Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, but I come to the floor today having responded to the gentlelady from Florida, a distinguished colleague in the Democrat majority, who asked I think a very poignant question on the floor within the last hour, and that was: Where are the reformers?

I must admit, Mr. Chairman, I didn't get the whole gist and the whole context of her question, but it seemed to me that could be a headline. That could be the lead of an editorial. It really represents the question in which much of the exercise in which we are now involved could be summarized.

The chairman of this committee I think has earned throughout his career the label of reformer. I give Chairman Obey that with great respect, not just as a colleague but as a man who has earned that reputation.

But today, as someone who over the last 6 years in this Congress has engaged in fights almost exclusively with my own colleagues on the Republican side, to achieve the beginnings of earmark reform, I ask: Where are the reformers?

And let me specifically say to my Democrat colleagues who share my passion for transparency and accountability, I ask the question: Where are the reformers?

In the last 3 years, and there are colleagues in this room whom I consider not just friends but good friends with whom I have clashed. The ranking member of this subcommittee, we have been on this floor together, Republican on Republican, using, in some cases, the same tactics that we are using today, but we were not training them on the majority. We were training them on our own. We were training these tactics on our own Republican colleagues. That is how passionately we felt for the need for point of order protection in conference reports and for fundamental earmark reform. It would be Members of the Republican Study Committee that virtually singularly took on, not Democrats in the minority, we took on Republicans in the majority. And it was painful among our friends to do it, but we withheld our support for the majority budget. We negotiated fairly but firmly with our own colleagues and friends to achieve the beginnings of earmark reform, requiring that people add their names to earmarks, requiring that earmarks be included in legislation, that they be subject to challenge on the floor of this Congress. These were modest gains, and clearly, the result of election day on November 2006, they

were too little, too late. Our clock ran out on this side of the aisle.

But we were fighting on this side amongst ourselves and making halting progress toward earmark reform. That is why, as I watched this debate and as I participate in it, I will be here, as we say in Indiana, until the cows come home. I ask with a sincere heart: Where are the reformers in the majority? Where are the reformers who will come down into this well, and I see some up there that wear that label and deserve it, but on this issue, where are the reformers who are willing to come into this well and say, how about ``no''? How about we don't bring appropriation bills to the floor without all of the spending items in the bill, including Member projects and earmarks, so they can be subject to the accountability and the scrubbing of the legislative process?

I know it is inconvenient. I do not question for one second the sincerity of the chairman of this committee, that he is trying and laboring to find a way forward to achieve his goals. But at the end of the day, we cannot set aside the accountability of the legislative process. I ask again: Where are the reformers?

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, the distinguished gentleman should know that I have supported earmark reform, not banning earmarks, but we can't have earmarks that deny the legislative process here on the floor. Where are the reformers?

Mr. Speaker, today the President of the United States will come to the Capitol Building to revive a deeply flawed immigration bill being considered in the U.S. Senate.

One year ago, the President challenged this Congress to find an answer to the crisis of illegal immigration, and, Mr. President, amnesty is not the answer. The core fallacy of the Senate bill would grant unlimited Z visa amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants who simply pay a fine and submit to a background check.

While the Senate bill is not the answer, there is a way forward, Mr. Speaker. I truly believe that after the Senate bill goes away, the House of Representatives would do well to come together across party lines and find a way forward that puts border security first, rejects amnesty and creates a new guest worker system that requires illegal immigrants to leave the country to apply and to learn English once they're here.

There is a way forward. We can achieve immigration reform in this Congress, but the Senate bill is not that way.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the King amendment, and I'm grateful for the opportunity to call for this apparently Draconian cut in the Office of the Chief of Staff of the Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. Chairman, I come to the floor today in the context of having, like you, served in the Congress before September 11 and before there was a Department of Homeland Security. And I'll never forget in the hurried moments that would follow 9/11 how we

dealt with the immediate issues, funding, reconstruction and recovery efforts in New York and at the Pentagon, how we put together to the best of our ability transportation security for our country.

But I will never forget coming to this floor and feeling a great and ominous sense of foreboding as we created a Department of Homeland Security. I couldn't help but feel then that we might be unleashing, however well-intended, on the American taxpayers a behemoth of a new bureaucracy that we would someday find ourselves arguing over on this floor in the way we argue over every other bureaucracy.

But it was not meant to be the case. To be candid with you, Mr. Chairman, I thought this day might come decades from now, when the bureaucratic instinct would overtake even the wisdom and the clarity that would be derived on September 11, that made us focus a new department on the specific purpose of protecting our people from a real and present threat of terrorism.

And yet as I look at the watch, it is less than half a decade from that horrific day, and here we are with the party in the majority opposed to keeping bureaucratic and administrative staff funding levels at their previous year. It's really extraordinary to me; $8.8 trillion of national debt, and the majority comes to the floor of this Chamber with a 13.6 percent increase in the Department of Homeland Security.

The current budget, $31.9 billion, the proposed budget, $36.2 billion, more than 50 percent larger, or is $2 billion larger than the President's request. It's astonishing to me. I just have to wonder, as the American people look in on this issue, if they aren't just scratching their heads just the same.

But here we are, having these typical and predictable arguments on the floor of the Congress about bureaucracy and levels of bureaucracy when we are talking about homeland security. We are also doing it very much without, as most of my colleagues have said, without the daylight and the sunshine and the accountability of knowing what will ultimately be in this legislation.

I mean, it is extraordinary to me that a Democrat Congress seems so opposed to practicing democracy on the floor of the House of Representatives. To bring a bill to the floor of this Congress with the promise that Member projects, so-called ``earmark projects,'' will be added long after we have had the opportunity to challenge them.

The Democratic process on this floor is breathtaking to me. Again, it bespeaks of the embrace of a bureaucratic, big-government attitude even where our own homeland security is involved.

We ought, rather, in this process, to know what Members have requested what projects, and we ought to be having a thoughtful and focused discussion on this floor and calling votes one after another on those individual projects to decide what will keep our cities and our people and our families and our children safe. We ought to be having that discussion in the context of a full and open debate.

But, instead, we are told that we don't have time to do that. We are told the public will be made aware of these projects some day in the future.

That's not democracy, that's not the process.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

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

I rise in strong support of the Lamborn amendment, Mr. Chairman, for many of the reasons that have been expressed more eloquently by my colleagues, including the gentleman from Arizona.

It does strike me that at a time of an $8.8 trillion national debt, that we should be able to ask the Department of Homeland Security to get by on last year's public affairs budget, which is really all the Lamborn amendment does, by my way of thinking, is it asks the Department of Homeland Security to stay at the $6 million level for a public affairs budget as opposed to moving to a $6.3 million.

As my friend from Arizona just expressed, this legislation overall will allow for a 13.6 percent increase in a single year. And as other amendments have illuminated, much of those increases are simply going for the same kind of bureaucracy that we will argue over in every other aspect of government.

But I go back to my previous point, Mr. Chairman. I thought for sure when we created the Department of Homeland Security that it would be different. And I have to say, that is probably a naive thought. We excluded it from many of the public employee protections. We gave the President of the United States greater flexibility because we said, you know, very much like the military, the Department of Homeland Security will have a special and unique mission. It would not just be another Cabinet agency that we would be feeding from the trough here on Capitol Hill in the appropriations process every year. But here we are. Here we are with a Democrat majority that is opposed to even our willingness, with the outstanding leadership of the ranking member, to let this Department get by a 7 percent increase next year as opposed to 13.6.

I also would renew my objection expressed in much of the procedure that is happening on the floor today and well into tonight, and perhaps well into the rest of the week; that is, it is astonishing to me that a Democratic Congress is against democracy when it comes to providing for accountability in the spending process in the United States Congress. I mean, to simply say that there are tens of thousands of specific so- called earmark projects that have been requested of the committee that are in some filing cabinet here in the Capitol Building, but that were not able to be added to this bill in a timely fashion so that the democratic process and the accountability of this open rule could serve as that antiseptic that it is supposed to function is quite beyond me.

It is quite beyond me that the Democrat majority would think that the American people would be willing, having clamored loudly in the last election for fundamental reform in the way we spend the people's money, fundamental earmark reform, with the infamous ``bridge to nowhere,'' would now allow and stand idly by while the Democrat majority brings about earmark reform that says we will only bring earmarks when they can no longer be removed from bills. We will presumably make them public during the month of August so people can look at them, but we will give Members of Congress absolutely no power to challenge those earmarks in the legislative process. That seems to me to be a breathtaking step backwards from the earmark reform that the American people demanded in 2006.

And so I renew my support for the Lamborn amendment, Mr. Chairman, but I also renew my objection to the fact that we are seeing appropriations bills, starting today, coming to the floor with, shall we say, room to grow, room to add earmarks at a time in the legislative process when they cannot be challenged, and therefore, the interests of the American people and the accountability they demand cannot be served in the ordinary legislative process.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, today Congress is once again poised to pass legislation that authorizes the use of Federal tax dollars to fund the destruction of human embryos for scientific research, and I oppose it.

I believe that life begins at conception. A human embryo is a human life, and therefore I do think it is morally wrong to create human life to destroy it for research.

But while supporters of this bill will argue this debate is a battle between science and ideology, that really misses the point. The debate today is not about whether we should do embryonic stem cell research. It is legal in all 50 States of this country. The debate today is about who pays for it.

It is simply morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans who believe that life is sacred and use it to fund the destruction of human embryos for research.

The debate today is not really about what an embryo is. The debate is about who we are as a Nation and whether we will respect the deeply held moral views of more than half of our citizenry.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. Having been here before, I expect its passage. On behalf of millions of pro-life Americans, I say, Mr. President, veto this bill again.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his strong and clarion remarks on this rule.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule and rise to oppose the underlying bill as well.

I must tell you, as I listened to the gentlelady from Ohio bring her remarks to the floor, I want to say, there they go again. There they go again, telling the American people that this is a debate between science and ideology when, in fact, destructive embryonic stem cell research, despite my strong moral objections, is completely legal in the United States of America.

The debate today is not about whether embryonic stem cell research, research that destroys a human embryo for scientific research, should take place. This is just about who pays for it.

I can understand why Members of the majority want to focus on this false choice between science and ideology.

The language like America becoming a hostile environment for medical research is amusing me, because destructive embryonic stem cell research, and I say this with a heavy heart, is legal in all 50 States in America. It is simply that liberals in this country are not content to simply have research that destroys human embryos for unproven human science, but they want me to pay for it. They want tens of millions of Americans who, like I do, believe that life begins at conception to see their taxpayer dollars used to fund research that they find morally objectionable. That's really the issue.

The debate is not about whether we should do embryonic stem cell research, would that it was, would that we were here on the floor actually debating along the fault lines of science and morality. I am ready for that debate. Forty-eight years and nine months ago today, I was an embryo. I am ready to have the debate about the sanctity and the value of human life. But we are not having that debate today.

America since Roe v. Wade has moved past the issue that was framed so eloquently by the late President Ronald Reagan. He said, we cannot diminish the value of one category of one human life without diminishing the value of all human life.

But our Supreme Court made a decision decades ago that we would put choice above life. But I will stay in that moral debate. But, again, it's not what we're about today. And any one of my colleagues here on the floor and anyone listening in, let's at least be honest about what we're talking about. And that is, this debate is not about whether we should do embryonic stem cell research. And I know we've heard from wonderful scientists on our side of the aisle who've reminded us, inconvenient for the majority, that 100 percent of the scientific breakthroughs that have taken place in stem cell research have taken place in adult stem cell research. There's not been a single therapy developed from embryonic stem cell research, and there are scientific reasons why we can expect that there never will be, given the instability of nascent human life at that stage. But I'm not an expert in that area.

You know, I'm a guy; I come from south of Highway 40 in Indiana. I keep things real simple. This is just a debate about who pays for research that destroys human embryos. And I simply want to say again, this debate is not really about what an embryo is. This debate is about who we are as a Nation; whether or not Congress will, as they did before, send legislation to the President of the United States that will take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans and use it to fund research that they find morally objectionable. But I can count, Mr. Speaker. I expect this legislation will pass again. But I thank God that we have a President in the White House who will, I have every confidence, veto this legislation just as he did before, and that we have a tenacious pro-life minority in this House that will defend the President's veto.

Let me say, again, I believe that life begins at conception. And I believe it's morally wrong to create human life to destroy it for scientific research. But that is not what this debate is about. This debate is not about whether we should do embryonic stem cell research; it's about who pays for it. And liberals in this Congress are not content simply to have embryonic stem cell research legal in all 50 States. They want pro-life Americans like me to get our wallets out and finance it, and I'm not having that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Yes, I am in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this motion to recommit with instructions. Part of my responsibilities here in the Congress are that I serve as the ranking Republican member on the Middle East Subcommittee on the Committee on Foreign Affairs. As such, I have been intimately involved in the development of the underlying legislation and am strongly supportive of it.

But I think it is also imperative that we adopt this motion to recommit and add language that addresses an issue of great concern to the United States of America, to Afghanistan, and to the free world.

Mr. Speaker, we are receiving numerous reports that Iranian-made arms are being shipped to Afghanistan and transferred to the Taliban and other radical Islamic forces that seek to kill U.S. troops and Afghan forces.

This past April, General Peter Pace, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, confirmed that, ``We have intercepted weapons in Afghanistan headed for the Taliban that were made in Iran.''

This past Monday, on a visit to Kabul, Defense Secretary Robert Gates noted that the weapons are flowing not only to the Taliban but to drug traffickers as well. ``There have been indications over the past few months of weapons coming in from Iran. Some weapons,'' he said, ``are coming into Afghanistan destined for the Taliban, but perhaps also for criminal elements involved in the drug trafficking coming from Iran.''

The arms transferred reportedly include mortars, rocket-propelled grenades, C-4 explosives, surface-to-air missiles reportedly supplied by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and rockets with a 30-mile range.

Most disturbingly, an explosively formed projectile, an EFP, similar in characteristics to the Iranian-made ones that have killed our soldiers in Iraq, were recently discovered in Kabul.

Given Iran's unceasingly hostile rhetoric and actions in opposition to the United States, our interests and our allies, and given that these weapons were made in Iran, it is very reasonable to draw the conclusion that the Iranian regime transferred these arms to the Taliban.

We cannot allow Iran to undermine U.S. efforts and kill our soldiers in Afghanistan or to return that country to the status of a failed State and pave the way for increased terrorism against the West.

What we must do, simply, is to confront and respond to any efforts to subvert our efforts and kill our troops in Afghanistan.

As General Pace noted, ``I think we should continue to be aggressive inside of Iraq, and aggressive inside of Afghanistan, in attacking any element that's attacking U.S. and coalition forces, regardless of where they come from.''

If we are to be vigilant in protecting the lives of our soldiers and our allies' soldiers and security forces, we cannot tie the hands of our President and our commanders in the field. They need to have every option at their disposal and opportunity to combat an insidious threat from Iran that appears to be supplying weapons to our enemies.

Accordingly, we offer this motion to recommit which explicitly states that the Afghanistan Freedom and Security

Support Act does not limit America's ability to respond to attacks that Iran supports or facilitates against our forces or interests in Afghanistan.

As the United States begins to engage Iran diplomatically, we must also make it clear that we will defend our allies and our interests in Afghanistan with all the means at our disposal.

Mr. Speaker, our relationship with Iran should be described as follows: one hand extended in diplomatic negotiation and another hand resting lightly on the holster of the arsenal of democracy.

Mr. Speaker, in support of our troops, in support of freedom and stability in Afghanistan, I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to strongly support this motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, last year, the President of the United States

called on Congress to find a rational middle ground between amnesty and mass deportation in the debate over immigration reform. Then, as now, the Senate is moving legislation that would respond to the President's call by simply granting amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants.

But amnesty is not the middle ground. The true middle ground of this national debate would put border security first; reject amnesty and require that all illegal immigrants leave the country and apply outside the United States for the legal right to live and work here; create a new center built on the private sector that could make that an orderly process; temporary workers returning to America would learn English; and employers hiring illegals would face serious penalties.

That is the true rational middle ground, and after the Senate is done with its work, I hope it is the middle ground that we find in this Chamber on behalf of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to control the time of the gentleman from Texas.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I was unable to vote on May 21, 2007. Had I been present, I would have voted in the following manner:

Rollcall 384 (On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended-- H.R. 698) ``aye''; and

Rollcall 385 (On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass--H.R. 4096)-- ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, over the past year, I have worked with colleagues in the House and Senate to achieve border security and comprehensive immigration reform without amnesty. I believe illegal immigration is a crisis that demands a national response, but amnesty is not that response.

From what we know about the recent compromise announced in the Senate, there are many commendable elements of the plan, including stronger border security measures and a shift to a merit-based immigration system. However, ultimately what has been dubbed a ``grand bargain'' is no bargain for the American people.

By permitting illegal immigrants to get right with the law without leaving the country, the Senate compromise amounts to amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants, and I cannot support it.

I do hope to continue to work with colleagues in both parties in the House and Senate to craft final legislation that puts border security first, creates a temporary worker program without amnesty, that requires illegal immigrants to leave the country to apply, and, when they come, to learn English and live under the law when they are here.

Madam Chairman, on Monday I was proud to visit with sailors at Naval Station Norfolk, the largest military station in the world. When the 78 ships and 133 aircraft home ported at Norfolk are not at sea, they are alongside one of the 14 piers or inside one of the 15 aircraft hangars for repair, refit, training and to provide the ship's or squadron's crew an opportunity to be with their families.

As I looked into the eyes of our brave men and women in uniform, I felt sick knowing that instead of getting the support they need in this fight, this Democratic Congress is pulling the rug out from under them. Democrats on the House Armed Services Committee rejected Republican efforts to adopt an amendment to H.R. 1585 that would have authorized emergency supplemental appropriations for Fiscal Year 2007.

Madam Chairman, I rise today to condemn the Democratic plan to fund the war on the installment plan. Failure to pass an acceptable long- term supplemental appropriations bill for FY07 is a clear and present danger to our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, to the Department of Defense institutionally, and to its national security mission to defend the homeland.

Tomorrow marks the 100th day since the administration asked Congress to provide funding for our troops. Because Congress has not sent the President an acceptable supplemental funding bill, DoD will notify Congress today of its intent again to transfer an additional $1.4 billion from Navy and Air Force personnel accounts to fund on-going Army operations in the War on Terror. This funding will last about a week.

This latest transfer request is the fifth one necessitated by the lack of supplemental funding. In sum, two have been necessary to fund Army operations, one to fund procurement of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, one to bolster the Iraqi Security Forces, and one to counter improvised explosive devices.

In addition to these transfers, the Army has moved funding originally allocated for fourth quarter expenses into the third quarter. The Army Operations and Maintenance account--the principal account that covers day-to-day Army operations--no longer has any funding available for the fourth quarter operations.

Moving money around like this creates uncertainty and inefficiency, ultimately costing the taxpayers more money in the long run and wreaking havoc on existing contracts.

The funding delay has already caused disruptions. Delays have limited DoD's ability to properly contract for the reconstitution of equipment for active and reserve forces. This increases the readiness risk of our military with each passing day. Needless delays in accelerated fielding of new force protection capabilities such as the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle and counter-lED technologies. Depletion of funds necessary to accelerate the training of Iraqi security forces.

Without relief soon, the Department of Defense will be forced to take further drastic steps like halting training, delaying deployments and re-deployments, and/or resorting to the use of the Feed and Forage Act, which permits obligation of funds prior to appropriation in emergency situations, an extremely poor and disruptive way of waging a war on terror.

Madam Chairman, our troops need funding and they need it now.

2007 Reprogrammed funds for the Department of Defense

DoD has $4.5 billion in General Transfer Authority. All

transfers in excess must come from other sources. War-related

reprogramming includes: Mine Resistant Ambush Protected

(MRAP) Vehicles: $32 million from emergency funding for

Humvees and radios; Iraq Security Forces Fund: $800 million

Under General Transfer Authority as well as various Army

military personnel, procurement, and research and development

programs (includes helicopter modifications, ammunition, and

communications equipment); IED Defeat: $825 million Under

General Transfer Authority from 4th quarter Navy and Air

Force personnel accounts funding; and Army Operations: $3

billion under General Transfer Authority from 4th quarter

Navy and Air Force personnel accounts funding.

Total Requested Transfers: $4.918 billion.

Total General Transfer Authority Remaining: $342 million.

Letter from Defense Secretary Robert Gates to Congressional leadership

on incremental funding proposals:

Delays have limited DoD's ability to properly contract for

the reconstitution of equipment for active and reserve

forces. The readiness risk of our military increases with

each passing day. The funding delay has caused needless

delays in accelerating fielding of new force protection

capabilities such as the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected

(MRAP) vehicles and counter-IED technologies.

The delay has caused a depletion of funds necessary to

accelerate the training of Iraqi security forces. ``The

prospect of segmenting and further delaying funding that is

urgently needed can only result in additional disruption and

uncertainty in department operations . . . An organization

the size and complexity of the Department of Defense needs a

certain measure of funding stability and predictability.

Without it, compensatory measures are required that cause, at

best inefficiency and at worst a reduction in the

Department's ability to carry out its national security

mission.''

Secretary of Defense Talkers (we received these from a friend that

asked we not identify the source):

Because Congress hasn't sent Congress an acceptable

supplemental funding bill, DoD will notify Congress of its

intent again to transfer an additional $1.4 billion. This

funding will only last about a week. The latest transfer

request is the 5th one necessitated by the lack of

supplemental funding. The Army has moved funding originally

allocated for fourth quarter expenses into the third quarter.

The Army Operations and Maintenance account--the principal

account that covers day-to-day Army operations--no longer has

any funding available for fourth quarter operations. Without

relief soon, DoD will be forced to take further drastic steps

like halting training, delaying deployments and re-

deployments, and/or resorting to the use of the Feed and

Forage Act, which permits obligation of funds prior to

appropriation in emergency situations, an extremely poor and

disruptive way of waging a war on terror.

From April 16 Heritage Memo titled, ``Funding Needs Prompt Army

Spending Constraints.''

Beginning in mid-April, the Army will slow the purchase of

repair parts and other supplies, relying instead on existing

inventory to keep equipment operational. Joint Letter to

Chairman Obey from Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, Adm. Michael G.

Mullen, Gen. T. Michael Moseley, and Gen. James T. Conway:

``Without approval of the supplemental funds in April, the

Armed Services will be forced to take increasingly disruptive

measures in order to sustain combat operations. The impacts

on readiness and quality of life could be profound.''

Gen. Peter Pace: After mid-April, ``the army has told us

that they will have to begin curtailing some training here at

home for Guard, Reserve, and for units, which means that the

baseline for those units will be reduced as far as their

capability, and when they're called, it will take them longer

to be ready and could, over time, delay their availability to

go back into combat.''

Defense Secretary Robert Gates: ``This kind of disruption

to key programs will have a genuinely adverse effect on the

readiness of the Army and the quality of life for soldiers

and their families. I urge the Congress to pass the

supplemental as quickly as possible.''

Madam Speaker, on immigration reform the halls of Congress are abuzz with rumors of a ``grand compromise'' on the issue of illegal immigration. There is talk of a proposal that would allow millions of illegal immigrants to remain in this country by merely paying a fine.

Let me say emphatically, Madam Speaker, amnesty is no bargain for the American people. Any effort at comprehensive immigration reform must begin by rejecting amnesty, will put border security first, and not implement any type of temporary worker program until border security measures have been undertaken and completed. And once a temporary worker program begins, we must require that every person who has come into this country illegally leave the United States and apply outside of our country for the legal right to live and work here. And if they come under the color of the law, we must require temporary workers to learn the language of the American people.

In addition, serious fines and an electronic verification system must ensure a full partnership between American business and the American government in enforcing our immigration laws.

The real grand bargain for the American people is comprehensive immigration reform that begins with an affirmation of the rule of law.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I always find the majority leader's comments compelling and moving. He is among the best communicators I think in this generation of leaders in this House. And let me say as a conservative Member of this House who was in Baghdad one month ago, I believe that it is imperative that we express to the Iraqi Government an urgency about performing on all the issues that the majority leader just addressed.

But the reason why I rise in opposition to this bill is because under the Constitution of the United States, Congress can declare war, Congress can choose to fund or not to fund war, but Congress cannot conduct war. And the latest Democratic plan to micromanage our war in Iraq is ``war on the installment plan,'' and it should be rejected on the basis of proof on the ground and common sense and history.

The proof on the ground is this: Baghdad is not safe, but it is safer as I saw a month ago. Due to more than two dozen U.S. and Iraqi installations set up throughout the city, insurgent violence is down. Thanks to the fact that 20 of 22 tribal leaders have stepped forward to support U.S. and Iraqi governmental forces, violence in the al-Anbar province is coming down.

Now is not the time for us to say we will do war on the installment plan and come back in 60 days and evaluate.

My Democrat colleagues heard General Petraeus on the Hill 10 days ago. He said by late summer we will have a better idea whether the surge is taking hold. He pledged to report to this Congress in September. So why this? Why do we come here tonight with a 60-day timetable for another vote?

As our troops do their duty on the ground in Iraq, our duty is clear. Let's set aside the politics of the moment. Let's find a common ground and build legislation that is constitutionally sound and fiscally responsible. Let's give our soldiers the resources they need to get the job done and then come home safe.

Mr. Speaker, enshrined in the first amendment of the Constitution are these words: ``Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press.''

Nevertheless, in the last two decades, we have seen a troubling increase in the number of occasions where reporters have faced threats of subpoena, subpoenas and even jail time for refusing to reveal confidential sources.

Mr. Speaker, compelling reporters to testify and compelling them to reveal the identity of their confidential sources is a detriment to the public interest. And last week, my colleague, Congressman Rick Boucher of Virginia, along with a distinguished bipartisan group of original cosponsors, introduced the Free Flow of Information Act, which would protect a reporter's right to keep confidential sources confidential.

As a conservative who believes in limited government, I believe the only check on government power in real time is a free and independent press.

I urge all of my colleagues to give due consideration to this bipartisan legislation. Let us put a stitch in this tear in the first amendment freedom of the press. I urge cosponsorship of the Free Flow of Information Act.

Mr. Speaker, I come before the House today in strong opposition to the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. It would be Thomas Jefferson who would remind the American people that the government reaches actions only and not opinions, in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptists.

This legislation is unnecessary and bad public policy. Violent attacks on people or property are already illegal regardless of the motive behind them, and there is no evidence that underlying violent crimes at issue here are not already being fully and aggressively prosecuted. Therefore, hate crimes laws serve no practical purpose and, instead, serve to penalize people for their thoughts and beliefs.

Now, some of these thoughts and beliefs are abhorrent, like racism and sexism, and I disdain them. But hate crimes bills are broad enough to encompass legitimate beliefs as well, and protecting the rights of freedom of speech and religion must be paramount on our minds.

The first amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. There is a real possibility that this bill, as written, that religious leaders or members of religious groups could be prosecuted criminally based on their speech or protected activities under conspiracy laws or section 2 of title XVIII, which holds a person criminally liable if they aid and abet in the commission of a crime. Putting a chill on a pastor's words or a religious broadcaster's programming, an evangelical leader's message, or even the leader of a small group Bible study is a blatant attack on the constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of religion.

Last week, I offered an amendment before the committee that simply would have stated that nothing in this section limits the religious freedom of any person or group under the Constitution. Unfortunately, this amendment was rejected by the majority and rejected by the Rules Committee for consideration today.

We must guard against the potential for abuse of hate crimes laws. The Pence amendment would have done so by stating, once and for all, that people in groups will not have their constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of religion taken away.

On this National Day of Prayer, let's take a stand for the right of every American to believe and speak and pray in accordance with the dictates of their conscience and reject this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I come before the House today in strong opposition to H.R. 1592, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

As Thomas Jefferson once said, ``Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.''

This legislation is unnecessary and bad public policy. Violent attacks on people or property are already illegal regardless of the motive behind them and there is no evidence that the underlying violent crimes at issue here are not already being fully and aggressively prosecuted in the States. Therefore, hate crimes laws serve no practical purpose and instead serve to penalize people for their thoughts, beliefs or attitudes.

Some of these thoughts, beliefs or attitudes such as racism and sexism are abhorrent, and I disdain them. However the hate crimes bill is broad enough to encompass legitimate beliefs, and protecting the rights of freedom of speech and religion must be paramount in our minds.

The First Amendment to the Constitution provides that ``Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.'' America

was founded upon the notion that the government should not interfere with the religious practices of its citizens. Constitutional protection for the free exercise of religion is at the core of the American experiment in democracy.

There is a real possibility that as this bill is written, religious leaders or members of religious groups could be prosecuted criminally based on their speech or protected activities under conspiracy law or section 2 of title 18, which holds criminally liable anyone who aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission; or one who ``willfully causes an act to be done'' by another.

In the debate at the Judiciary Committee, much was made of the fact that an amendment was adopted by the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Davis. However, that amendment did not go far enough in making it clear that the bill will not limit religious freedom. The sponsor of the amendment admitted that a pastor could still be targeted under the bill for incitement of violence for simply preaching his religious beliefs. For example if a pastor included a statement in his sermon that sexual relations outside of marriage is wrong, and a member of the congregation caused bodily injury to a person having such relations, that sermon could be used as evidence against the pastor.

Putting a chill on a pastor's words, a religious broadcaster's programming, an evangelical leader's message, or even the leader of a small-group Bible study is a blatant attack on the Constitutionally- guaranteed right to freedom of religion.

Last week when the Judiciary Committee took up this bill, I offered an amendment to make it clear that the bill will not affect the Constitutional right to religious freedom.

The Pence Amendment stated, ``Nothing in this section limits the religious freedom of any person or group under the Constitution.''

Unfortunately, the amendment was defeated by the majority in the Judiciary Committee. Yesterday, I submitted the Pence Religious Freedom Amendment to the Rules Committee for consideration, but that committee chose to adopt a closed rule for today's debate, effectively blocking my amendment and many other good amendments from consideration.

We must guard against the potential for abuse of hate crimes laws, and the Pence Amendment would have done so by stating once and for all that people and groups will not have their Constitutionally-guaranteed right to religious freedom taken away.

Mr. Speaker, this bill threatens religious freedom by criminalizing religious thoughts. On this National Day of Prayer, let's take a stand for the right of every American to believe, speak and pray in accordance with the dictates of their conscience. Take a stand for religious freedom and the First Amendment and vote no on the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act.