Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this chamber today. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 100, 101 and 102.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution.

Four years ago, President Bush plunged our Nation into a misguided, pre-emptive war with Iraq. I voted against authorizing it then--and I have come to the floor today to affirm my strong opposition to this irresponsible war.

Unfortunately, after 4 years of failed strategies by this administration, the President is now poised to confound his tragic blunder, and ignore the will of the American people, by attempting to increase our presence in Iraq. And that is why this resolution is so important. Because it sends a strong statement. A statement that the vast majority of the country supports. And that is: escalating our presence in Iraq will not lead to success in the region, and more blank checks will not make America more secure.

Madam Speaker, our brave men and women in the military have done all that is asked of them over the course of the last 4 years. They are heroes who represent the finest our country has to offer--and they should be treated accordingly. But, from day one, this administration has spent more time planning its attacks on those who offered legitimate criticisms of the war and its tactics, than it has on planning for a stable and peaceful reconstruction of the region. And the results have been devastating and unworthy of our brave men and women serving in harm's way.

Enough is enough. Troop surges have not worked in the past, and there is no evidence that the same failed policies will work today. In fact, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said in December, ``I am not persuaded that another surge of troops into Baghdad for the purposes of suppressing this communitarian violence, this civil war, will work.'' Yet, this administration continues to ignore the guidance of military experts, the Iraq Study Group, diplomats, decorated war heroes and former senior White House officials of both parties.

And rather than being open to debate and discussion with these experts, this Administration has routinely attacked their character and questioned their patriotism. Many of these individuals have bled on the battlefield. But to this administration, and its swift boat strategists, they are treated merely as political pawns. It is truly shameful.

Because of this Administration's hubris, we have seen troops without proper equipment, without basic body armor, without vehicles equipped to deal with roadside bombs and without the appropriate veteran's services when they return home.

Because of their ignorance, we have seen giant banners saying, Mission Accomplished, when today Iraq has spiraled into a bloody, religious civil war.

Because of their arrogance, we were told that we were going to be treated as liberators, not as occupiers.

And because of their incompetence, we were told that future oil revenues would more than cover the cost of the reconstruction.

They could not have been more wrong. The cost of the war continues to grow at an outrageous rate. To date, we have spent approximately $379 billion on this war, with estimates from some experts saying that the total long-term cost could exceed $1 trillion.

Think about that for a minute: $379 billion spent, more than $8 billion a month. That is enough to fully fund Head Start--100 times over. To give virtually every student in America a computer. Pay for prescription drug coverage for virtually every senior in our Nation. Offer summer jobs to every teen in our country. Put hundreds of thousands of additional police officers on the streets. Provide millions of scholarships to public universities for deserving students. And pay the salaries of millions of public school teachers.

But what do we have to show for that $379 billion--a country plagued with hardened religious sectarian violence.

Madam Speaker, it is time to stop this charade. It is time for the truth. It is time for the administration to really level with the American people.

Resurrecting and rehashing failed policies of the past is not the answer.

Real action is needed. Leadership is needed. Courage is needed. And that is why we are engaged in this debate--to stand up to the deception and the dishonesty.

We are here today to begin to set our strategy back on the right course. To protect our soldiers. And to ensure that we can win the real war on terror.

Madam Speaker, we are here today as patriots because we love our country. We are here because we support our troops. And we are here because we want our troops to be able to come home to their families and loved ones.

Thank you, Madam Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on this important resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 93 and 94.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 521, a bill designating the post office located at 2633 11th Street in Rock Island, Illinois, as the ``Lane Evans Post Office Building''. I want to thank Congressman Phil Hare, the former District Director to Lane Evans and the new Representative from Illinois' 17th Congressional District. The post office is located in Lane Evans' hometown of Rock Island and will serve as a testament to his long, distinguished career as a Marine, a champion for social justice and a fine Member of this body.

Today's debate gives us the opportunity to take a moment to recognize and thank Lane Evans for his service to this country, to this Congress and to our nation's men and women who have worn the uniform. I have had the honor and the privilege of serving with Lane on the Veterans Affairs Committee since I came to Congress in 1993. He is a good friend, an important ally and an unwavering advocate for Veterans in Illinois and across the nation. Although he never was able to chair the House Veterans Committee, he stands as one of this body's finest and most committed legislators for veterans. He made the issues of veterans health care and veterans benefits the cornerstone of his legislative career, and I could think of no better way to honor Lane than for this Congress to continue that fight.

While Lane may have been diagnosed with Parkinson's disease, it did not affect his razor sharp intellect or lessen his commitment to the issues he cares about. He has approached his disease with dignity, class and courage, and he has served as an inspiration to others with Parkinson's disease. This Congress, I am going to miss having my friend and my colleague in the Illinois delegation, but you can bet when I need guidance about the best way to protect Illinois veterans, my first call will be to Lane.

Mr. Speaker, the least we can do today is pass this bill honoring Lane Evans and his career, and I urge swift passage of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber today. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 58, 59, and 60.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 392) to provide for a circulating quarter dollar program to honor the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation, and to insert extraneous material thereon.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I urge the House pass H.R. 392, a bipartisan bill introduced by the distinguished gentlelady from Washington, D.C., Ms. Holmes Norton.

This legislation simply extends the very popular quarter coin bill to honor the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

We believe that extending the program will generate the same cultural pride in the District of Columbia and the U.S. territories that is done in every State across the Nation. When it comes to American history and tradition, Washington, D.C., is second to none, and that is why I am pleased that the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia has introduced this bill.

Citizens of other territories have made similar contributions and sacrifices. They, too, deserve the highest possible recognition and equality. That is why, in my opinion, extending the quarter program to include the U.S. territories is the least we can do to recognize the role that these great peoples and their cultures played in enriching American history.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), who is an effective and tireless advocate for the people of Washington, D.C., and the author of this bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the delegate from Washington, D.C. (Ms. Norton) and ask unanimous consent that she be permitted to control that time.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this chamber today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 43, 44, 45, and 46.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this chamber today. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote 524 and ``no'' on rollcall vote 525.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber yesterday, November 13, 2006. I would like the Record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 517 and 518 and ``no'' on rollcall vote 519.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this chamber on May 22, 2006. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 177, a motion to suspend the rules and pass S. 1235, the Veterans Benefits Improvement Act, and ``yea'' on rollcall vote No. 178, a motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 3858, the Pets Evacuation and Transportation Standards Act.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this chamber on September 19 and 25, 2006. I would like the record to show that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall vote Nos. 451, 452, 453 and 473 and ``no'' on rollcall vote Nos. 471 and 472.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

In its present form, I am.

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, here we go again. More piecemeal proposals. More tired, old, narrow, short-sighted policies of the past.

I think we should let the people around the country who are watching and listening to this debate know that they are not watching a rerun. This is, in fact, original programming. Yes, the plot lines are the same. We even have many of the same characters, many of the same arguments; and if the issues weren't so serious to our national security, it would almost be humorous.

But it is not, Mr. Speaker. It is unforgivable. It is unforgivable that instead of rolling up our sleeves and getting a real immigration bill to the President's desk, we are revisiting issues that this body has already addressed.

Why? Why are we doing this again if similar language has already passed? Could it be that there are less than 7 weeks to the next election? We have so much work to get done. Why are we going back and repassing provisions and addressing issues that have already passed this body?

A poll out today by CBS and the New York Times showed that only 25 percent, 25 percent of the American people approve of the job Congress is doing. And two-thirds said they believe Congress accomplished less than it typically does in a 2-year session.

Maybe that is because the majority is bringing up the same bills over and over and over again. Mr. Speaker, I know that the men and women of this Chamber are good people, I know they are compassionate, and they are serious about addressing the needs of our Nation. So let's show the American people that we care about their families, that we care about husbands, American citizen husbands and wives being separated by our bad immigration policy.

We care about defenseless children who are being punished for decisions that they have no control over. We care about workers who are being exploited, about the father who is fighting to remain with his wife and daughter in America.

Mr. Speaker, rather than just talking about family values, we have the opportunity today to show the American people that we really, really believe in family values. We have that ability today. Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit I am offering is really simple. The House has already passed an immigration bill. I do not like it, but that is how the process works. The Senate passed its own immigration bill. Some on the other side do not like that version. That is the way democracy works.

But let's get into conference in regular order and reconcile the differences between the two bills. Let's allow the legislative process to work. Let's make this not about politics, but about enacting good policy.

My motion to recommit will also ensure that we enact the recommendations laid out by the 9/11 Commission and increase the number of detention beds and immigration agents. Mr. Speaker, the American people want action, they do not want more talk. They do not want more excuses, they certainly do not want more debate. They want solutions, and that is why they sent us here.

At the end of the day, if these bills pass, what have those who support them really done to address the issue of our broken immigration system? They have done nothing. Because, as former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge wrote just last week, he said, ``Trying to gain operational control of the borders is impossible unless our enhanced enforcement efforts are coupled with a robust temporary guest worker program and a means to entice those now working illegally out of the shadows into some type of legal status.''

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said, ``It is impossible.'' Mr. Speaker, impossible. For the sake of our national security, for the sake of millions of families adversely affected by our immigration laws, for the sake of our economy, let's work together to make comprehensive immigration reform a reality. Let's name the conferees and allow them the time to work it out. Let's ensure that the important recommendations of the 9/11 Commission are fulfilled, because each day that goes by with silence and inaction on this issue means the potential for another dead body turning up in the desert, another child separated from her parents, another worker exploited, another dream denied. The current system is failing our Nation, Mr. Speaker. It hurts families, it hampers business, it harms the United States of America, it makes us less safe.

The status quo is simply unacceptable to the needs of our Nation and unworthy of our Nation's proud history of welcoming newcomers seeking a better life. So let's work together to create an immigration that works for families, works for businesses, and works to keep our Nation truly safe. The time to do so is now, and the time for excuses is over.

I urge you to vote ``yes'' on my motion to recommit, so that we can show the American people that this Congress is truly serious about protecting our borders, bolstering our national security, and fixing our broken immigration system.

Point of Order

Mr. Speaker, I would like to be heard on the point of order.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman makes a point of order that the proposed subsection 3 that I would add to section 210(a) of the bill is not germane.

I would argue that this paragraph is germane to the bill. When the subject matter of the whole bill is taken into consideration, H.R. 6094 presents a number of different immigration reform proposals that my subsection 3 addresses, related legislation that addresses the same exact subject matter.

All day today, Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing the proponents of this bill argue that the various immigration reform proposals included in the bill are a valuable alternative to a more comprehensive immigration reform legislation that is stalled in the 109th Congress.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, they are conceding that this bill is related to the many other immigration reform proposals this House has considered over the past 2 years.

Republicans are trying to pretend that the 109th Congress has not debated the immigration issue on many other occasions other than today. That is simply not the case and is wrong, Mr. Speaker. This House has debated the subject matter of this bill many times. My motion simply suggests a better way to handle the subject matter of this bill, which is to go to conference with the comprehensive bills the two Houses have already passed, and that is why I consider it germane.

Look, we all agree the drug dealers, gang members have no place in our society. Alien smugglers who live out of the hopes and aspirations of this who wish to come, but rape and rob and murder people should be thrown into jail, and we should throw away the key.

There are 11 to 12 million people walking around this country, and we do not know who they are. We do not have an address, an employer. We believe that they should have a place in this society if they have followed the rules.

Mr. Speaker, I will. I believe I have. I want to do exactly the same thing. Members on this side of the aisle want to do exactly the same things, and we can agree on them. Let's sit down at a table. Let's do it in a comprehensive manner.

Mr Speaker, that is why think the point of order is not good on this particular issue, I think it is germane.

With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, I move to appeal the ruling of the Chair on the point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I am in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, I would argue that it is germane to the bill. When you take the whole bill subject to consideration, and we look at

representing a number of different immigration reform proposals, and my sections address those same exact matters. All day, Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing from the proponents of this and other immigration bills argue that the various immigration reform proposals included in this bill are viable alternatives to much more comprehensive immigration reform legislation that has stalled in the 109th Congress.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, they are conceding that this bill is related to many other immigration reform proposals this House has considered over the past 2 years. Republicans are trying to pretend that the 109th Congress has not debated the immigration issues on many other occasions other than today. That is simply wrong. This House has debated the subject matter of this bill many times.

My motion certainly suggests a better way to handle the subject matter on this bill, which is to go to conference with the comprehensive bills that the two Houses have already passed. The subject matter of this bill is immigration reform. The subject matter of my motion to recommit is also immigration reform. The only difference is that my proposal would actually require Congress to do something.

Republicans are addressing the immigration issue with press releases. I am saying the more responsible way to address the subject matter of this bill is to go to conference and actually pass a law.

Well, it seems to me that it is germane, Mr. Speaker. We have heard on repeated occasions that what we are considering is the first step. We have heard that repeatedly here today. We have other bills, and simply what my motion to recommit instructs us that we go to conference to take it into consideration into the totality.

We agree, Mr. Sensenbrenner and I, if we were actually to sit around a table and use regular order, we would find that we have much agreement on securing our borders, on a number of the issues that have been raised here today. No one on this side of the aisle is pretending to stand up for gang members and drug dealers. We want them out of the country also.

But we also understand that like Mr. Tom Ridge, of Homeland Security, and Congressman Sensenbrenner referred to the current Homeland Secretary in his statement, we have statements from the former Director of Homeland Security that we need to deal with. So I think it is germane, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this Chamber today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes 436 and 437.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably absent from this chamber today. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall votes No.'s 427, 428, and 429.