Floor Statements

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

I rise in support of H. Resolution 498, celebrating the anniversary of the Border Patrol and honoring their service.

The Border Patrol was established in the Immigration Act of 1924, and celebrated its 85th anniversary just recently on May 28, 2009.

The Border Patrol is one of the most public faces of the Department of Homeland Security. For those who aren't familiar with the differences, the Border Patrol covers the areas between the ports of entry as opposed to the ports of entry. The 18,000 men and women in green work every day along the borders and coastlines of the United States, often in some of the most rugged and challenging terrain.

I have this outsized map here that the Marfa sector of the Border Patrol had given me from Texas. And this is just one small section of the border, but I wanted to use it to illustrate a few points. Marfa, Texas, is one of the more, let's just say, rural parts of America, which is why it was featured in ``No Country for Old Men,'' ``There Will Be Blood,'' because it was such a kind of an undeveloped area.

The area at the bottom on the point is the big bend of Texas that you see. That's Big Bend National Park. Those mountains in that area, the Chisnos, are about 7,000 feet. A lot of people think our border is just flat and that it would be very easy to see all the problems coming through, but, in fact, it's very mountainous.

The far northwest edge of this map, in the western side of the Marfa sector, is Presidio. Presidio is a point of entry. That point of entry, for example, it's called Presidio because it was a fort, and that's where General Pershing, for example, chased Pancho Villa across. There's no other legal point of entry for hundreds of miles as you go across that border through Big Bend and up until the far side, which is near Lake Amistad and Del Rio sector. These areas are very vulnerable to penetration by any number of things.

And a lot of times the Border Patrol, as well as illustrating that the National Park Service has a huge chunk there, huge chunk over in other parks, that this border is not simple, and that when people say, Can't you just put a couple of thousand agents there and control the border, well, no, it is an incredible challenge.

During my time in Congress, I have had the opportunity to visit almost every Border Patrol sector on the north and south borders. There's 2,000 miles on the south, 4,000 miles on the north. The challenges are diverse, and the criminal element seeking to exploit our open borders are inventive and have significant resources. Drug smugglers are using helicopters, ultralight aircraft, fast boats, and something as simple as coyotes, forcing illegal aliens to carry 50- pound loads of drugs on their back to bring in contraband. The challenge is endless and the mission is critical.

In the 6-plus years that the Border Patrol has been in the Department of Homeland Security, their agency has doubled in size. Congress has provided authorization funding for hundreds of miles of fencing and vehicle barriers, which combined, total over 600 miles. Efforts to provide additional technological resources to the Border Patrol through the SBInet program, that should, when complete, provide an additional capability to detect and respond to illegal entry.

A sign that the efforts to gain operational control of the border are working is the growing drug cartel violence in Mexico. Nearly 8,000 people have been killed in drug-related violence in Mexico. It's a tragic situation, and it is absolutely critical that we continue to support and strengthen the Government of Mexico, headed by President Calderon.

At the same time, we must further strengthen our own border security efforts, and cannot be dependent on another nation doing that.

The Border Patrol's years of honorable service have not been without loss. To date, 104 agents have lost their lives in duty to their country. Additionally, hundreds of assaults, from rockings to Molotov cocktails to threats on their lives occur every year to our Border Patrol agents.

As we celebrate the 85th anniversary of the Border Patrol, it is important to remember and honor the agents who have paid the ultimate sacrifice in defense of our country. Luis Aguilar is the most recent who was run over by a drug smuggler trying to flee. As the guards of our borders, the Border Patrol is an important layer of security and often the last line of defense in preventing dangerous people and goods from entering the United States and infiltrating the U.S. communities.

The Border Patrol cannot let down their guard as criminal organizations are continually looking for vulnerabilities in our security to bring in contraband. The consequences of a drug load that slips through the layered defense are significant. According to the Department of Justice, in 2007 almost 32 percent of high school seniors used marijuana in the past year and 5 percent had used cocaine. The vast majority of these drugs are smuggled across our borders.

The reality of post-September 11, 2001, is that terrorist organizations may also seek to exploit openings along our borders to smuggle operatives or potential weapons. In the week since their anniversary, May 28, the Border Patrol has apprehended six alien gang members and four convicted sex offenders, seized three guns, six trailers carrying contraband, including one with 40 illegal aliens; seized 16,609 pounds of marijuana, five vehicles and an ultralight aircraft. And my favorite is about 6 a.m. last Sunday, agents spotted an individual on a surf board approximately 200 yards offshore paddling north of the international border in Imperial Beach. The surfer was holding a blue duffel bag. He released it as agents approached. Soon after, the blue duffel floated ashore and was inspected by Border Patrol agents and had five packages of marijuana with an estimated street value at $75,000. They're creative, if nothing else, and our Border Patrol has to be creative and persistent in response.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution and to honor the Border Patrol, express support for their important mission and pledge support to enhance their capabilities to gain operational control over our border.

[From www.cbp.gov, Mar. 23, 2009]

85 Years of Protected By

Thursday, May 28, 2009, will mark the 85th anniversary of

the United States Border Patrol. Founded in 1924, the U.S.

Border Patrol was established in El Paso, Texas, and Detroit,

Michigan. The Purpose: To combat the illegal entry of aliens,

contraband, and the flow of illicit liquor from Mexico and

Canada into the United States. The U.S. Border Patrol is

steeped in a long and rich history that is passed down to

each new recruit as they begin their careers at the academy.

The newly organized El Paso Border Patrol Station was

assigned 25 Patrol Inspectors, many of whom were recruited

from the ranks of the Texas Rangers. Today, The Border Patrol

boasts over 18,000 agents, in 20 sectors, and 164 stations

around the nation.

Under the authority of the Immigration Act, approved by

Congress on May 28, 1924, the Border Patrol was created as a

uniformed law enforcement branch of the Immigration Bureau.

This prompted the establishment of the El Paso Border Patrol

Sector on July 1, 1924. It was the height of Prohibition in

the United States, and organized crime was a growing concern,

as the mafia controlled a majority of the alcohol being

smuggled into the United States. As a result, liquor

smuggling from Mexico and Canada became a well organized,

thriving industry. The opportunity to earn substantial sums

of money became a temptation for many illegal aliens that

were willing to enter the United States carrying a few crates

of contraband.

It wasn't long before gun battles began to erupt between

Border Patrolmen, and smugglers attempting to avoid arrest.

In February 1927, El Paso Sector experienced one of the

bloodiest months for the agency. As old newspapers report,

during the entire month, there had not been a 24-hour period

of time without a gunfight between smugglers and Patrol

Inspectors. These gunfights added to the renown of the Border

Patrol, as patrolmen gained a reputation for winning most of

these shootouts.

Almost immediately after the establishment of the El Paso

Station, a need was seen to have officers at outlying

locations. Other stations soon opened within the sector. The

Border Patrol began to grow, as the situation along the

border was steadily deteriorating. As the prohibition era

reached the peak of its infamy; lawlessness and violence

became more common along the water borders of the Detroit

Sector. Several Detroit Sector Patrol Inspectors were killed

in the line of duty during this period, as smugglers

attempting to bring contraband across the border resorted to

violence to protect their cargo from the Border Patrol

Inspectors.

Eighty-five years later, the Border Patrol has evolved into

the finest law enforcement organization in the world. On a

daily basis, the Border Patrol is confronted with a large

number of threats that would never have been conceived of at

the time of the agency's inception. Criminal organizations

have evolved as well, adopting a wide variety of weapons and

technology to aid them in their efforts to enter the United

States while smuggling human cargo and other contraband.

Since 9-11, the agency has had to adapt yet again, to our

nations newest threat; terrorism. The U.S. Border Patrol has

proven over its long history that its men and women are up to

the task ahead, and stand ready at our nation's borders.

The U.S. Border Patrol will be hosting several events for

the 85th Anniversary, including a Headquarters celebration

honoring all of the men and women, past and present, who have

made the Border Patrol what it is today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I continue to reserve.

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

First, I want to thank my friend and chairman of the subcommittee, Ms. Sanchez, who's been an excellent leader of our subcommittee and we work together closely on many things, not just noncontroversial bills like today. I thank Mr. Teague for his leadership and my long-time friend, Mr. Reyes, also the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, not only for his work in Congress but his work with the Border Patrol.

And again and most personally, today I want to thank every agent, every Border Patrol agent in America for helping protect us, as well as Chief David Aguilar for his leadership and further service. It sometimes gets a tad boring, sometimes it gets a little hot. On the Canadian border, sometimes it gets a little cold. It isn't exactly the most exciting job in America at all times, but what each of these agents does is extremely important to the safety of our Nation.

It may not be quite politically correct right now to talk about terrorism, but in fact it is a key part of our first line of defense in the border, and the Border Patrol is a key part of that. And we haven't had a terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11, partly because of our men and women in green.

It may not be quite politically correct right now to talk about stopping illegal immigration; but quite frankly, the safety of our Nation, the integrity of American citizenship requires legal, orderly entry. This isn't to say how many there should be, what type of immigration law we should have, but requires an orderly, legal process. So do many American jobs require this.

And it may not be quite politically correct right now to talk about stopping illegal drugs, but in doing so, the agents of the Border Patrol have made our streets safer, they have helped prevent child and spousal abuse, they have lowered emergency rooms admissions, they have helped people make child support payments by helping them hold their jobs because of illegal narcotics and other things causing them

to lose their jobs or by intercepting them or driving the prices up because of what they intercept.

We're never going to stop all drug abuse. And every Border Patrol agent knows he can't. But what he knows is he can intercept large numbers that would have gone to the streets and the homes of America and would have resulted in huge problems in crime and family safety in America.

So maybe we don't want to call it the war on drugs anymore. Instead we call it a disease, and for those who get addicted, it is a disease. But in fact unlike doctors and nurses who fight cancer, or researchers who fight cancer or people who fight lupus or diabetes, the Border Patrol agents are getting shot at and they die.

So whether we want to call it a war or whatever we want to call it, the individuals who use these illegal narcotics do not wake up one morning and suddenly discover that a heroin needle got put in their arm or that somehow they were snorting crack in their sleep or snorting cocaine in their sleep. In fact, it is somewhat different. And I want to make sure that our men and women of the Border Patrol understand that there is bipartisan support to making sure that we keep our border secure; that we continue to block illegal narcotics; that we continue to block terrorists; and you are our first line of defense on our huge borders, and we cannot thank you enough for risking your lives for the rest of us.

I yield back.

I thank the gentleman and my friend from Florida for yielding time. I speak in opposition to the rule. I want to thank Chairman Thompson, Subcommittee Chair Sheila Jackson-Lee for their bipartisan effort. In fact, this is a bipartisan bill and one that there's really no fundamental reason to vote against.

In fact, some of the amendments we're voting on today, such as people being able to retrieve their cell phones, are very nice. The one on people with hip replacements is very important to me. I have three of the four biggest orthopedic companies in the United States--in fact, in the world--in my district. And Chairman Oberstar and others who go through the machinery with hip replacements have concern on how we do that.

But, you know, it doesn't matter very much if you can find your cell phone or get through security easier if you die. And one of the problems here is I had offered an amendment before the Rules Committee that would have had added an important layer of security for the U.S. commercial aviation to the TSA Authorization Act. Unfortunately, on a party line vote my amendment was not made in order.

My amendment was very simple. In fact, I was shocked. I thought the debate in committee was going to be whether we were going to ask for just a voice vote or a recorded vote to make sure everybody was recorded. Instead, it was challenged. So I brought it to the committee.

It's very simple. It requires TSA to place any detainees held at Guantanamo Bay on the No Fly List. Now I think they ought to stay at Guantanamo, but it looks like I have lost that debate.

They may be coming in the United States. We have released some around the world. Many of them have already committed terrorist acts since then or reaffiliated.

But whether you agree with it or not, it seems so simple and fundamental that, if they're released in America, they ought to go on a No Fly List. For crying out loud, we have all kinds of people on the No Fly List. Why would we not automatically place somebody who is released in the United States on the No Fly List?

It is essential that we guarantee the security of the American people. The TSA Authorization bill is one of the first opportunities we have to take meaningful steps to ensure that any Gitmo detainee released in the United States is a threat to the American public and doesn't get on an airplane.

My amendment closes a potential terrorist loophole. Actually, it's not a loophole. It's a fly hole. It is so huge that it puts all of us at risk.

I offered this amendment during committee markup. Unfortunately, it was gutted by a second degree amendment. It wasn't compromised, it wasn't changed. Basically, it went right back to the current policy we have. It was totally gutted.

The Gitmo prisoners released in the United States may or may not be added to the No Fly List under this bill. It's an interesting thing. There's an option that they could be added to the No Fly List, but there's no guarantee under this bill. It was not a compromise amendment. It was a gutting amendment.

So the committee never had a choice of whether to vote. They voted unanimously on the majority side to not allow my amendment to be voted on and gutted it, saying it would be up in the air.

The transfer or release of any of these detainees is a matter of homeland security. We need to have a serious debate about whether it's appropriate to bring them on U.S. soil, where they will be kept, what will happen if they're released in the United States. But even the President's own administration has noted that any Gitmo detainees released in the United

States would need additional security and monitoring.

In May, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano stated before the Committee on Homeland Security that DHS would take efforts ``to ensure that Americans are confident in their safety'' and recognized that the Department had a role ``to provide information on what protections are needed in the homeland should Gitmo detainees be released.''

That same day, FBI Director Robert Mueller testified before Congress that bringing Gitmo detainees into the U.S., even to maximum security prisons, poses significant security risks, including radicalization of other inmates.

All I'm asking is they be placed on a No Fly List. Why wouldn't we? Maybe my amendment should have said at least they get denied an aisle seat. I mean, I don't understand this at all.

Despite earlier confirmation by Defense Secretary Gates that the Chinese Uyghurs would be released in the U.S. as soon as the final details are complete, the Solicitor General filed a brief with the Supreme Court on Friday arguing that these individuals should not be brought into the United States since they are associated with a terrorist group. They were associated with the East Turkistan Islamic Movement and they were funded and trained by al Qaeda in Afghanistan, yet they were going to release these 11 in northern Virginia so they could get on the airplanes going out of Reagan Airport. What is wrong with this? We need a guarantee that that's not going to happen.

Despite the concerns of the public and the uncertainty within his own administration, the President is forging ahead with a plan to bring some of these detainees to the United States. Even if they are transferred from Gitmo to a U.S. prison, they could fall under constitutional protections allowing for their release. And this is a very real possibility with existing precedent. Then it will be even harder to put them on a No Fly List.

Based on a Supreme Court ruling, DHS is forced to release illegal aliens, including many dangerous ones, after 180 days.

How can we be assured that Gitmo detainees will be treated differently? The simplest way to do this is to say you will automatically be placed on a No Fly List. No debate. You're automatically on there if you are a detainee.

The detainees held at Gitmo are not low-risk, innocent people. They are they worst of the worst. Most of the Gitmo detainees are violent radicals, hardened on the battlefield and willing to die or kill for their cause.

According to DOD, 74 of the 530 transferred from Gitmo are confirmed or suspected to have returned to the battlefield since we have released them. Some have carried out attacks. This includes Abdallah Saleh al- Ajimi. Ajimi was arrested along the Pakistan-Afghan border in December 2001, fighting alongside al Qaeda. He was transferred from Gitmo to Kuwait in November 2005. In 2008, he joined several others in a suicide bombing in Iraq, killing more than a dozen people.

This is somebody who was released from Gitmo, one of the early releasees. The ones we have now, we would deem not safe enough to release. This is somebody who we released.

According to the Department of Defense, ``He was apparently living a productive life in Kuwait. It was unknown what motivated him to conduct a suicide attack.''

In this second poster, this is Said Ali al-Shihri. Shihri was captured in Pakistan in December 2001. He was transferred from Gitmo to Saudi Arabia in November 2007. He fled to Yemen, declaring himself the deputy director of al Qaeda in Yemen, and is a prime suspect in the December 2008 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Yemen.

This is one we released. This is not one of the 530 who we're still holding because they were too dangerous to release.

The security concerns and lack of a clear plan from this administration demonstrate an absolutely clear need for proactive restrictions on detainee freedom to travel within the U.S. should they be transferred here. Congress must play an active role in ensuring that any detainees released in U.S. communities do not pose a threat.

A Gallup Poll released this week found that by a ratio of 3:1, respondents oppose moving detainees to the U.S. prisons. I don't think we need a poll to find out whether they want them next to them on an airplane. In Indiana, we have an expression: You can count them on one hand and have enough fingers left to bowl.

Other than people in Congress, I can't imagine anybody who wants these people who are released on planes next to them. They make a mockery of ``Fly the Friendly Skies.'' One slogan is ``Fly with Friends.'' Another slogan is ``Lower Fares, Fewer Restrictions.''

I mean, think of the airline slogans with this. My favorite is Delta says, ``Delta Gets You There.'' They're going to need to add, ``Maybe.''

If we don't have this protection, we are vulnerable. This is a matter of national security. As important as this bill is, as important as these amendments are, our number one responsibility is guaranteed safety.

I do not understand. I simply do not understand why my friends on the majority side don't even want to have a vote to say, not keep them in prison, not keep them in Guantanamo. This is about a vote should they automatically be placed on the No Fly List.

Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with so many important issues in this bill, but there are none as important as the issue of whether the actual people getting on board with you are terrorists, which is the fundamental thing we should be concerned about.

My amendment said: the Assistant Secretary, in coordination with the Terrorist Screening Center, shall include on the No Fly List any individual who was a detainee housed at the Naval Station Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, on or after January 1, 2009. For purposes of this clause, the term ``detainee'' means an individual in the custody or under the physical control of the United States as a result of armed conflict.

That is all in the bill. So what happened in committee? I sat on committee. It was not unanimous. I abstained. I supported the bill, but I could not support a bill with this kind of terrorist fly-through in it.

The words that were added were ``after a final disposition has been issued by the President.''

These people are all lawyered up. They are fighting every process to hold them. Many of them, probably, will win, partly because we don't want to go into open court, having to release the information of how we got the information of why they're there, because--guess what? People are getting beheaded. They're exposing our entire lines of tracking information, so some will get out on that basis. Some will get out on the basis that their countries won't take them back.

It also says here: ``the final disposition.'' Well, if they're released in the United States, lawyered up and on trial, I don't want people here who are involved in blowing us up and who have been fighting and killing our soldiers. These people who are still there are the ones we haven't already released. I earlier gave examples of people who were released, those who have gone back in, meaning, already, 20 or 30 percent of them have been re-involved.

Now, a final disposition can take anywhere from 2 years to a decade to forever. Then there is a final disposition by the President. Well, what if they're just plain released?

Do you think you're really going to be able to hold them if they've been released? The courts may very well rule we can't even hold them in the United States.

This amendment and anybody who goes to the legislative intent will hear the debate. The debate was not about whether or not they were all going to be placed on the No Fly List. The debate was about whether I was prejudging the people who were in Gitmo. Legislative intent will show that this amendment was meant to keep some people from being added to the No Fly List.

Any legislative intent will show that, in committee, the intent here was to say: Souder was trying to prejudge the people in Gitmo in that they shouldn't be on a No Fly List and that some of those people should be on a No Fly List. It's indisputable. It's in the Record.

So, unless we change the bill, this is a gutting amendment that does not put people on the No Fly List. It is current law which says that the President has the opportunity to put them on a No Fly List.

I will yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Reclaiming my time, I agree with the gentlewoman. If there is any logic in the world, not a single person here is not going to be on the No Fly List, but we have no assurances. We can't predict what the courts are going to do. We can't predict that.

We can't predict what any President or any Attorney General is going to do at any given moment. Even if this goes 8 to 10 years and even if the current President serves two terms, we can't predict it. The fact is that my amendment predicted it.

It says, if you are released in the United States, you are automatically on a No Fly List. There was at least enough risk.

Poor Congressman John Lewis keeps getting on these lists, and we keep trying to get him off. You can see what a mess sometimes our lists are. It ought to be, if you're in Guantanamo--this is simple. We have their names. We have their fingerprints. We know who they are. We know that they are potential risks. Why would you resist? Just put them on a No Fly List. Why take the gamble here?

I would yield to the gentlewoman.

Reclaiming my time, we do not know anything. The only way we know it is to put it into law. We are speculating and are hopeful. Logic would suggest that my amendment is not needed. But in watching what has happened in America today, guess what? The American people look at Congress; they look at the executive branch, and they don't often see common sense at times.

Furthermore, particularly as we head into an era where courts are going to go, perhaps, more on feelings rather than on law, this is a risky time period. We need to make it clear-cut--absolutely--if you're in Guantanamo.

Now, we've already released a bunch, and a whole bunch of them are coming back and are hitting us. At the very least, if we're not going to keep them in prison, if we're not going to keep them in Guantanamo, at the very least, this Congress needs to guarantee you will absolutely, certainly, 100 percent--not hopefully, not maybe, not probably--100 percent not get on an airplane out of Reagan Airport, sitting next to us, with the ability to blow up this Capitol building and the White House.

I thank my colleague from Texas.

First, I get tired of hearing my own language read back to me. The only language that's relevant here was the part that gutted my amendment which says, ``after a final disposition has issued,'' which eliminates, one, what are they doing until there is a final disposition? If they've been released into America, they are on the planes with us, and we're hoping that the final disposition might occur in--I don't know--2 years, 6 years, 8 years, if they're released. The amendment only covers those who are released. That's if they're on the list. They automatically go on the list. But the big concern is not if they're imprisoned, unless they escape, but whether they're released and that the final disposition, if it is that either we didn't challenge it--in other words, we just released them because we didn't want to have them in trial or that they were found not guilty.

To quote Mr. Pascrell, my good friend--and we are good friends--he doesn't want, nor does Mr. DeFazio want, these potential and actual terrorists--I mean, understand in Gitmo, the people that are there, they are the ones we haven't released. Maybe they were innocently carrying an IED or a Kalashnikov, but these were picked up in Afghanistan on the battlefield. These are military detainees. These aren't kind of casual people here that we're talking about. They have been picked up on the battlefield. The only

question is, how are we going to try them? How are we going to process them?

By the way, the only thing we can get out of the administration as far as the question of being in prison, many are likely already on the No Fly List. The key words here are ``many are likely on the No Fly List.'' They should all be on the No Fly List. Whether they're detained or imprisoned or not, they should be on the No Fly List. We also heard a reference to the Aspen Conference yesterday. Secretary Napolitano said that DHS's role would be--apparently this is a summary--to address the security aspects of the immigration issue regarding the detainees.

Now I was in the El Paso Detention Center. There I saw Arellano Felix, one of the major drug people, about to be released in Ciudad Juarez. We hope they picked him up. But this has been the process. We also had a Chinese illegal who was about to be released. He was in the high-risk detention center with Arellano Felix because he had been violent, beating up guards, particularly beating up other prisoners.

I said, What's going to happen?

They said, Well, China won't take him back. We have to release him into the United States.

So is anybody going to be warned? Are we going to track him?

No, we can't. We can only hold detainees for so long; and then if we want to proceed with another court case, they're released until then.

What happens to him?

Well, he may wind up in a prison if he beats up somebody or does something.

We have an obligation, as Congress, to make sure that none of these detainees are on an airplane with us.

Mr. Chair, during the Committee on Homeland Security consideration of H.R. 2200, Mr. Pascrell spoke against my amendment to require all detainees at Guantanamo Bay, GTMO, to be placed on the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, No Fly List. Mr. Pascrell argued that it was presumptive and that the President should have the opportunity to make a final disposition on each case rather than automatically require that all GTMO detainees be prevented from flying on U.S. commercial aircraft.

Specifically, Mr. Pascrell stated, ``We know that many--and it could be all--are bad actors of those 270. But we don't know that yet, do we? We don't know that. And the point of the matter is, the President has a right to exercise his authority. I'm saying, let the President act, and then we can always respond.''

I originally intended to include this quote in my oral statement to demonstrate the lack of clarity and understanding regarding what will happen with the GTMO detainees given the President's decision to close the GTMO facility. I agree with Mr. Pascrell that no one knows yet what will happen. Where I strongly disagree is that Congress should not wait to see what the President decides, which could open up a huge security loophole. Congress must take proactive measures to ensure the safety and security of the American traveling public and my amendment would have ensured that they were not going to be sitting next to a suspected terrorist from GTMO on their next flight.

I thank my friend and our ranking minority member, Mr. Issa, for yielding the time and for his leadership here.

In an earlier life of mine, when I was with the Select Children Family Committee back in the eighties, my then boss--I was a Republican staff director--my then boss, Dan Coats, was one of the Republicans who supported the Family Medical Leave Bill, which I didn't agree with.

But I remember when he told me I could sit in all the meetings and we worked with how that law was going to be drafted. People said, Oh, it'll never be paid. This is just to cover people for unpaid. You're just a paranoid conservative because you keep talking about this becoming paid.

We watched this move into the government arena, and all of us understand the tensions here. My daughter just had our second grandchild. She's a schoolteacher. The struggle was how was she going to deal with the time she was going to take off. Was it going to be paid? Was it during a school year? What do you do when you have-- Grant's 2 and Reagan, which won't shock anybody that my daughter picked the name Reagan. She has two little kids. How do you do this? What's fair? My oldest son, Nathan, and his wife both work in the government. They would love to have paid medical leave.

But there's some problems here. Quite frankly, one of the most controversial problems is what to do with the husband and should he be able to get time off when a baby is born. Forget all the medical questions. What do we do with air traffic controllers? What do we do with DEA agents who may be working in the final bust on a drug case? What about Homeland Security, where they've been working 2 years on the case, the wife has a baby. Can they take sudden leave as this case is going to trial?

There are very complicated fundamental questions in the challenge of how this would practically work.

The second challenge is, in case people haven't heard, we've been printing a lot of money or obligating a lot of future debt, and the question is: Is this the time that the Federal Government should be doing something that is, quite frankly, generous, would help many families, but do we really have the money to do this at this time?

I represent the number one manufacturing district in the United States, both in jobs and percent of jobs, at least if you counted before the recession started. I imagine I still may be there.

My best county, where Fort Wayne is, the biggest city of around 260,000, has a 9.5 percent unemployment rate. Whitley County has 11.6; Kosciusko, 12.2; DeKalb, 13.4; Noble County, 16.6, Steuben County, 15.1; LaGrange County, 17.7; Elkhart County, 17.8, where the President went in for the first stimulus package.

Now I'm supposed to go back to my district and say that government employees are going to get paid parental leave when they're looking at how they get unemployment and how they ever get a job.

That generosity and kindness to families is important, but we also have to balance is this going to be mandated on the private sector, is this really workable. Have we thought through the particulars in the Federal sector? Do we have the money to do this? Lastly, is this the time, while millions of people are laid off, where others don't know how they're even going to pay their house payments, how they're going to pay their health care, to say, but we in the Federal Government are going to be generous with our employees and give them paid parental leave and family medical leave with their tax money?

I thank my colleague from Iowa for taking the lead tonight and my colleague and friend from Ohio as well. Both have been long-time pro-life leaders. And my colleague from Iowa and I have fought on numerous fronts in the various battles here.

Today before I speak on the abortion question which is one thing I want to raise here, of course, but today in the homeland security markup on Transportation Security Administration, I offered an amendment that anybody released in the United States from Gitmo would go on the no-fly list. We thought that the debate was going to be, should this be a recorded vote and the Democrats would propose not having a recorded vote. But it caused such panic that they had long meetings and basically came up with a gutting amendment and knocked the amendment out by stating that only after all the processes with the President were completed, but that didn't even put them on a no-fly list. Now here is the fundamental question that this isn't putting people in prison and detaining them. This is a question of should they be on the no-fly list.

If you were in Gitmo--and understand that I don't favor closing Gitmo. I imagine neither of my colleagues here favored closing Gitmo. Just because you made a stupid campaign statement doesn't mean you have to have a stupid policy once you get in and see the truth. And there has been a number of people who have changed their opinion about that. But we have already released a number of these people. At best, the results have been mixed. Some have gotten already back involved in al Qaeda. And just because it has been hard to come up with the evidence, say, because people get beheaded, because of the type of retribution that occurs, the fearfulness of stating upfront and going through even a military court where it is private, worried that it is going to get out, it was difficult to make some of the cases. It has been very mixed, the ones they did release. So the ones that are there have at least some doubt because they are already not released. Now we transfer them to the United States. The question is what is going to happen? Are they going to await trial? Are they going to be detained? How are they going to sort this through? We don't have a plan. Secretary Napolitano said at our hearing the day before, looking at our budget, clearly homeland security was going to have to keep track of them. If they are going to keep track of them, why in the world wouldn't they be on a no- fly list? If they are too dangerous to be released in the country without homeland security tracking them, why do we want them on an airplane next to us? I just see no logic to this, that we put American citizens on the no-fly list because maybe they have a cousin, they have done some phone calls, we have questions and we are concerned about it.

These people are the people they have held in Gitmo, not the ones they have released, a couple hundred already down there. These are the people who are higher risk at the very least.

Now, the Chinese Uyghurs who were part of al Qaeda-affiliated groups, China won't take them back. They already announced they will release them in Northern Virginia. They can get on airplanes at Reagan Airport.

What kind of a philosophy is this that, oh, we are going to see final resolution of this, we are going to work this through? This is absurd. The last thing we need is a legal counsel over there telling him, oh, wow, these people should have public trials. We have been through this in the Department of Homeland Security. When the New York Times released the classified report, none of us actually know precisely what was in it that caused this reaction. But what we know is terrorists were taking down around the world, networks were broken up in process before they could do that because we heard them get up on their phones because was it a bank account that they didn't know that we knew they were doing it? Was it a phone line they didn't know that was tapped? When you get things in public, you expose your ability to track. And they go other routes. The idea of public trials would be catastrophic to the safety of this country.

Now, the idea that they aren't even going to be on a no-fly list is just incredible. And anybody, in my opinion, who blocks that, and if it isn't in the bill next week, the people who kept it out of the bill should be held responsible if something happens. It isn't like you can't figure out who to blame here. We had an amendment that would have said they are automatically on the no-fly list, if they get on the plane now, without even being more than routinely checked, it would be incredible.

Now I would like to talk briefly about Dawn Johnsen. She's a fellow Hoosier. I do not know her, but she and her husband are well known in Indianapolis. She teaches at the Indiana Law School. There is incredible pressure on our two United States Senators on the vote, and we need their votes against her.

It isn't whether or not she's smart. It's not whether or not they're good people, good neighbors, good people to go to church with. This is about policy and critical policy. This is about basically a person with radical views on abortion being put in a position to give that advice. And we need our two Senators to understand that. We need the American people to understand that. And really we need this President to understand this.

Another thing happened just a few miles outside my district. I represent most of Elkhart County. Carson and Donnelly represent about a third; I have two-thirds. And I come up around within about 5 or 7 miles of the University of Notre Dame, and about a third of my district is in South Bend. So there's been a little bit of ruckus about the President's speaking at Notre Dame. He's the eighth President in a row to speak at Notre Dame. It's not so much the controversy of speaking but whether he should get an honorary doctorate since his positions seem to be at odds with the fundamental teachings of the Catholic Church and the Pope.

Now, the administration claims that they aren't as hostile to the pro-life cause as we say. He said at the press conference in an astounding statement that, Oh, I wouldn't be for embryonic stem cell research if there was another alternative. And you wonder is this a kind of cuteness or does he really not know that there are other alternatives that work and embryonic stem cell doesn't work, that embryonic stem cell has been going on for 10 years without even a pig being able to live let alone a human, whereas other forms of stem cells, in fact, have cured people of diseases.

Maybe, however, when you think about it, President Obama was raised in Hawaii and Indonesia and elsewhere. Then he went to Harvard. He worked as a community organizer, lived in an upscale neighborhood of Illinois in Chicago. I'm not sure whether he's really heard a lot of the debate. And to be fair, maybe we need to educate him in a non- yelling way. Some of the problems we are having in South Bend right now, some of the controversy there, we need to win the middle. We lost the last election. If we're going to win the pro-life debate and save children in America, we need to make sure we can try to persuade the middle. And in this, President Obama, if he wants to claim that he really wants to reduce abortion, he needs to show that with his actions, not just say that I favor that. He needs to support methods on adoption. He needs to encourage the Women's Care Centers and Hope Centers. My wife, Diane, volunteers at a Hope Center.

You've been reading some of these statements, but to appoint somebody as Deputy Legal Counsel who says that pregnancy is like slavery, that protecting life makes women no more than fetal containers, that abortion brings relief, that those who become pregnant are losers, that there's no need to reduce the number of abortions, and comparing pro- life supporters to the Ku Klux Klan, among other things that you've been highlighting in these quotes, you're not

neutral trying to reduce abortion. If you appoint a person in a key legal position that interprets policy, you do not have credibility then to go to the University of Notre Dame next Sunday, to go around at a press conference to tell us we're working for a middle ground. There's no middle ground there. That is the radical position of NARAL being put in a position to make legal policy for the United States of America. You have to not talk out of one side of your mouth and do the other.

What we need the President to do is withdraw this nomination.

The naivete is incredible here in the intelligence area. I've worked in the narcotics area on the Intel Committee of Homeland Security. In case people haven't heard, the border is not completely sealed. Clearly we don't even want to put the Gitmo detainees on a no- fly list. If you don't have intelligence, I don't know how we stay safe.

I wanted to add another thing on the abortion issue. About 2 months ago, apparently we had Fetal Container Day. My daughter was going through Fetal Container Day as a mom, and 2 months ago our granddaughter, Reagan Rebekah, was born. My daughter, Brooke, and her husband, Jeff, who apparently, in Dawn Johnsen's mind, wasn't relevant, and I don't know when he became a father if he wasn't a father at the beginning. I don't know when Reagan Rebekah became a human being, because my daughter was having problems and they decided they had to bring Reagan out early, and it wouldn't have been that many years ago that she wouldn't have survived. She came out somewhat over 4 pounds, just under 5 pounds. She yelled just as loud as if she were heavier, but she came out very small. But she survived. She was able to go home. She had a high enough Apgar score. But at one point, and true of my wife too, but at one point my daughter was a fetal container, and Reagan Rebekah was a fetus. And then she came out a month early, where before she wouldn't even have been able to survive, and now she's a human being suddenly, and my daughter is a mom? It doesn't make any sense here.

We cannot have somebody with these radical views in this position of power. If she wants to continue at IU Law School, if she wants to continue with NARAL, fine. But we do not need her.

And, Mr. President, she needs to be withdrawn. We need to have a reasonable alternative that we can try to work with. We know we lost an election. But we do not need radicals in this position that would destroy human life, whether it be because of lack of intelligence in terrorism or in abortion.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I thank the gentleman from California.

I think probably the most extraordinary thing we are hearing here is not only the kind of intellectual inspiration and things you normally hear, but a very deep-felt personal kind of inspiration.

I remember years ago Governor Boehm of Indiana, I asked him when I was a college student with a political group, why he came up and spoke to us. He said, ``Because we can only do so much. It's who we reach and who we inspire that really extends our influence.'' You're hearing all sorts of different stories today.

My own story is that in 1965 when I was 15 years old, I read in Sport Magazine something that suggested to me that he was a conservative. I was trying to form the third High School YAF, Young Americans for Freedom, chapter in America, and I wrote him a letter. This is a kid from small-town Indiana and he was a big star football quarterback. I said, ``Would you be an honorary adviser to my Leo High School YAF chapter?''

Now, my high school, I had 68 kids in my class. And he wrote back and said, ``I would be honored to be an adviser to your Young Americans for Freedom chapter, but I won't be able to attend any meetings.'' I appreciated that. Then he became an inspiration and a close friend to my former boss, Dan Coats. His daughter Judith worked with me in Senator Coats' office, and we visited many urban areas, and there I saw another side.

Many of the things that my friend from California and others have said are true: He wasn't always totally realistic; he was very emotional, sometimes a little naive, was not perfect, but he had a commitment to opportunity and a commitment to economics. But somewhere along the line he also developed a deep personal passion for helping the underdog. He did this when he was a quarterback. He was offended by certain ways minorities were treated at the time. It clearly stuck with him. He battled this coming out of Occidental College and had to fight his way up, and something deep and visceral sided with the underdog, and he stood up in ways that we do not usually see in the Republican Party for minorities. And when Judith his daughter and I would visit different cities, you could see the love that Jack Kemp had for minorities coming back from the minorities. Of all Republicans, they knew Jack Kemp. They loved Jack Kemp. They didn't always understand exactly what he saying and certainly didn't understand the gold standard, but they knew that he cared about them; that if his philosophy didn't reach to everybody, there was a problem with his philosophy. And that inspiration and passion he sent through and rippled through the system in both parties, and I hope that we in his memory continue to do that, continue to defend the underdog, and, in the Republican Party, understand that a rising tide needs to lift all boats, and we need to make sure that we continue to address those minority issues, and that will be part of his legacy to us.

I thank my friend from Pennsylvania, and Chairman Miller.

I have some concerns about this bill. One of the challenges as a conservative Republican in a Congress dominated by the Democrats in the House and Senate and the President is that it is likely to be that, for most bills, we are likely to have some concerns. We lost the election, we are not writing the bills, and so therefore we are likely to have some concerns.

When the Republicans last wrote this bill, for example, we had a clause in restricting sex education money usage. It is not likely to be a use of this bill, but as a conservative I sometimes have justifiable paranoia about how liberals may use this money. At the same time, we are not the majority, we don't get to write every clause in it, and, it is not necessarily a likely use.

I also have concerns about the amount of money that the Federal Government is spending. There are going to be bills in this cycle that many Republicans who might have supported them in the past will have reservations on. We have run up in the first 2 months more additions to the deficit than we had in the first 5 years of the last administration. At some point the question is, how are we going to fund these Treasury bills? Are interest rates going to go up and drive out the private market? How is a district like is mine that is hammered, how is Elkhart County going to recover? So I have deep concerns.

Now, I understand this is an authorizing bill, not an appropriations bill. Authorizing bills merely set the cap. That leads, however, to a lot of pressure internally of, like we saw in No Child Left Behind, you are only funding X amount of a bill. No, that was a cap; that wasn't a guarantee that the funding was going to go through. So when we go through authorizing bills, does this in fact push the spending, or not?

But authorizing bills fundamentally guide the programs. And if we as Republicans say we are never going to participate because we are not in the majority and these are authorizing bills that guide the guidelines, are we going to give up both the actual spending and not participating in the authorizing process?

There are fundamental differences inside any kind of coalition of people on what the role of government should be. If you are a pure libertarian, it is unlikely that you like any of these kind of programs. Volunteers are volunteers; government employees are government employees. But if you have, as I have in the past, supported these different programs, some more than others, but basically believe that everything from the seniors' different programs to domestic volunteer groups are, as a whole, a benefit to the community, then trying to shape that as best we can and to participate I think is helpful.

In this particular bill, I want to thank the chairman for two particular amendments that we have worked with, with Congressman Grijalva who heads the National Parks Committee in the Resources Committee, and Congressman Rush Holt who has been a big supporter of the national parks, and I, who along with Brian Baird cochair the National Parks Caucus, we have worked from the Leave No Child Inside bill to this bill to try to include parks, and working with others to include not only the national parks, but other types of parks, particularly with Mr. Sarbanes of Maryland in the previous bill.

But inside the Energy Corps, this will allow volunteers to work with our National Parks Service to help address backlog and maintenance issues; that whenever, particularly when you look at the type of economy we have right now, and we are coming up on the 100th birthday of the National Park Service, during the Great Depression quite frankly was one of the greatest moves toward American architecture. What we think of as a national park actually came from many of the summer jobs programs and WPA and CCC.

While this is not the same, this is a blended program, it is important that as we see whatever types of legislation goes through, even if I as a Republican have some concerns about the scope of government and the cost, I still feel that it is important that we participate in that. And one of the best uses of this is the National Park Service, which everybody benefits from, and it is an opportunity to try to address some of the backlog issues there.

There is a second part that was a program developed, Serve America, and I want to thank in this case not only

Chairman Miller and Ranking Member Platts and our Ranking Member Buck McKeon, but Senator Hatch, in working with a clause and refining it from the first bill where we had it a larger percentage. But basically it says that one-third of the Serve America grants can go to small institutions. As somebody who has been very passionate, who believes that many of these programs which are very small, don't have good grant writers, often don't have the ability to get as much match, particularly when you get into urban centers or in some of the rural areas, particularly when you get into a lot of the African American and Hispanic church groups or volunteer groups. They aren't United Way, so how can they partake of this? This says that up to one-third of this can be used for organizations with 10 full-time and up to 10 part-time, or 20 total, employees. And then they get up to one-third of the Serve America program, and they only have to have a smaller match of roughly $1,000. This will enable lots of these small neighborhood groups to be eligible.

Now, Senator Hatch correctly pointed out, he and his staff, that maybe there won't be enough of these smaller groups. So it doesn't guarantee a third of this, but it says that up to one-third can be used this way. I think this is a diversification of this program that it is an invaluable addition, and will empower lots of people to be able to do this in this community.

So while I have some reservations, I think this is basically a good bill. It is a bill that we worked on together cooperatively, and I appreciate the opportunity to do that even in a Congress that is marked by partisanship. But it is a way to show the American people that in fact we do work together on most pieces of legislation that come through here. There are differences between our parties, but we try to work in a bipartisan way when we can.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the House Republican standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 1105--Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009

Member: Rep. Mark Souder

Bill: H.R. 1105--Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009

Project Name: Clinton Street Bridge Replacement

Entity: City of Fort Wayne

Address: 1 Main Street, Fort Wayne, IN 46802-

Amount: $2,000,000

Justification for use of federal taxpayer dollars: Fort Wayne is the terminus of U.S. Route 27, known locally as Clinton Street as the highway winds through downtown. As a federal highway and a historic highway as designated by the Indiana House of Representatives, this roadway should be supported with local, state, and federal resources. Each day, almost 27,000 cars drive along Clinton Street and cross over the St. Mary's River on an obsolete 1964 bridge that has growing maintenance costs and a sufficiency rating of 64.6 out of 100, which merits concern. Further, poor decisions during its initial construction have led to debris traps in front of the piers that support the structure, blocking water passage and limiting any possible recreational use of the river. The project is necessary to repair essential infrastructure and the economic development of the region.

Finance Plan: The city will finance 20 percent of the project, a total of $1.62 million, while additional funding of $1.42 million was approved in the Fiscal Year 2008 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. The total cost of the project is estimated at $8.1 million. These funds will be used for the replacement of the bridge over the St. Mary's River in downtown Fort Wayne.

Member: Rep. Mark Souder

Bill: H.R. 1105--Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009

Project Name: Watersystems/Wellcare-

Entity: Water Systems Council

Justification for use of federal taxpayer dollars: Clean drinking water is essential for a community to flourish. The use of federal

funds in this program are necessary to protect the well drinking water of over 21 million American citizens. As a national nonprofit organization dedicated to ensuring individuals receive safe water from household wells and small water systems, this organization deals with a vast constituency and provides essential services that make it possible for commerce and communities to thrive.

Finance Plan: The funds in this program will go to provide clean water for over 21 million Americans.

I thank my friend, colleague from New Jersey.

I think one of the happiest moments in our life, or any grandparent, is to see your first grandchild. And my grandson, Grant, was born about a year and a half ago to my daughter, Brooke and her husband, Jeff. And we've watched him develop.

But from the time he became an embryo, egg and sperm joined, his stem cell content, his cell content was the same as it is now. All he's added is a little bit of chubbiness and a little bit of height as he's grown.

Now, in about a month our first granddaughter is going to be born, Reagan. And we've watched her grow in the womb. But from the time she was conceived, she became a separate human being. Nothing's really going to change. It's just she's going to grow and she's going to develop personality, add to her intelligence. But she's been the same make-up from the beginning.

Now, the question is, is why are some so intent on taking human life? And why are they so intent in using our taxpayer dollars to make us do that?

We've worked for many years. You've been a stalwart in this. We did a hearing, when we were in the majority, where we showed that there were already scientific breaks occurring in skin cells and so on. And as you said, sometimes the allegation is, why do these breakthroughs come right before we have a big vote?

They come constantly, as you so eloquently said, on lupus, on different diseases. Now we have yet another one. The advances are all in non-embryonic.

So why do we continue, other than because to try to take guilt relief off an abortion, to try to confuse the issue of when human life begins, why do we continue to, quite frankly, waste so much, when, in fact, many people would have been cured, healed and better had we put it into other types of stem cell research other than embryonic?

Thank you for your leadership. And I yield to you for a close.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the House Republican standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of H.R. 1105, the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009.

Bill: H.R. 1105--Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009.

Project Name: The Renaissance Pointe YMCA.

Entity: YMCA of Greater Fort Wayne.

Address: 347 W. Berry, Suite 500, Fort Wayne, IN 46802.

Amount: $142,000.

Justification for use of Federal taxpayer dollars: This project would provide a landmark facility in a depressed area to help children and families through education, arts, and recreation programs. Similar revitalization efforts have been successful in the state of Indiana, and this project can be used as a model for revitalization in depressed areas across the United States. Federal appropriations are needed for the following reasons: (1) the high cost of preparing a Brownfield site for construction, which would not be applicable under normal circumstances; (2) those in the community directly served by this YMCA are prevented from making large contributions to this project due to socioeconomic circumstances.

Finance Plan: All of the funds would be used for construction on the Brownfield site.

Bill: H.R. 1105--Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009.

Project Name: Fort Wayne International Runway 5-23 Shoulder Reconstruction Project.

Entity: Fort Wayne Allen County Airport Authority.

Address: Lt. Paul Baer Terminal, Suite 209 Fort Wayne, IN 46809-3194.

Amount: $817,000.

Justification for use of federal taxpayer dollars: As a result of the Annual Airport Certification/Safety Inspection conducted on September 5-6, 2006, the following comment/recommendation was provided by Birkely M. Rhodes, Airport Certification/Safety Inspector (AC/SI): ``The Runway 5-23 shoulders have deteriorated well beyond maintenance levels. Plan and program a repaving project.''

This proposed reconstruction project would allow the airport to be in compliance with the above AC/SI recommendation. This project will provide for the reconstruction of approximately 5,150 lineal feet of existing shoulders, adjacent to Runway 5-23, with new 25' paved asphalt shoulders. The project scope will include the removal of the existing shoulders, grading/drainage improvements, new runway edge lights, and paving of the new shoulders.

Finance Plan: Specific to this request, about $4M has been spent on this project over the last 3 years, in the first two phases. The local source of funding is Airport Revenues. The requested funding would be allocated to the Construction and Services During Construction (inspection) contracts, as well as reimbursement for Design contract to the Authority. All costs identified and incurred are AIP-eligible.

Bill: H.R. 1105--Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009.

Project Name: Career and Technical Education Program.

Entity: Grace College and Seminary.

Address: 200 Seminary Lane, Suite 333, Winona Lake, 46590.

Amount: $95,000.

Justification for use of Federal taxpayer dollars: Funds will provide a more non-traditional education opportunity for adult learners through special programs that can be accessed electronically as well as on site during evenings and weekends. This program will help better educate the workforce of northern Indiana, and provide access to educational opportunities to minorities and other underserved segments of the population. Northern Indiana is one of the hardest hit areas in the country during this economic downturn.

Finance Plan:

Budget

Equipment.......................................................$30,000 Course prep......................................................60,000 Administration..................................................250,000 Learning House fees..............................................70,000 Training.........................................................50,000 Faculty.........................................................150,000 Project sustainability..........................................500,000 Marketing.......................................................140,000

Bill: H.R. 1105--Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009.

Project Name: Literacy and Graduation Rate Improvement for Goshen's English as a Second Language (ESL) Students.

Entity: Goshen Community Schools.

Address: 721 E. Purl St., Goshen, IN 46526.

Amount: $285,000.

Justification for use of Federal taxpayer dollars: These funds will allow Goshen Community schools to purchase and implement a technology system that will help our schools' ESL students overcome their language barriers to learning and improve their literacy skills so they can successfully graduate from school on time with their English speaking peers. Goshen Community Schools is a public school corporation in northern Indiana with a high percentage (currently 37 percent) of ESL students.

Finance Plan:

Program Description Budget Amount Staff Development (SIOP) Training...............................$20,000 Substitutes for Teachers being Trained............................4,000 Staff Trainer integration of computer software...................78,000 Computer Hardware and ESL Software..............................165,000 Curriculum Resources..............................................4,000 Literacy Materials for middle and high school....................14,000

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Con. Res. 35, honoring the contributions of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, NAACP, and specifically to pay tribute to the Fort Wayne/Allen County Branch that serves the citizens of northeast Indiana.

As we celebrate the 100th Anniversary of the NAACP, it is important to take time to look back on its accomplishments. Throughout its history the NAACP has advanced the cause of civil rights and stirred the conscience of our nation. Madame Speaker, whether it was standing side by side with Rosa Parks, helping to outlaw the evil practice of lynching, or helping victims of Hurricane Katrina get back on their feet, the NAACP has stood as a ``voice'' and a ``shield'' for minority Americans.

Madam Speaker, from its humble beginnings in a hotel room across from Niagara Falls, to its current operations across the country, the NAACP has grown with our nation. Over the years, it has stayed true to its mission of eliminating racial hatred and racial discrimination.

In northeastern Indiana the NAACP, under the new leadership of the Reverend Bill McGill, has dedicated itself to improving the lives of local minority youth. Madam Speaker, in these difficult economic times the NAACP helps provide these youth with the opportunity they deserve and ensures the promise of our nation extends to all our citizens.

This past January I was pleased to host members of the local branch of the NAACP for the Presidential inauguration, and I was once again struck by their commitment to solving the problems facing our nation. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 35 and urge my colleagues to join me in praising the work of the NAACP and its members in northeast Indiana.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 39, and especially in support of the work being done in Fort Wayne, Indiana, at Bishop Dwenger High School.

According to the 1972 statement by National Conference of Catholic Bishops: ``The educational efforts of the Church, therefore, must be directed to forming persons-in-community; for the education of the individual Christian is important not only to his solitary destiny, but also the destinies of the many communities in which he lives.''

Madam Speaker, Bishop Dwenger has been improving the Fort Wayne community since it welcomed over 200 students in the fall of 1963. They now enroll over 1,100 students and the school has accumulated an impressive list of both academic and athletic accomplishments.

In 2004, the Department of Education recognized Bishop Dwenger as a No Child Left Behind Blue Ribbon School, an accomplishment that places them among the top 10 percent of schools nationwide. Two years later, Bishop Dwenger was recognized as one of the top 50 Catholic schools in the nation.

The school's drive for excellence goes beyond the classroom. Madam Speaker, the students are involved in community service activities to fulfill the school's commitment ``to social awareness through service to others.'' With over 80 percent of Dwenger students involved in at least one extracurricular activity, they have won state championships in football, gymnastics, Spell Bowl and more.

In an increasingly competitive economic environment, a quality education is a prerequisite for future success. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in support of Bishop Dwenger and Catholic schools across the country. These institutions are essential in preparing well- rounded individuals who will be among the future leaders of our country.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 39, and specifically in support of the work being done at St. Charles Borromeo in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

According to the 1972 statement by National Conference of Catholic Bishops: ``The educational efforts of the Church, therefore, must be directed to forming persons-in-community; for the education of the individual Christian is important not only to his solitary destiny, but also the destinies of the many communities in which he lives.''

Madam Speaker, since its founding the St. Charles Borromeo school has been enriching the lives of individuals across Northeastern Indiana. With its emphasis on the traditions and principles of the Catholic faith, the school seeks to infuse in its students a sense of obligation to their community.

Elementary and Middle School are the early steps many individuals take on their way to academic achievement and lifelong learning. With its focus on math, computer training and science, St. Charles Borromeo equips students with the skills needed to thrive in a 21st century economy. Furthermore, by requiring all seventh and eighth grade students to study a foreign language, the school helps prepare students for the globalized marketplace.

As the mission of St. Charles Borromeo states, ``all children deserve a safe, loving, and respectful environment where children and faculty can grow spiritually and academically.'' Madam Speaker, I second these thoughts and am grateful for the contributions the faculty and staff at St. Borromeo make in the lives of young people. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this resolution and the efforts of Catholic schools across the country.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 39, and especially in support of Bishop Luers High School in Fort Wayne, IN.

Madam Speaker, Catholic schools are an incredible asset to our country. Throughout much of our history, Catholic schools have provided a solid moral and intellectual education to millions of students, and served as a crucial stabilizing force for many immigrants to our great Nation. Catholic schools have been able to build communities of character in a way unique to much of the rest of our educational system, testified to by the untold amounts of service that have been performed by their graduates.

Bishop Luers is no different. In its mission statement, Bishop Luers pledges to equip each graduate with the spiritual, academic, and social tools they need to serve God and others--that they may be light to the world, so that, in the words of Matthew, others ``may see your good deeds and glorify your heavenly Father.''

Madam Speaker, Bishop Luers does this incredibly well. The school has many successful graduates, an excellent graduation rate, and impressive athletic achievements. In fact, Bishop Luers has been named one of the Nation's leading Catholic high schools by the national Catholic High School Honor Roll. The men and women of Bishop Luers who each day serve students and families deserve our deep gratitude.

Let me also take a moment briefly to note the incredible work Catholic schools have done and continue to do for minorities, often non-Catholic, and often for very low cost. Indeed, in many poor neighborhoods, the Catholic school is the only good option available to parents. In this way, Catholic schools play a crucial role in the pursuit of justice by building communities that respect the dignity of all people. They deserve our support.

Madam Speaker, I ask that my colleagues join with me in honoring Bishop Luers and other Catholic schools across the country. It is no exaggeration to say that such schools are critical to the future of our country.

First, I want to thank Mr. Ellison who has been waiting for some time to do his Special Order and has agreed in effect to cut the line here. People say that we don't do things in a bipartisan way, but we try to accommodate. And he has been very gracious, and I appreciate that.

I would like to yield 1 minute to Mr. Fortenberry from Nebraska.

I wanted to share a few thoughts. Many years ago, I was a student at Indiana Purdue University in Fort Wayne. I'm old now. But in the late 1960s and 1970s, prior to Roe v. Wade, many of us were concerned about the liberalization of abortion laws in California and New York. And I was then a graduate student at the University of Notre Dame on January 22, 1973 when the Supreme Court decision on abortion came through. Therese Willke, the daughter of Dr. and Mrs. Willke from Cincinnati, who founded the National Right To Life and came up with the little feet, and I formed an organization called Student Coalition for the Human Life Amendment with Dr. Charles Rice who wrote the original human life amendment who was a law professor at Notre Dame and was our faculty adviser. We worked for many years trying to overturn the decision. But it has been interesting to watch both my pattern at the personal level and to watch the pro-life movement evolve. When I was a young male student, quite frankly, I didn't know much about babies, didn't really care a whole lot about babies, thought that maybe when they became college age I would be able to relate well, so I can't say I was initially motivated by love. I was motivated by horror. Who would take the life of these innocent babies?

Probably my first eye-opening experience was in the Lamaze baby course as I was watching my own daughter, Brooke, develop in the womb, feeling the attachment of a parent, and then all of a sudden the love side comes in.

The pro-life movement started mostly as a frustration to overturn a law. But as the pro-life movement evolved, we still have many people trying to be a symbol to the Nation, a conscience in the march here tomorrow and marches all over the country, like in Fort Wayne on Saturday. But my wife now works at the Hope Center. We support women's care centers. Tonight she is on a hotline trying to deal with young mothers. Because for too long, all we were concerned about was stopping abortion and not helping the mothers involved. What do they do? All of a sudden, they're in a disastrous situation. They don't know how they are going to deal with school. They don't know how they are going to deal with their finances.

And what you see in the pro-life movement is not only a love for the baby, but increasingly a love for the parents. And that is part of our responsibility. We can't just point a finger. The question is how do we address poverty? How do we address it on an individual basis, not just conceptually? Are we open that when somebody is in need that will answer the phone, that will provide the food, that will provide the shelter, that will provide the clothing. And it is just amazing to watch these centers all over the country who aren't just talking the talk but are walking the walk.

Tomorrow we will see many of them here in Washington. And I want to thank all those millions of volunteers around the country for showing the true love that comes in the pro-life movement. We need to have political action. But we also need to have this personal action.

I want to again thank Mr. Ellison for yielding. And I yield back the remainder of my time.