to be demonstrated with each new report released and each study published. We know that we went in without a plan to manage the country after we toppled the government, contrary to military recommendations. Indeed, we now know that Secretary Rumsfeld actually threatened to fire staff who kept insisting on making some attempt at post-war planning. The generals in the field have told us, again, that their mission cannot be accomplished without tens of thousands, perhaps even a hundred thousand or more troops. Yet, according to an official army report referenced in the article I include, for the record, there are no more troops to send.

Mr. Speaker, we've been watching as this quagmire gets worse by the day. But I can't help wondering if the Republicans are watching the same conflict I am. To listen to what the Administration and its backers in Congress are saying, one might think that the invasion happened just last month, rather than three and a half years ago. You might think we were greeted as liberators, or even that we helped the Iraqis form a functioning democracy. You might even draw the conclusion that fanning the flames in Iraq is somehow, in some way making the American people safer.

Operating on the same flawed assumptions they used to mislead us into this mess in the first place, the Administration still has not given us an exit plan out of this bloodbath. We've heard plenty of slogans. ``As the Iraqis stand up, we'll stand down.'' ``Stay the course,'' But, Mr. Speaker, empty rhetoric is not a strategy. Hearing these slogans again and again, I'm reminded of one definition of insanity: to take the same action over and over and expect different results. Our continued occupation of Iraq without any kind of strategy or plan to resolve the conflict simply makes no sense.

Mr. Speaker, I was shocked and horrified when I heard that Vice President Cheney went

on a talk show last weekend and said, and I quote, ``if we had it to do over again, we'd do exactly the same thing.'' Is our vice president misleading us again, or does he really believe that our Iraq policy is working? Is this administration so arrogant, so stubborn, so unwilling to admit its mistakes that it wants to continue the occupation of Iraq ``exactly'' as it has for three and a half years? The Administration's continued failure to level with the American people and learn from its errors is an affront to all of us, but most especially to the memory of the 2,671 brave young men and women who have given their lives for this war of choice. The Republicans have shown that they lack the humility and the vision to change our disastrous course in the Middle East. We've lost not only lives and treasure but our standing in the world as a beacon of freedom and democracy. It is time for a new direction.

[From Washingtonpost.com, Sept. 14, 2006]

Why We Can't Send More Troops

(By Lawrence J. Korb and Peter Ogden)

In ``Reinforce Baghdad'' [op-ed, Sept. 12], William Kristol

and Rich Lowry argue that the United States needs to deploy

``substantially'' more troops to Iraq to stabilize the

country. Aside from the strategic dubiousness of their

proposal--Kristol and Lowry's piece might alternatively have

been titled ``Reinforcing Failure''--there is a practical

obstacle to it that they overlook: Sending more troops to

Iraq would, at the moment, threaten to break our nation's

all-volunteer Army and undermine our national security. This

is not a risk our country can afford to take.

In their search for additional troops and equipment for

Iraq, the first place that Kristol and Lowry would have to

look is the active Army. But even at existing deployment

levels, the signs of strain on the active Army are evident.

In July an official report revealed that two-thirds of the

active U.S. Army was classified as ``not ready for combat.''

When one combines this news with the fact that roughly one-

third of the active Army is deployed (and thus presumably

ready for combat), the math is simple but the answer

alarming: The active Army has close to zero combat-ready

brigades in reserve.

The second place to seek new troops and equipment is the

Army National Guard and Reserve. But the news here is, if

anything, worse. When asked by reporters to comment on the

strain that the active Army was under, the head of the

National Guard said that his military branch was ``in an even

more dire situation than the active Army. We both have the

same symptoms; I just have a higher fever.''

Already, the stress of Iraq and Afghanistan on our soldiers

has been significant: Every available active-duty combat

brigade has served at least one tour in Iraq or Afghanistan,

and many have served two or three. Likewise, the vast

majority of Army National Guardsmen and Reservists have been

mobilized since Sept. 11, 2001, some more than once.

Thus the simple fact is that the only way for Kristol and

Lowry to put their new plan into action anytime soon without

resorting to a draft--and thereby dismantling the all-

volunteer Army, which, as the authors themselves would

certainly admit, could be strategically disastrous--is by

demanding even more from our soldiers by accelerating their

training and rotation schedules. While there is no question

that the soldiers would respond to more frequent calls to

duty, it is doubtful that they would be supplied with proper

equipment and training for their mission in the near term.

Moreover, the long-term toll on the cost and quality of our

troops would be threatened by the added strain.

First, the equipment shortage that the U.S. Army faces at

the moment is making it difficult to train troops even at

current levels. The service has been compensating for this

$50 billion equipment shortfall by shipping to Iraq some of

the equipment that it needs to train nondeployed and reserve

units. Increasing the number of deployed troops would

compound this readiness problem and leave the Army with

little spare capacity to respond to other conflicts around

the globe that might demand immediate and urgent action.

Second, the long-term costs of leaning even more heavily on

our ground troops to fight what is an unpopular war will take

its toll on the quality of our Army. At present the Army is

compelled to offer promotions to an unprecedented number of

its personnel to retain them. Some 98 percent of captains

were promoted to major this year, and the quality of the next

generation of military leaders will suffer if this process is

not made more selective once again.

In addition, even the quadrupling of recruitment bonuses

since 2003 has not been enough to attract adequate numbers of

talented men and women to meet the Army's personnel goals.

Although the Army has accepted more troops with lower

aptitude scores and raised its maximum enlistment age, it

still must grant waivers to about 1 out of 5 new recruits and

has had to cut in half the number who ``wash out'' in basic

training.

While we disagree with Kristol and Lowry's contention that

sending more troops to Iraq would bring peace and stability

to the country, the U.S. Army and National Guard and Reserve

should nevertheless possess the capacity to respond to such a

plan or other deployments without undue strain and long-term

costs. The solution is to do two things that the Bush

administration has not: permanently increase the number of

troops in the active Army and fully fund its equipment needs.

Let this, not the expenditure of more blood and treasure in

Iraq, be the ``courageous act of presidential leadership''

that Kristol and Lowry desire.