Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Gingrey

Amendment No. 4: Page 2, line 20, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $108,470)''.

Offered By: Mr. Gingrey

Amendment No. 5: Page 3, line 6, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $167,230)''.

Offered By: Mr. Gingrey

Amendment No. 6: Page 3, line 9, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $60,760)''.

Offered By: Mr. Gingrey

Amendment No. 7: Page 4, line 4, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $7,090)''.

Offered By: Mr. Gingrey

Amendment No. 8: Page 5, line 20, after the dollar amount,

insert ``(reduced by $239,130)''.

Mr. Speaker, it saddens me today that I have to vote against the farm bill, a $57 billion-a-year bill.

I am compassionate and I care about the farmers in my district, but I must vote ``no'' and I must vote ``no'' for two reasons, one of which the gentleman from Tennessee just outlined. The bill calls for a massive tax increase on foreign companies that are doing business in this country. And in the State of Georgia, that is 176,000 jobs, 59,000 of them in the manufacturing sector. The gentleman from Tennessee has a better idea, and I plan to support his amendment.

And, Mr. Speaker, the Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirement absolutely hurts innovative businesses, like U.S. Biofuels in Rome, Georgia, that want to convert chicken fat and soy beans to biofuel; and yet these prevailing wages take away all incentive for that.

We kill jobs in this country with this farm bill, and I reluctantly must vote ``no'' and ask my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, as many of my colleagues know, I have been working on legislation to temporarily suspend the Visa Waiver Program until our ports of entry are secure with the technology outlined and required by the 2001 PATRIOT Act and the Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002.

For those who don't know, the Visa Waiver Program was established back in 1986 as a temporary program allowing tourists or short-term business visitors to enter the United States for 90 days or less without obtaining a visa. The program was later made permanent by Congress, and it currently includes 27 countries.

The problem with this system is that terrorists are not limited by borders, nationality or even ethnicity. A terrorist with a French passport can be just as dangerous as one from Iran. In short, we need to make sure everyone who enters this country is appropriately screened.

This conference report will expand the Visa Waiver Program simply at the discretion of the Secretary of State.

Many of us read in the news this summer that the failed London and Glasgow bombings are linked to homegrown British terrorists with ties to al Qaeda in Iraq. I don't doubt that the United Kingdom is one of our closest allies, but this goes to show that even our greatest friends can be vulnerable to homegrown terrorists possessing legitimate citizenship documentation and authorized legal passports.

Giving terrorists a free pass of any type into our country only welcomes more strikes on our homeland, and it strengthens these organizations, these terrorist organizations right here in the United States. We cannot afford additional visa waiver countries and provide more opportunities for terrorists to breach a loophole in our security.

How much time does our Nation have before immigration, customs enforcement, our air marshals, the TSA, Transportation Security Administration, misses the next Richard Reid.

In closing, this conference report will not secure our Homeland Security if it expands the opportunity for terrorists to travel to the United States. As a Member of the House Senate Conference Committee, I would not sign a report with language expanding this program.

I urge my colleagues, vote down the rule and the underlying legislation. Let's send it back to the conference and secure our Homeland Security.

Mr. Chairman, as we begin debate on the FY2008 Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill, I want to highlight the National Textile Center (NTC). The NTC is a 15-year-old grant program that supports research at nine member universities, including Georgia Tech, and is the main source of innovation for U.S. textile, fiber and apparel industries. In Georgia, the textile, fiber and apparel industry is the state's largest manufacturing employer with annual payroll of $500 million. It is imperative that this industry continue to benefit from the infusion of new ideas and talent that is the basis of the programs of the National Textile Center. National Textile Center projects in Georgia have lead to improving Georgia industry processes including new approaches to carpet recycling and new environmentally friendly approaches to dyes and bleaches that lower costs, increase competitiveness, and improve the local plant environmental impact. Outside of helping the textile industry respond to rapidly changing market demands, the NTC has also inspired and trained highly skilled talent for the U.S. textile industry and created educational opportunities in science, engineering, and technology for U.S. citizens and permanent residents from K-12 through the doctoral level.

Mr. Chairman, the National Textile Center has clearly been an excellent steward of past funding provided by the Department of Commerce. With this in mind, I ask Chairman Mollohan, Ranking Member Frelinghuysen, and my colleagues in both bodies to preserve current funding and remember the importance of this program during the Conference process.

Mr. Speaker, while I see good reforms and programs in this farm bill, I also see onerous provisions such as a massive tax increase on foreign companies who are providing good jobs here in the United States, and Davis-Bacon restrictions on biofuel production plants that drive up costs far beyond any included incentive grants.

In 2003, a constituent of Georgia's 11th District named Greg Hopkins took a big risk and decided to construct and operate a biofuel production plant called U.S. Biofuels in Rome, Georgia. He found a market demand, and that is the reason for his plant. But in order to make a profit, Greg has to minimize costs wherever possible. If the United States is serious about moving our country to alternative fuels, we don't need restrictions like Davis-Bacon prevailing wages.

It is clear to me that the Democratic leadership of the 110th Congress is more interested in doing favors for deep-pocketed labor union supporters than protecting domestic biofuel producers, and I must oppose this rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, BATFE, has been in operation without substantial changes since the days of prohibition, bootlegging and gang violence in the 1920s and 1930s.

Last year the House Judiciary Committee considered legislation that would have introduced real reform to BATFE, updating the agency for the 21st century, although time ran out before Congress could get anything accomplished.

One issue of reform I remain particularly concerned about is how BATFE actually tests firearms submitted by law-abiding firearm designers and manufacturers seeking approval to put their product on the market.

Mr. Chairman, without written and uniform standards, gun manufacturers are left guessing about which agent will inspect the firearm this week, whether or not they will be able to ship a product out to potential customers, and whether or not BATFE agents might even prosecute someone because of a shipping mistake or a firearm malfunction. So I have introduced legislation called the Fairness in Firearms Testing Act to address this problem, and it requires BATFE, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, to actually videotape firearms tests for the purpose of general oversight, and encourage the agency to adopt these testing standards. However, the amendment I'm offering today would cut right to the point by withholding funds to BATFE if they do not write and publish these testing standards.

More specifically, this amendment creates a level playing field for all United States firearm manufacturers who depend on getting a firearm patented and on the market as soon as possible.

Mr. Chairman, without written procedures, BATFE has literally a free rein to mistreat manufacturers, change their mind after the fact, and leave both manufacturers and customers at a legal and financial disadvantage. In fact, BATFE regulations are so inconsistent that some manufacturers have been threatened with prosecution after receiving written approval for their products from other BATFE personnel.

Since 2002, 85 percent of American firearm manufacturers have been forced to close their doors. Let me repeat that, Mr. Chairman. Since 2002, 85 percent of American firearm manufacturers have been forced to close their doors. There are only 373 licensed firearm inventors and manufacturers left in America. Moreover, with the increase in number of imported firearms purchased by civilians and law enforcement alike, our Nation is at a strategic defensive disadvantage.

Mr. Chairman, I realize that the chairman has reserved a point of order, and he will explain that, I'm sure, momentarily, but it's my understanding that if I do agree to withdraw this amendment, that the chairman and the committee will work with me to help bring reforms to the BATFE, including these written standards, to help United States firearm manufacturers. I would be happy to yield to the chairman and to engage in a colloquy with him regarding that. Otherwise, in the absence of an agreement, then certainly I want to go forward with my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the chairman.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I understand exactly what the chairman is saying. I'm not necessarily expecting any hard and fast promises on his behalf.

And I didn't mean, Mr. Chairman, for the amendment to catch the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee by surprise in any way, not to be blind-sided or coming up at the last minute. We've had the amendment, we filed the amendment. In fact, I had, Mr. Chairman, introduced legislation pertaining specifically to this effect last year in the 109th Congress, so this amendment basically is a follow-up to that legislation.

I want to thank the gentleman from West Virginia, the distinguished chairman. I appreciate your spirit of cooperation. And I know there are some concerns about the amendment, I appreciate that. But I welcome your support on this matter, and I look forward

to working with you. Let's discuss it and make sure you understand exactly where I'm coming from in regard to the amendment. I think it makes a lot of sense, and I hope I can convince you of the same.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

I stand in full support of her amendment to cut one-half of 1 percent from a $51 billion appropriations bill.

Mr. Chairman, a few minutes ago when my colleague from Georgia had an amendment that wanted to cut 1 percent, 1 percent, 1 penny on the dollar, you ruled that the voice vote was enough, that the Democratic majority had rejected my colleague from Georgia's amendment to just cut 1 penny. And now my colleague from Colorado, you won't accept that. So we are asking you would you cut 50 cents, one-half of 1 percent?

When my colleague from Georgia was talking, the gentleman from Ohio called us this ``fringe group'' on that side of the aisle. This ``fringe group.'' Well, Mr. Chairman, I am a proud member of that fringe group, as well as another 104 Members on this side of the aisle that are part of that fringe group, indeed, the majority of the minority. The gentleman from Ohio, who is part of that fringe group, the 30-Somethings, the next time I say that to him, I will say I am paying him a compliment. He is too young to remember the song from the musical ``Oklahoma'': ``The Surrey With the Fringe on Top.'' But it is that fringe on top of the surrey that makes that carriage so beautiful that it is going to deliver some fiscal responsibility to the great people of this country.

And how many times, Mr. Chairman, have you seen a spot on television or the radio where they tug at your heartstrings by asking, won't you just give 1 penny to the children, or won't you just give 1 penny to the starving people in Bangladesh, or won't you just give 1 penny to the veterans, or won't you give 1 penny to this group or that group? And what we are saying on this side of the aisle, Mr. Chairman, is won't you just return 50 cents to the hardworking taxpayers of this country who are sweating, slaving, and working every day trying to make ends meet?

And as the gentlewoman from Colorado pointed out, this is not a cut. This is just reducing the increase from 6.7 percent of what we spent in fiscal year 2007 to 6.2 percent. And say to my friends, the Democratic majority, who want to increase spending $81 billion in this fiscal year, when they are complaining about an $8.9 trillion debt, how does that make sense, if you are concerned about the debt, and you have got these signs all over the Capitol, and you want to increase spending $81 billion?

Let's get real. Let's get real. We asked you to cut 3 percent; you won't do that. We asked you to cut 1 percent; you won't do that. You won't even give a penny back. And we ask you to give half of a penny now in the gentlewoman's amendment from Colorado. It is the compassionate thing to do.

Vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

Offered By: Mr. Gingrey

Amendment No. 23: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment that I am offering along with the gentleman from Ohio, Representative Jim Jordan. This amendment would ensure that none of the funds made available in this act may be used to establish or implement any requirement that individuals receive vaccinations of the human papillomavirus, or HPV, as a condition of school admittance or matriculation.

Essentially, the amendment would serve as an incentive to States to keep HPV vaccination programs voluntary and not mandatory.

Madam Chairman, at least 24 States have entertained legislation which takes the unprecedented step of requiring young girls to be vaccinated against HPV. I say ``unprecedented'' because HPV is not a communicable disease. It is not mumps. It is not measles. You don't get it by sneezing or sharing a juice box over recess. HPV is, in fact, a sexually transmitted disease. As such, vaccination should not be mandatory to attend school.

Indeed, Madam Chairman, we urgently need to address this issue. The Commonwealth of Virginia has already enacted a vaccine mandate into law. The District of Columbia City Council has passed one that is awaiting congressional action.

Madam Chairman, there are many reasons parents and students might object to mandatory HPV vaccination, from age appropriateness, indeed, initially, in the State of Texas it was going to be required for admission to middle school for fifth and sixth graders, and concerns over vaccine safety. I could go on. But whatever the reason, it is a discussion for parents and physicians, not legislators and bureaucrats.

Madam Chairman, excluding children from school for refusal to be vaccinated for a disease that is spread only by sexual intercourse is a serious, precedent-setting action that trespasses on the rights of parents to make medical decisions for their children, as well as on the rights of children to attend school. A mandatory HPV vaccine program improperly and unnecessarily inserts the government into lives of children, parents and physicians.

The American College of Pediatricians is opposed to it. The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons is opposed to it. We need to make sure that these programs are not mandatory.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

If the gentleman will yield, I say to the gentleman, of course, Federal funds could definitely be used in a situation where a child is eligible for SCHIP or the Medicaid program. In this amendment, Federal dollars would not be used for that purpose.

At this time, Madam Chairman, I would like to yield to my good friend from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

Madam Chairman, in conclusion, I ask all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, the chairman is going to accept my amendment, and I hope that everyone else will.

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

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

To the gentleman from Wisconsin, yes, we did ask.

Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my request for a recorded vote.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, on June 29, 2004, the United States Commission of Social Security signed a totalization agreement with the director general of Mexican Social Security Institute to coordinate our Social Security programs.

The Social Security Totalization Agreement with Mexico gives those who have broken our laws the ability to claim Social Security benefits. While current U.S. law prohibits illegal immigrants from receiving Social Security benefits, until 2004 the law did permit illegal aliens to claim credit for work in the United States. If these individuals have amassed over 40 quarters of work, whether their status was legal or illegal, they would be eligible for full benefits.

Considering the ongoing debate over reform and solvency of our Social Security system, it is important to first remove financial incentives to individuals who undermine our immigration laws and then claim benefits, further jeopardizing our U.S. citizens' safety net. The Social Security Administration estimates that this totalization agreement with Mexico would result in 50,000 additional Mexicans qualifying for Social Security benefits in the first 5 years alone. This will only added to the problem of Social Security insolvency.

Without necessary reform, our Social Security system is set to go broke by 2042. Nobody disputes that date. However, Mexicans qualifying for Social Security benefits would cost the system $650 million a year by 2050.

A totalization agreement between the United States and Mexico is good only for Mexico. The Mexican Government requires a citizen, including a United States citizen, to pay into their system 24 years as opposed to 10 in the United States. And because of this disparity, the Social Security Administration estimates that only 3,000 American workers would be able to claim benefits in Mexico compared to the 50,000 Mexicans claiming benefits in the United States.

The United States-Mexico Totalization Agreement, Madam Chairman, is bad policy for an already distressed Social Security system and I believe an irresponsible way to spend the money of the American taxpayer. On top of everything else, the totalization agreement can go into effect without congressional approval because it would automatically become law within 60 days of being filed by the White House if Congress does not act.

With this in mind, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment, the Gingrey amendment, specifically address this problem with Mexico, and remove the incentive for the Social Security Administration to fulfill the United States-Mexico Social Security Totalization Agreement.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I would just say to my friend, the gentleman from California, the totalization agreements we have with other countries, I think there are some 20 other countries, and this totalization agreement with Mexico would cost more than all of those 20 agreements combined at the 50,000 estimate that I gave.

In addition to that, the Social Security Administration estimates the 50,000 number is a significant underestimate. So I feel very strongly that at a time when our Social Security system is in such a dire crisis, needs significant reform, for us to have a totalization agreement with Mexico that in

fact of course has already been negotiated and signed for all of those workers prior to 2004; and, no, it doesn't apply to any after 2004, but this is a significant cost that we cannot afford. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to pay tribute to Mt. Sinai Baptist Church of Marietta, Georgia, celebrating 143 years of spiritual service to our community.

The history of Mt. Sinai reaches back nearly as far as the history of Marietta itself. In 1864, 1 year before the Civil War ended, a group of black slaves gathered in the backwoods of Georgia and they began their own worship service, and by 1873 the now freed slaves built Mt. Sinai Baptist Church on a plot of land south of Marietta.

They were not content to merely be a house of worship. Mt. Sinai created a school to educate the children of former slaves and became a central gathering place for the whole community.

Mr. Speaker, today Mt. Sinai Baptist Church carries on that tradition as a spiritual and communal leader in Marietta. Currently under the guidance of Pastor Albert Johnson, the church is upholding its legacy of education and outreach, the same commitment that it has displayed for nearly 1\1/2\ centuries.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all my colleagues to join me today in congratulating the Mt. Sinai Baptist Church on 143 years of service and request that they have at least 143 more.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the well this evening to talk about a very, very important subject that we just went through some very contentious debate on, and my colleagues are familiar with that, and it is the immigration issue. The American people are familiar with it. And the people in the great State of Georgia, the 11th Congressional District that I serve, are familiar with it as well.

And the big concern was to not do something in a, quote, ``comprehensive way'' that resulted in granting amnesty to up to 12 million people, possibly more than that, that have over the last 20 years, since 1986, the last time we granted amnesty to 3 million at that time, we have not secured our borders and because of porous borders,

it is estimated that something approaching 400,000 a year, and some are turned back, obviously, but approximately 400,000 get through. I am talking about illegal immigrants now. And when you do the math over 20 years, that is how we got to the 12 million that are here today. So that bill was all about we need to have the triggers. I am very proud of my Senators, our senior Senator Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson. Johnny Isakson who obviously had the trigger so you couldn't do any of this stuff even if you didn't call it amnesty, you had to secure the borders first.

In the final analysis, because of their great concern, our Senators from Georgia said ``no'' to the bill that was being cooked up on the Senate side and could not be amended to their satisfaction. I am proud of them for that.

But there is another problem, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, something that maybe the American people are not sufficiently aware of, and that is the fact that so many people come into this country every year on a program called the visa waiver program. I want to repeat that because I want each and every one of you to remember this, the visa waiver program. It too was started back in the mid-1980s, about the time of the amnesty bill we were talking about. What it does is this: it allows citizens from 27 countries, mostly Western European, and it didn't start as 27, but basically the initial countries were the United Kingdom, Germany, France, some of the countries that are really our best friends and best allies, there is no denying that. Without question, over the history of our great country, we have had wonderful friendships in Western Europe.

So the thinking back in 1986 was we need to not spend our time on worrying about doing background checks and our consulates, and those are the offices of our Department of State that exist in all of the other countries. They are part of our embassies. There are more consulates in a country than embassies. My colleagues know what I am talking about, and hopefully folks listening understand that you have State Department employees in all of these countries so when people come and apply for a visa and they want to come visit the United States or come over here to study, or get permanent legal resident, a so- called green card, they have to go through our consulates. They have to fill out forms and pay an application fee. They are all checked to a fare-thee-well, as the old Georgia expression goes, but it was decided in 1986, you know, for the countries where these are our friends, they look like us and in some instances they speak our own language, we don't need to worry about them, and so let's just let them come in without a visa. Therefore, the visa waiver program.

Now it has been expanded to 27 countries and growing. So they just show a passport. Our customs agents at our ports of entry, airports mainly, simply look at the passport. If the passport is from one of the 27 countries, they put a stamp on it and in the person comes.

The thinking is this is good for relations with other countries and we want to be on a friendly level with them. And of course it promotes tourism. And certainly folks involved in the travel industry, and maybe it is businessmen coming over for a 2-week or 2-month period of time. Actually, under the visa waiver program, the maximum amount of time that can be spent here under that program is 90 days.

In the year 2005, Mr. Speaker, 15 million people came to the United States under the visa waiver program. At first it was just a temporary program in 1986, and then it was expanded to more countries. And finally it was made permanent in about the year 2000, this visa waiver program. But we began to realize maybe there was a little bit of security risk, and so we said, look, we want to make sure these passports that we are just looking at and stamping and letting folks come in from these so-called friendly countries, that these are legitimate passports, that these are not fraudulent documents.

Those of my colleagues, and most of you are either parents or grandparents, and you have gone through those teenage years yourself and with your children and grandchildren, and you know it is pretty darn easy to get a fake driver's license. And of course my children, adult children now, never did that. They wouldn't do anything like that, Mr. Speaker. But some of their friends did, and they showed me how it was done. You can go on the Internet and just take your picture and paste it on. That is the kind of thing that is bad enough if it is a fake driver's license in this country, but when we are talking about a fake passport, and they are pretty easy to fraudulently prepare, that is where the danger arises.

Some of the countries, the 27 countries that are participating with us in the visa waiver program, have reported that they have had literally hundreds of passports stolen, and we don't really keep a close record on that but we should. We should be very worried about that, as a matter of fact.

So in 2000 we said, look, here is the way we prevent passport document fraud when people are coming into this country under the visa waiver program. It is a passport issued by Spain, France, Germany, Finland, Sweden, Australia, and I'm not going to name all 27 of the countries, but we want to say, look, we want a digital photograph that we can scan. We don't want some fake overlay laminated on a passport, and we also want to be able to machine read this document.

So, therefore, all of you countries that are participating in this program, that is promoting business and tourism in exchange between countries, you are going to have to prepare your passport in that manner so we know that you have done a background check and we can do a background check. We look at that passport. We know we have a watch list, a terrorist watch list, a criminal felon watch list, so that we do not just let them come in that minute, 1\1/2\ minutes that a busy custom agent has at the Atlanta Hartsfield International Airport. They have to do this quickly. If you spend 10 minutes per passport, you are going to have some people outraged, and that is not acceptable. They have to be able to do that quickly.

We knew this back in 2000, and keep in mind, my colleagues, I am talking about a year, a year and a half before 9/11 occurred. We said in the reauthorization of the visa waiver program and making it permanent, the countries had to have these passports based on biometrics, and we called that program US-VISIT. It has not been completed to this day. And after 9/11, of course, a huge wake-up call on many aspects of how we can do things better in regard to maybe we need some armed guards on the planes, and maybe we need to secure the cockpit door and maybe we should allow in certain circumstances the pilots, if they are trained properly, to carry a weapon, we have done a lot of these things to improve.

And of course all these lines, and every Member of this body, every one of you, probably waited in line today for a good little while getting through security before you were allowed to go to the gate to board your plane, and hopefully the plane was on time. If you were delayed too long going through security, hopefully the plane was delayed.

We continue to do these things, but yet this very important aspect, US-VISIT, to make sure, Mr. Speaker, those 15 million folks that come in for business or tourism or whatever, to promote goodwill with these other countries, and I am for that, but they are to stay 90 days. We don't know where they are or how to find them if they don't go back home in 90 days. And to think that even after 9/11, we still keep putting off that date certain these countries have to have and abide by US-VISIT and have to have the biometric passports and we have to have all of the equipment at our ports of entry so the custom agent can simply swipe that passport and it is fine, or a red light goes off.

This is what I am here tonight to talk about, and hopefully you are aware of it. I think most of my colleagues are. But we need to be thinking about this. We need to be thinking about it in a bipartisan way. This is not one of those issues that we should be fighting about politically. We know that this is for the citizens of this country, whether they are Democrats or Republicans, whether they are young or old, whatever their occupation, their religion, ethnicity. This is for everybody. This is not for Phil Gingrey's district, the 11th Congressional District of northwest Georgia. This is for all of my colleagues' districts. That is why I am here tonight

talking about such an important thing, and I hope we can get everybody's attention on this.

Later on in the hour I am going to talk about a bill that I introduced in regard to the visa waiver program, talk a little bit about what is going on in the other body in regard to the 9/11 bill that we passed I think the first day we were voting on anything in this 110th Congress, the so-called 6 for '06, to do those things that the 9/ 11 families asked us to do.

After all, they suffered then, are suffering now, and will suffer forever. We listened to them on both sides of the aisle, and we passed a bill. We did most of what they asked in the 109th Congress under different control, and now we have added a few things in the 110th Congress, and we are waiting on the other body. There are some provisions in their version in regard to this visa waiver program that gives me a little heartburn; we will talk about that as well.

I am expecting that some of my colleagues will join me during this hour, Mr. Speaker, and certainly when they get to the floor after their busy meetings that they are attending right now, I am going to yield time to them to give a little different aspect to this visa waiver issue or some other issue of concern to them.

I am a proud member, Mr. Speaker, of the Immigration Reform Caucus. In this 110th Congress, the Immigration Reform Caucus under the leadership of the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), we have worked hard to make sure that the Immigration Reform Caucus is a bipartisan group of Members, and it is.

I'm not going to stand here and try to name names, but we have got great Members on both sides of the aisle under the leadership of Congressman Bilbray from California, and I think that's good. I think that's refreshing that Members know that this is not for politics. This is for policy, and this is for protection.

I see that Mr. Bilbray is actually on the floor now, and I will look forward to hearing his perspective on the visa waiver program. And then we'll develop a colloquy during the next 40 minutes or so. At this time, it's my distinct privilege to welcome him to the floor and to this Special Order hour. I'm grateful to our leadership, the Republican leadership, for making this the minority party's Special Order hour for the evening and that Congressman Bilbray is going to share the time with me. So I yield to my friend from California.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to make the point to the gentleman that the first slide that I wanted to show, and let me read this quote from the 9/11 Families for a Secure America. I can't tell you how many of the 9/11 families are a part of this group, but this is how they feel. This is a quote. ``If Islamic extremists commit another 9/11, it will not make any difference to the victims of that attack that the people responsible carried French passports rather than ones issued by Iran, Saudi Arabia or Lebanon.''

This is when they endorsed the bill that I introduced, and we will talk about that a little bit later, but I wanted to yield back to the gentleman for his additional thoughts. But I thought it would be good at this point to interject this quote from the 9/11 Families for a Secure America.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, the next slide that I want my colleagues to focus in on now is really the kind of a passport that we are wanting, and that U.S. VISIT, and indeed the law in regard to the visa waiver program that was made permanent in 2000 requires them to have this type of passport because let me make one thing perfectly clear to my colleagues.

The visa waiver program trusts the security of our Nation to the background check capabilities and the passport procedures of all these foreign governments, the 27 countries that I mentioned and expanding all the time.

Basically, what we're saying, and if you will look at this next slide, on one side of the passport would be a digital photograph, again, one that is scannable. We have these iris scans, not just the old-fashioned finger prints, but everything in a digital way, including the photograph on the passport. And then I'm going to have to get a little closer to read this, but a machine readable passport has two lines of text, has letters, numbers and something called chevrons. Those are those greater than or less than, these little upside down Vs that you put, but it's a way of bringing a secure method to make sure people are not using fraudulent documents.

I want to talk a little bit now, Mr. Speaker, about some of the things that have been happening lately. It's hard to believe that 9/11 was almost 6 years ago. 2001, we're now 2007 and approaching September. It's almost unbelievable, but people tend to forget, and that's part of the problem.

One of my colleagues, whenever he gives a 1 minute or a 5-minute speech or has an opportunity to speak from the well, he always says, and this is the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), as he concludes, and we will never forget 9/11. God bless him for doing that. Sometimes it gets a little trite, but Joe Wilson knows of what he speaks.

But it's easy to forget, but nobody has forgotten about these doctors, doctors, medical doctors, health professionals that just within the last couple, 3 weeks in London and at the airport in Scotland, Glasgow, tried to blow up the terminal with the car bomb, laden with highly explosive material, and there was a warning in fact. Someone had said in some text messaging, beware of those who would cure you, meaning the doctors will kill you; those who cure you will kill you.

Well, these doctors in the United Kingdom were citizens of that country. I mean, they had passports, British passports, and in fact, a couple of them had actually, Mr. Speaker, made an application to come to the United States, I think to come to a hospital in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. They wanted to practice medicine here. Everybody does want to practice medicine in the United States because, despite the previous hour from the other side, we do have a great health care system. Certainly it needs some improvement, and we're going to work on that hopefully in a bipartisan way, but these terrorists, those who would cure you that would kill you, were trying, at least some of them, to come into this country.

And they could have come in under this visa waiver program and simply showed a passport that did not, by the way, have a digital photo or any digital text or iris scanning. And we didn't have a U.S. VISIT machine that we could run that passport through that so that that would immediately come, go into a data bank so when the 90 days were up or the period of time that they planned to stay, that we could find them, ferret them out and have the ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, agents go after them.

So this is not child's play that we're talking about here. This happened just within the last 3 weeks, and these were homegrown British terrorists that had ties to al Qaeda in Iraq.

I don't doubt the United Kingdom was one of our closest allies. Indeed, they are. Tony Blair has been our best friend and Gordon Brown will be and has been one of our best friends, but this just goes to show that even our greatest friends can be vulnerable to these homegrown terrorists possessing legitimate citizenship documentation and authorized legal passports.

So this is where we are, and this is what's going on this hour, and I will be happy to yield back to my good friend and colleague, the chairman, once again of our Immigration Reform Caucus for additional thoughts. I proudly, by the way, serve on his executive committee of the Immigration Reform Caucus, and I yield to my friend from California.

Colleagues, what Mr. Bilbray is talking about, of course, is almost unbelievable, but what he says is true. He knows of what he speaks.

In December of this past year, just 8 months ago, the Department of Homeland Security said that they were going to temporarily, not dismantle, thank God, but temporarily suspend the US-Visit program. I am not sure why they made that decision, maybe too much work, they don't have enough money, I don't know. But we asked them to do it in 2000, we asked them to do it again in 2001 with the PATRIOT Act. We asked them in 2002 with the Secure Border Act. We put deadlines on it.

I guess it's kind of like the fence bill. I know my constituents in the 11th District of Georgia know all about that. They asked me, didn't you guys, Phil, weren't you part of a group that had an amendment in the 109th Congress where when you guys were in control, when the Republicans were in control, wasn't it your amendment that was adopted that called for 700 miles of fencing along the 2,100 mile southern border where we have got some severe problems, not just people coming, seeking jobs, but potential drug lords and gang members, and, yes, terrorists carrying maybe even a nuclear weapon in a suitcase or a briefcase?

I said, yes, I was part of that. We did pass it. I am very proud of it. Then we came back and passed it again. They want to know why we have only got about 15 miles of the 700. It's hard to explain, and we need to have some conversations with the administration in regard to things that the Congress says need to be done, and we vote them into law, and appropriate money. Yet things either don't happen or happen far too slowly.

To think, though, that they just decided we are going to suspend this US-Visit, and as Mr. Bilbray, the gentleman from California, just said, this is not the time to suspend US-Visit; this is the time to ramp it up, to make sure that we have a machine that reads these passports at every port of entry.

Hey, if American Express can do it, it seems to me the United States of America can do it. American Express and Visa and MasterCard, they have been doing it a long time. They don't get any cash unless they know you are who you say you are.

This is crazy that we haven't completed this. It's just outrageous, outrageous to suspend a program like that when we need it more than ever.

I know my friend from California has a thought on that, because he just stood up. I look forward to your comments.

How does the saying go? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. I think that's exactly the point the Congressman is making in regard to the American people.

They are not happy about being fooled about border security and the nonbuilt fence. They are not happy about this either. They are not happy one bit about suspending this US-Visit program.

I have the next slide, and I think my colleagues will recognize some of these infamous characters. I want to point them out to you, though, once again. Over here, I will point to him, this gentleman right here, is named Richard Reid, but he is better known as the shoe bomber, the shoe bomber.

The shoe bomber flew from Paris with a passport, a citizen from a visa waiver country, got on a plane, had no intention, of course, with a visa waiver, he could stay in the United States for 90 days. He had no intention of getting to the United States. He just wanted to blow that plane to smithereens. Fortunately, we caught him, from a visa waiver program country.

The guy next to him, that's Moussaoui, Zacarias Moussaoui. He is known as the 20th hijacker. He was from Morocco, a French citizen from Morocco, living in France. He flew from London to Chicago and then, as we all remember in the 9/11 report, in particular, this guy, this terrorist with a passport, a legal passport, then enrolled in flight school in Oklahoma City.

Thank goodness that we had very attentive FBI agents who recognized that here was someone that was in this country under the visa waiver program who overstayed his visa. Well, not really a visa, but he overstayed the 90 days, and, fortunately, we caught him. He was the 20th hijacker.

To my near side are the photographs of the Fort Dix Six. These are the so-called pizza delivery guys who were going on the military base at Fort Dix, New Jersey. Many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle that represent New Jersey understand the potential horror that these guys, these guys, these terrorists that were here with a passport from a visa waiver country were about to inflict on one of our major military installations.

Well, what I want to talk about now is what I plan to do about this problem with the visa program, not to expand it. The gentleman from California is absolutely right. The other Chamber,

there are Members in this 9/11 bill that we passed back in January, and it's about to go to conference, the Senate version being a little different than the House version, there were some Senators that wanted to expand the visa waiver program, not limit it to the 27, but to expand it far beyond that.

As my colleague pointed out, his Senator from California, Senator Feinstein, said maybe we ought not to do that yet. Well, I do commend her. I join him in commending her for that.

But I want to go a step further. What I want to do, and this is called for in my legislation, H.R. 1342, H.R., House of Representatives bill, 1342, the Secure Entry Act, it's time to suspend this program. It's not time to suspend US-Visit. It's not time to expand the U.S. visa waiver program, as Representative Bilbray and Senator Feinstein so well know.

We need to suspend this program and say to those countries, the 27 or any others that we expand to, I am not opposed in the future to expand it if they have those biometric machine-readable passports, and they have done the due diligence before they have given those passports, just like you would with a visa. If somebody is going to come over here for two or three years to study or something, they have to answer something like 40 different questions and all these background checks.

Not so with a passport. Getting a passport is about like getting a driver's license or a bank credit card or something. It's just a question or two. What's your name, where do you live, give us a photo.

We are not going to be safe with this program, this program that was initiated, I said at the outset of the hour, back in the mid-1980s to promote tourism, friendship and cultural exchange and to promote international trade and business. The Statue of Liberty says it all. But we are living in a different time now.

We are living in a time that we are not safe with this program. 15 million, I mentioned this earlier, Mr. Speaker, in the hour. 15 million people used this program in the last year that we were counting, 2005. It is probably more than that now. Certainly if we expand it, it will be more than that. So I introduced H.R. 1342, the Secure Entry Act, and this would suspend not end, not end. And I want to say to the ambassadors from the State Departments for these other countries, I have talked to them. They say, well, you are going to hurt tourism. Well, tourism is great, but you tell it to the families of the 9/11 victims, the over 3,000 that are no longer with us. We can do this.

But it seems like in this body and in any situation where you have to accomplish things, people for some reason want to wait until the 11th hour and they won't do it and they will procrastinate and they will drag their feet. It's too much trouble, don't have personnel, don't have the money. Well, you have got to make them do it. And you say, we will suspend the program and you can come to this country only if you have a visa, not with a passport, until you have done what we have our laws require you to do. That is it. That is the bill. And I think when you consider the safety of our people, it is not too much to ask.

We have another. This was someone that came in 1993. I am going back now a little bit. Remember, my colleagues, the first attack on the World Trade Center? They didn't bring it down, but they came close. They came very close, killed a few people, caused a lot of damage. And we treated it as some criminal act, not as an act of terrorism which is what it clearly was. Well, one of those characters we were able to catch, Ahmed Ajaj. And the slide, if you look closely says, ``On September 1, 1992, Ahmed Ajaj fraudulently presented a Swedish, and, yes, my colleagues they are one of the 27 visa waiver countries, presented a Swedish passport without a visa for INS inspection when he arrived at JFK Airport in New York on a flight from Pakistan. Thank goodness, on secondary inspection Ajaj's luggage was searched revealing six bomb making manuals, six as if one wouldn't do, videotapes calling for terrorism against Americans, multiple fake passports, maybe some of those stolen visa waiver passports that we are not keeping up with, and a cheat sheet on how to lie to United States immigration inspectors. They are good at that, these people. Fortunately, Ajaj was arrested for passport fraud, and he was serving, long since over, with a 6-month sentence at the time that his fellow conspirators, his co-conspirators attacked the World Trade Center February 26, 1993.

Mr. Speaker, I want to show another slide, and this is from the Associated Press dated July 13, 2007, 3 days ago. And here is what the Associated Press said: ``Al Qaeda is stepping up its efforts to sneak terror operatives into the United States and has acquired most of the capabilities it needs to strike here, according to a new U.S. intelligence assessment. The group will bolster its efforts to position operatives inside the United States borders. U.S. officials have expressed concern about the ease with which people can enter the United States through Europe,'' that is where most of these visa waiver countries are, in the continent of Europe, ``because of a program that allows most Europeans to enter without visas.''

That is where we are, Mr. Speaker. That is exactly why I am here tonight. That is why the chairman of the bipartisan House Immigration Reform Caucus is with me during this hour. It is that important. It is that important. And we deeply appreciate you listening to us because it is not all about, as we talked about at the top of the hour, this bill that just went crashing down in flames. Because I think, and many of my colleagues feel, and fortunately the Senate rejected anything that looked like amnesty, we have got to secure those borders first and foremost, and that was what everybody has said. Well, maybe, a sigh of relief certainly from Georgians. But this is a different issue but equally important. This is what you call internal security. Not necessarily just securing the southern border, but who do you let in, and under what terms do you let them in, and where are they going? Are they going to do what they say they are going to do, or are they who they say they are? And if they overstay, even if they are legitimate, who is going to round them up? 15 million of them. 15 million in 2005, maybe more now.

Listen to this, Mr. Speaker, some of the participating countries, and I would like my colleagues to pay attention. The 27, I may not mention them all, are: Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Monaco, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the U.K. I left out a few, but you get the picture. You get the picture. I think there is something like 43 countries in Europe. Most of them, 27 at least, are part of this visa waiver program.

We are getting close to the hour that we need to wrap up, but before I do that I want to yield back to my friend from California, who is really a stalwart on immigration reform because he knows the problems that it has created if we don't do the due diligence that the American people have elected us to do. And he knows what has happened and the havoc that it has created in his State, our most populous State, the State of California.

I thank the gentleman from California. And it reminds me, Mr. Speaker, as we talk about my colleagues from Georgia, Dr. Norwood, Charlie Norwood. We will elect tomorrow someone to replace him, but you can't replace him. Dr. Norwood was so strong on all these immigration issues in regard to that CLEAR Act that would let State and local law enforcement departments participate in apprehending illegals who had committed a felony in this country, God rest the soul of a great Member, Dr. Charlie Norwood.

Nathan Deal, our longest serving member second to John Lewis, and everybody knows John Lewis; but Nathan Deal says we ought to end this nonsense of birthright citizenship, Mr. Speaker. You sneak into this country, the husband and wife both illegals, and have eight children and all of a sudden they are all United States citizens. A lot of countries, most countries have stopped allowing that. So, I am glad my colleague gave me an opportunity to pay tribute to some of my Georgia colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, when we started I didn't think it would take an hour, but when you are passionate about something the time goes by pretty quickly. And this is such an important issue.

Who supports, other than me and I hope the majority of my colleagues in the House of Representatives, suspending the visa waiver program? I will tell you who: The 9/11 families for a Secure America, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, and last but not least because they represent thousands of people in this country, Numbers USA. They are all strongly supportive of this bill. And I hope that we can get it passed, Mr. Speaker, because here again I am not calling for eliminating the visa waiver program; I am saying let's suspend it, let's don't expand it, I agree with Senator Feinstein, and let's get it right. We can get it right, and then people will be safe here.

Listen to what the European terrorist cells have said recently. A quote from Taliban military commander Mansoor Dadullah, as reported by Brian Ross of ABC News. This was just a couple of days ago. ``These Americans, Canadians, British, and Germans come here to Afghanistan from faraway places. Why shouldn't we train them?'' That is what I am talking about, Mr. Speaker, and that is why we are here tonight. We need to suspend this program until we can get it right so that we can protect the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for their attention, and I yield back the balance of my time.