Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Gingrey

Amendment No. 3: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I thank my former chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California, for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this rule and condemn the underlying bill, hastily leaving Iraq without any clear exit strategy.

Mr. Speaker, the timing of this legislation should raise some serious questions for the American people. It comes at a critical point in the global war on terror, a point at which our efforts should be focused on defeating terrorism inflicted by Islamic jihadists, not usurping the power of our military commanders, as this bill clearly does.

Today's debate comes on the heels of an intelligence analysis stating al Qaeda has regrouped to a level not seen since 9/11 with a greater ability to strike inside the United States. It comes in the immediate aftermath of the Muslim extremist attacks in London and Glasgow. In sum, it comes at a time when our decisions must be based

on strategic interests and not political grandstanding.

However, Mr. Speaker, this bill is not designed to help us fight terrorism to secure the United States' interests. In fact, its timing has nothing to do with national security at all.

Today, the Democratic leaderships want us to vote on a change of course before we have had the opportunity to fully analyze the President's interim report on our strategy in Iraq, and well ahead of the much anticipated September report to be delivered by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker.

So why are we debating this now? Curiously, it comes at a time when this Democratic Congress has an approval rating as low as 14 percent. That's right, Mr. Speaker, their approval is at an all-time low. Their base, the extremist left, is very angry. They are angry at the Democrats' Out of Iraq Caucus because they failed to deliver. Indeed, Cindy Sheehan, their poster child, has now announced her candidacy against Speaker Pelosi.

So what do the Democrats do? They take another shot at Old Faithful. When all else fails, when they can't get anything accomplished, when all they can deliver to the American public is the most closed Congress in history, they engage in another round of political theater engineered to do nothing but grab a few headlines and appease that liberal base.

Mr. Speaker, let's not waste the time of this body by debating vague bills with absolutely no chance of becoming law. Let's instead examine the upcoming September report from our top military commanders and then, yes, then make informed decisions on the best path forward.

My friend, the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from New York, stated in her opening remarks that if we wait until September, as I suggest, 200 more troops would be lost and the lives of 200 families would be changed forever.

Mr. Speaker, let me remind my colleagues that within a 20-minute period of time on September 11, 2001, 3,000 lives were lost, some of our brightest and best; and, indeed, the lives of 3,000 families were changed forever.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and to oppose the irresponsible underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take my 2 minutes to apologize to a few families from my district for having to listen, once again, to the Democratic leadership bringing forward a cut-and-run policy when these families have given their loved ones in this sacrifice.

I apologize to the Johnson family of Armuchee, Georgia, who sacrificed their son, Justin. I apologize to the Saylor family from Bremen, Georgia, who gave up their son, Paul. I apologize to the Clayton family of Marietta, who misses dearly their son, Captain Hayes Clayton. To Carey and Sally Brown, of Atlanta, I apologize to you for the loss of your son, Tyler. From my wife's hometown of Newnan, Georgia, I express my regret to Robert Stokely for the death of his son, Mike. Finally, I apologize to the widow of Jack Hensley from Marietta, a beheaded contract worker.

Mr. Speaker, what an appalling thing to do to these families, whose sons gave the last full measure of devotion defending liberty and fighting the terrorist Islamic extremists, to pull the rug out from under them and say: We are not going to give victory a chance. We are not even willing to wait until September. I think that it is appalling. I am ashamed of the Democratic leadership. I apologize to these families from my district who have given so much.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the ranking member for yielding. He would make a great Commander in Chief.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to salute my close friend and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Chairman Ike Skelton. I hold him in the highest regard and I admire him dearly, though I must oppose his bill and encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, let me be very clear. This bill does not seek to clarify our objectives or a path to victory. It does not offer an alternative to the current plan being implemented by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker.

Nowhere to be found are any new ideas or solutions or any talk of curbing violence or compelling political reconciliation. Why? Because there is no pressure on the Democrats to put forth any meaningful ideas. They know that this bill is dead on arrival. The President has vowed to veto it, and rightly so. This is a defeatist measure that serves only to placate the Democrats' liberal base.

Mr. Speaker, a few things about this plan immediately jump out to me. According to this legislation, a date certain withdrawal is to commence 120 days after the enactment of this bill. So why then does the bill wait another 2 months before asking the President to formulate a strategy? It is like asking a quarterback to throw Brother Ben passes until the offensive coordinator can come up with a game plan.

Essentially, this bill says that after our troops have packed their bags and have begun to come home, or maybe to deploy to Okinawa per the Murtha plan, then we will receive this master plan detailing how to provide for the security interests in Iraq.

As a physician, that is akin to calling a patient in for surgery before you have done the exam, yanking somebody's heart out before you have inspected the coronaries. In short, Mr. Speaker, it is a recipe for disaster.

Mr. Speaker, the last troop surge deployed just 3 weeks ago, hardly a significant time period for us to be here today judging the plan. However, I do believe Congress should engage in an ongoing, rational dialogue outlining the expectations of both our troops and the Iraqi Government and the security forces. Nobody is here suggesting that we shouldn't. And we will do it in September when we get the Petraeus report based on that report. But, Mr. Speaker, we cannot capitulate to extremist views and sinister plans, which is what this bill would do by sending a message to the terrorists that capitulation begins in 120 days.

I urge my colleagues, oppose this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding.

And I want to take this time to say how much I support the Pence- Flake-Hensarling amendment in regard to this so-called ``fairness'' issue. It would be patently unfair, this so-called doctrine.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could say the same thing to the editorial boards of the Los Angeles Times and the Atlanta Journal Constitution? Wouldn't it be nice if we could say the same thing to Hollywood in regard to all these movies that our young people are being exposed to? Wouldn't it be nice if we could say the same thing to our public universities and colleges in regard to the teachers of political science and the guest lecturers and those who give the baccalaureate addresses? But freedom of speech doesn't allow that.

I clearly endorse this amendment. The FCC should not spend one dime promoting this so-called ``fairness doctrine,'' which is anything but fair.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding.

I was listening to my good friend and colleague from New York who just spoke about the debt that we built up under the Republican leadership; I think he mentioned the number $3 trillion. And I don't think that's admirable on our part.

I want to say that I think most Members know that I'm a big fan of country music and one of my favorite singers is Randy Travis, and one of my favorite songs is ``Diggin Up Bones.'' The American people don't want us to be digging up bones and saying, well, you did this, or he hit me back first. I think what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle need to remember, the fact that we are now in the minority is not so much about the miscreant action of a couple of Members on our side who violated the public trust or the difficult slog in Iraq. That slog has been difficult. But more importantly, it's this debt that has been built up, this fiscal irresponsibility.

This Republican Study Committee, the majority of the minority, and I'm proud of my Members on this side of the aisle that said enough is enough, the American people want us to stop spending their money.

I support this amendment, a 1 percent cut across the board. It's not specifically so much about this particular appropriations bill, but it's about all of them. We have got to stop this nonsense spending once and for all. This is the time to draw the line in the sand, just like our colleague from Colorado, the esteemed Representative Mr. Hefley, did every year, 1 percent across-the-board cut. I'm embarrassed that I didn't vote for all those amendments, but I strongly support my colleague from Georgia in this amendment.

And as my other colleague from Georgia said, to spend just $1 billion, you could spend $1 a second for the next 31 years to get to this expenditure of $1 billion.

Support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague Mr. Lewis for yielding.

Former Member Jack Flynt served in this body for 24 years. It has been mentioned that he served on the Appropriations Committee. Some could say that he is neither a Democrat nor a Republican but an appropriator. But Jack Flynt was a boll weevil Democrat. If he were here today, he would be a staunch member of the Blue Dogs, I feel confident.

When I was running in this district originally, that area was in my district and many people said to me, You need to know Jack Flynt. I am disappointed, Mr. Chairman, that I never did get to know him. But in every instance the word about Jack Flynt was he was a gentleman.

And he and his wife of 65 years, Patricia of Griffin, Georgia, they have three children: Susan Flynt Stirn of Arlington County; John J. Flynt III of Augusta, Georgia, my hometown; and Crisp B. Flynt of Griffin; four grandchildren and two great grandchildren.

I am humbled to have an opportunity to just say a few words about a great Member of this body and to pay respect to him and offer our condolences to his entire family.

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, I have two amendments that occur sequentially in the bill, and I would ask unanimous consent that my amendments be considered en bloc.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes the Commission on Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation from this appropriation bill. I offer this amendment not because I think an interagency climate change science program necessarily is a bad idea, but because it is clearly authorizing on an appropriation bill, and I object to this procedure.

House rule XXI (2) prohibits changing existing law in an appropriations bill. Contrary to this rule, the language included in the EPA section of H.R. 2643 changes existing law by establishing this new Commission on Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation which is tasked with ``reviewing science challenges related to adaptation and mitigation strategies necessitated by climate change.''

An interagency climate change science program that reviews these questions already exists under the Global Change Research Act of 1990. The Office of the Parliamentarian confirms that this provision does violate rule XXI.

Also, Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall of the Science and Technology Committee sent a letter to the Rules Committee outlining these concerns requesting that the Rules Committee not waive points of order against this provision. Yet last night the Rules Committee reported out a rule that waives all points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI.

Again, I reiterate, I am not opposed to authorizing a strong interagency climate change science program. In fact, on Wednesday, Science and Technology Committee will take up a bill, H.R. 906, that does just that. I plan to vote for it.

H.R. 906 reorients the U.S. Global Change Research Program to produce more policy relevant information about, among other things, adaptation and mitigation. It also emphasizes the need to develop information to help communities make themselves more resilient to climate and other environmental changes. This is nearly identical to the task given to the Commission on Climate Change in this bill, H.R. 2643.

I will be glad to.

Reclaiming my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the subcommittee Chair. Mr. Dicks and Mr. Gordon are honorable Members, and I am aware of the colloquy that they have had in regard to this matter.

But to me the point is, and I want to go forward with this amendment, because it's not just this authorizing committee that I am concerned with, the Science Committee that I sit in on or the Armed Services Committee, it's all the authorizing committees.

This rule, I think, is very, very important. For the Rules Committee to just waive this, I know that the other side, us, in the 109th, probably did the same thing on occasion.

But at some point we need to draw the line on this, and how do we know that this bill, H.R. 906, that we are going to consider tomorrow, will ever get through the other body, and then we have this bill that's basically an appropriations bill and legislating on that.

I think we ought to, as we go back into our district and talk to middle school students, and explain how this Congress works and what's the purpose of authorizing committees and appropriations committees, so they can understand that. This is just a situation where I feel very strongly about standing for the process, not necessarily what's been worked out between Mr. Dicks and Mr. Gordon.

I respect both of them, I trust them. I know they will try to work this out. But the more we do this, the more confusing it gets.

With all due respect to the chairman, I will not withdraw my amendment, but have a vote on it.

I thank the gentleman for his remarks, and I thank him for yielding some time to me to conclude.

Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman said it just as well as it can possibly be said. Again, I want the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) to know that it's not in opposition at all to the creation and the format of the committee. I think it's a grand design, a good idea. We all need to work toward climate change problems and solutions. I am just saying that this issue, and Mr. Westmoreland pointed out very well, that it's a process issue that we are opposed to, and I thank the gentleman for giving me the opportunity.

In conclusion, I want to urge my colleagues to allow the suitable authorizing committee, the Science and Technology Committee, to complete its consideration of the best way to improve our inter-agency climate science programs by supporting this amendment.

Offered By: Mr. Gingrey

Amendment No. 223: Strike page 56, lines 1 through 23.

Offered By: Mr. Gingrey

Amendment No. 224: Strike page 56, lines 24, through page

57, line 11.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I want to say that I, Doctor, Representative Phil Gingrey as a pro-life OB-GYN, in the interest of full disclosure, I want to say that I'm very supportive of family planning, but not family planning that includes definition of abortion as part of family planning.

In the Lowey amendment, which I'm opposed to, I'm not questioning her integrity or intent in what she says in explanation, but I think it's a very confusing amendment. And when we just heard the two Democratic Members engaging in a colloquy with the chairwoman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Cuellar) and the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin), as they said that they were very much in favor of the Mexico City policy and wanted to make sure that no money would be spent, and I think the chairlady tried to explain that.

But then just a second ago, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson), stood up to ask our ranking member if there was anything in the Lowey amendment that spoke to the issue of funding.

But I would say to the gentleman, Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues, funding versus commodity. If you tell me that you're going to give me $75, that's funding, I guess. If you're going to say, no, I'm not going to give you $75, I'm going to give you a tank of gas, it's the same value.

And I think as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) was explaining earlier with his poster, that you ultimately take money away from the countries that need it. And we don't want to do that.

If you really want to make sure that we don't export abortion to another country, then we're going to have an amendment coming up momentarily, the Stupak-Chris Smith amendment, that strikes the language and restores the Mexico City policy.

I'll be glad to yield to my friend from Ohio.

Reclaiming my time, I will quote USAID on this, Mr. Ryan. Twenty countries that currently do not receive USAID family planning would not receive donations under this amendment because the countries in question that you're talking about, have comparatively low need for family planning. And furthermore, they lack USAID presence necessary to monitor compliance with other statutory provisions.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment offered by both the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Stupak and the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Smith.

This amendment would simply reaffirm our country's long standing commitment to not using federal taxpayer money to fund or support abortions. More specifically, this amendment would preserve the decades-old, internationally agreed upon Mexico City Policy that defends the sanctity of life by preventing taxpayer dollars from funding overseas family planning organizations that promote or perform abortions.

Mr. Chairman, while many Americans may disagree on the issue of abortion, a vast majority of them do not believe that abortions should be publicly funded. This Mexico City Policy significantly prevents the exploitation of developing nations where some non-governmental organizations aggressively advocate the use of abortion as birth control--birth control, Mr. Chairman. The tactics of these NGOs are simply and utterly unconscionable, and I know Americans don't want their tax dollars funding these activities.

Now, opponents of the amendment have tried to assert that it would take away funding from international family planning. Quite to the contrary, this Amendment does not take one single cent from these activities, but rather maintains the current policy preventing Federal funding of foreign abortions. We must remain resolute in the preservation of this policy.

Having practiced as a pro-life OB-GYN for nearly 30 years, I firmly believe that we have an obligation to protect life at each and every stage--and this obligation does not just apply to unborn Americans.

Any human life--regardless of geography, regardless of circumstance-- has the right to exist. Foreign abortions are just as tragic as abortions here at home.

We should not and we cannot allow the Mexico City Policy to be abandoned. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support Stupak/Smith.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I believe our Nation needs to secure its points of entry, and specifically I believe that we should prevent additional countries from joining the United States visa waiver program until we have technical and human resources to secure our points of entry. I do not believe our Nation can afford to allow more visitors in the United States without screening them prior to arrival.

This amendment would prevent funds from being used to negotiate additional visa waiver countries. The State Department should not be using funds to negotiate new visa waivers until the machine-readable and tamper-resistant biometric identification standards that were mandated by the U.S. PATRIOT Act as a cornerstone of the entry-exit system are fully operational. We refer to that, Mr. Chairman, as the US-VISIT program. There are currently 27 visa waiver countries, and I believe it is too risky to negotiate additional countries without first having our security screening system in place.

Mr. Chairman, we cannot afford to provide more opportunities for terrorists to breach a loophole in our security. How much time does our Nation have before ICE, the Immigration Customs Enforcement, the air marshals or the TSA, Transportation Security Administration, misses the next Richard Reid?

For example, Habib Zacarias Moussaoui, a French citizen of Moroccan descent, a name we all know very well, actually used his French passport, without a U.S. visa, on February 23, 2001. He flew from London to Chicago and on to Oklahoma City, where he began the flight training at an aviation school.

Fortunately, on August 16, 2001, INS arrested Moussaoui because he had remained in the United States well beyond the 90 days that were allowed under the visa waiver program entrants and he was in violation of the requirement that visa waiver program travelers enter for business or tourism. Had INS and law enforcement not been literally on top of their game, Mr. Speaker, Moussaoui could have been a part of the 9/11 attacks. That was his intent. We stopped him, but he was here on a visa waiver.

A more recent example can be summarized in a June 18, just this month, 2007, ABC News reported about suicide bombers who were sent to the United States and Europe after being trained in Afghanistan. The story references this recent terrorist video where the Taliban military commander, Mansoor Dadullah, is found saying in this video, ``These Americans, Canadians, British and Germans, come here to Afghanistan from faraway places.'' This story further confirms, Mr. Speaker, what we already know: Terrorist forces are recruiting from the Western World, the same countries who are established members of our visa waiver program.

I feel that we cannot continue a loophole that allows homegrown European terrorists access to the United States.

Mr. Chairman, the visa waiver program was only designed to be a temporary program for a small and select group of nations, starting with the U.K., Japan and France. Now, 27 countries participate in the visa waiver program, believe me, enough to keep ICE and TSA exceedingly busy. Do we really need to fund efforts to add a 28th and 29th country to their list of responsibilities?

I just don't want to see our Nation attacked because we couldn't carry through with our commitment to security first. I ask my colleagues, please, support this commonsense Gingrey amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of the full committee for yielding, and I certainly appreciate his willingness to understand the necessity of the amendment. Indeed, I appreciate it and will agree to that, and hope the administration will follow through on the amendment. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you and I thank the ranking member for yielding to me.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, there is a security fence around Fort Benning, but I would not describe the home of the Infantry as a fortress by any stretch of the imagination, as my colleague just referred.

Mr. Chairman, here we go again. Once more, my good friend, and he is my good friend, from Massachusetts has so confused the record that it's really tough to know where to begin. But let me try.

He argues that we need to shut down WHINSEC because nearly 30 years ago, several graduates of a different program, the School of the Americas, were found to have committed atrocities in their home countries, a tenuous conclusion indeed. I wonder if he would argue that we should shut down Harvard because the Unabomber actually took some classes there. Mr. Chairman, of course he wouldn't. Because my friend knows that when a student does something awful years after graduating, you can't reasonably hold the school accountable. And to do so would let one man's action deny thousands more the opportunity to grow and to learn. Essentially it would be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

So let's set the record straight, Mr. Chairman. Over 60,000 members of Latin American security forces have trained at WHINSEC and its predecessor since the inception of the school; 99.99 percent have served their countries with honor and distinction. This is the fact.

In order to ensure that known human rights offenders are not attending WHINSEC, potential participants undergo background checks by the Bureau of Western Hemisphere Affairs, the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor and the Department of State, not vetted by

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to my good friend and colleague from the great State of Georgia. The gentleman represents Fort Benning in Muscogee County, and it gives me great pleasure at this time to yield to my colleague from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, at this time, it gives me great pleasure to yield up to 5 minutes to the distinguished chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

Mr. Chairman, how much additional time do I have?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from southwest Georgia (Mr. Bishop), who also represents Muscogee County, Columbus and Fort Benning.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for an additional minute on our side and the proponents' side so the gentleman can conclude his thoughts and we can have our last speaker.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mr. Chairman, what is truly disingenuous is that nobody here tonight speaking against WHINSEC, to my knowledge, has ever taken the time to visit the school.

The gentleman, the author of the amendment, my good friend, talked about transparency. It's not because folks have not been invited. WHINSEC is so proud of its operation and record on human rights that it maintains an open-door policy. And Mr. Chairman, that would be true even for the School of the Americas Watch Group. They are welcome at any time to come in and look and talk to Colonel Perez, the director of the school, and look at the curriculum. Any Member of this body can show up unannounced to see for themselves what's being taught at

Mr. Chairman, once you sift through the mountain of misinformation presented on the floor tonight, it's clear that those who advocate cutting funding from WHINSEC do so, as I say, in the absence of fact. WHINSEC is not the School of the

Americas. WHINSEC has a spotless human rights record and is exceeding in helping the United States develop critical relationships with our closer neighbors.

Mr. Chairman, in fact, it is time to let the School of the Americas go, and to give WHINSEC a chance.

And so I urge all my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I notice as I walk down the halls of the House office buildings these easels and these poster boards, I have been seeing those for last 3 or 4 years, talking about the national debt and what percentage of it is attributed to every man, woman and child in this country. I think that national debt is something like $8.77 trillion now. It is $29,000 for each man, woman and child.

Well, the Democrats have come with these 11 spending bills, Mr. Chairman, to increase that spending an additional $23 billion. If my math is correct, then that raises the amount of debt for every man, woman and child in this country from $29,000 to $30,000.

But wait just a second, Mr. Chairman. The way they are going to avert that is, you guessed it, raising taxes. They are going to put the largest tax increase in United States history on the backs of the American people. That is why the gentleman from Ohio has such a good amendment, to just simply say, let's go back to 2007 levels.

Our hardworking men and women in this country, many of them, if not most of them, during this past year probably got no raise. Their cost of living went up. It didn't go down. So they are in a negative situation.

Let's not make the matter worse by putting additional tax burden on the backs of the American people.

Offered By: Mr. Gingrey

Amendment No. 4: At the end of the bill, before the short

title, insert the following new section:

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to highlight the exemplary important work of the Cobb County Sheriff's Office. This Georgia agency has been screening County Jail inmates to identify and deport illegal immigrants. This is a hugely important effort. After these criminals serve their time, we need to deport them.

Many jailed illegal immigrants are incarcerated for crimes like rape, armed robbery and drug trafficking. We want to do more than simply get these criminals off our streets. We want, Mr. Speaker, to get them out of our country.

Six deputies with the Cobb County Sheriff's Office recently underwent specialized training with Immigration and Customs Enforcement to identify illegal immigrants in our jails. Cobb County is the first department in Georgia and indeed one of the first in the Nation to work with ICE on this initiative. They are setting a fine example for communities across America, and our cities will undoubtedly benefit from the widespread adoption of this program.

After all, our State and local law enforcement officials are our first responders in the fight against illegal immigration. They play a critical role in stopping criminal aliens from harming our citizens.

Here's how this new program works. Local law enforcement officials travel to Herndon, Virginia, to train with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. They get experience in immigration law, criminal law, document examination, alien processing, and cross-cultural communication.

These trained deputies then return home to their communities where they work with ICE agents to identify illegal immigrants in local jails by comparing fingerprints with ICE and FBI databases and interviewing prisoners.

The program may be new but it is already working. In the Cobb County jail alone, which holds nearly 2,200 inmates, law enforcement officials have identified 63 people of interest to Federal immigration authorities. That is 63 rapists, robbers, and drug lords that we can get off of our streets and out of our country.

Mr. Speaker, we know local law enforcement officials are often our front line of defense when it comes to identifying and removing illegal immigrants from our communities. As we look for solutions to the current illegal immigration crisis, we must empower our State and local officials and help them coordinate with Federal agents. And that is why I proudly supported an amendment last week to the Homeland Security appropriations bill. We passed that on the floor to support this new and promising ICE program so that we don't just provide funding to communities located within 100 miles of the southern border; otherwise Cobb County, Georgia won't have qualified.

Last summer I examined border security efforts along the United States-Mexican border, and during that trip I observed our Border Patrol agents loading up buses and planes with criminal illegal immigrants being deported back to their home countries. Now Cobb County is playing a vital role in this process, and I am incredibly proud of their efforts. The sheriff's office is helping rid our society of dangerous criminals who have no business being here in the United States.

Especially, Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize Cobb County Sheriff Neil Warren, Cobb County Police Chief George Hatfield, and the six Cobb deputies who went through the specialized training: Paul Harrison, Claudia Cross, Marco Cabrera, Olanda Palmer, and Paul Diaz. Their effort to uphold the rule of law is commendable, and I urge more local agencies to consider participating in this critical program.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in thanking the Cobb County sheriff's office for its commitment to getting dangerous, criminal, illegal immigrants out of our community.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, my friend from Minnesota, not just Representative John Kline, but Colonel John Kline of the United States Marine Corps. Representative Kline, you mentioned a number of great leaders. I consider you among them.

It is fitting that we do this during this hour tonight to pay a special tribute to General Peter Pace and General Petraeus, Admiral Fallon and General Odierno, all of those you have mentioned. This is our chain of command. These are the brave men and women that we talk about, as you just referenced, when we go to those service academy days and we look at those youngsters in the 10th or 11th grade and they are with their parents and thinking about a service academy. And I am saying to them, as I am sure my colleagues tonight in this colloquy have done, you say, ``You know, young man, young lady, you could be the next Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or you can be the Central Commander.''

It is just when you look and you say that, you want to feel that they know that they are going to be respected, and that Members of Congress are not going to denigrate them in a public way.

I think that is a very, very disappointing thing that has been occurring, Mr. Speaker. In fact, a Member recently was quoted as saying that this Member felt that General Pace was guilty of dereliction of duty because of his support for the Bush's Iraq policy.

Now, President Bush, like him or not, is the Commander in Chief, and if General Pace did not support the Commander in Chief, then that, I think, Colonel Kline, you can explain it better than I can, you talk about a dereliction of duty, but I am proud to be here tonight.

I thank the gentleman for giving me a little bit of time. I know we have other Members who are colleagues on the Armed Services Committee. We have already heard from a couple of them who are veterans and who have sons that are serving. I wish I could say that I was a veteran.

So I am very proud of my colleagues. I am proud of these leaders of our military. Especially I want to say to General Pace, Mr. Speaker, you know, one of my favorite country songs by Garth Brooks is ``Some of God's Greatest Gifts Are Unanswered Prayers.'' If the General was praying to get reconfirmed as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, maybe this will be God's answer to him: ``General, you have served 40 years. You are a four-star general. You have done a great job for this country, and we salute you.'' Tonight I want to salute General Peter Pace.

I yield back to the gentleman from Minnesota.

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

Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Georgia, Representative Johnson from DeKalb County, spoke just a few minutes ago. I have great respect for the gentleman from Georgia, a freshman Member doing a great job in this body. Of course he talked about the underlying bill and what is wrong with the bill.

Well, I move to strike the last word in support of the amendment. The gentlelady from Oklahoma, the former lieutenant governor, a long-term lieutenant governor, I think the first ever in the history of the State of Oklahoma, female lieutenant governor, I support her amendment. And I say to the gentleman from Georgia, my good friend, there is nothing wrong with the underlying bill, and possibly he is correct. As the subcommittee chairman has said, there are no earmarks in this Homeland Security bill or traditionally in a Homeland Security bill.

But the problem with the bill is it is an increase up to 14 percent in spending on that particular appropriations bill, 7 percent more than what is in the President's budget, what the President called for.

So as the gentlewoman from Oklahoma knows with her amendment, it is just one more opportunity to try to bring, as she is doing, to bring fiscal responsibility into the process and say some of these programs, you can pick them apart and name certain ones.

We have to have that, but pretty soon, we're talking about $60, $70, $80 billion worth of additional spending that the Democrats are going to bring on the backs of the American taxpayer at the end of this fiscal year, and that's what we're railing against. And I would say that to my good friend from Georgia, the gentleman from DeKalb.

But more than that, Mr. Chairman, much more than that, of course, is this issue of earmarks. I talked to a good supporter from my district just recently, in fact this afternoon, and he

reminded me of the outrage at our own party, at our Republican Party, and reminded me that we are in the minority because of not being fiscally responsible, fiscally prudent, losing our brand, if you will, not fulfilling the pledges upon which we took office, indeed upon which the President took office 6\1/2\ years ago.

Yes, certainly our party is outraged and we get the message, and that's why we are determined to bring fiscal responsibility to the people's House and this issue of earmarks and all of this pork, the Democrats, the Democratic majority got that majority by railing against maybe the sins of my colleagues in regard to earmarks.

So this is what really it's all about, not particularly that we're opposed to this specific appropriations bill on homeland security. And I think the subcommittee chairman has done a good job, just as the ranking member has.

But Mr. Chairman, let me just say this. Here is what the Democratic majority has an opportunity to do. They can take all of these bills, all of these appropriations bills back to the Rules Committee and bring them to the floor with a closed rule, something that's unprecedented, and I don't think that the majority will do that. I hope they won't do that, but they could.

This is the option I would recommend. I recommended it yesterday when I spoke on another amendment. Mr. Obey, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Chairman, has said that he's going to take all of the earmarks that he plans to airdrop in a conference report, where none of the Members will have an opportunity to vote up or down, but he's going to airdrop them, but he is going to shine some sunshine, some daylight, on that by publishing them before the August recess in the Congressional Record; and any Member, they will have an opportunity, maybe over that month, to look at all of those earmarks. And if they don't like them, they can write a letter to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee and say, I'm opposed to that particular Member's earmark.

And then who makes a decision? One person. He's not God. He's just chairman of the Appropriations Committee, and he makes a decision, well, am I going to airdrop those amendments, yes or no?

Well, I want to suggest once again, Mr. Chairman, to Chairman Obey, here is what you can do. All of those earmarks that you publish in that Congressional Record before the August recess, you can bring those back.

Then when we come back from the August recess, he can bundle those all up as a bill or a resolution coming through the Appropriations Committee, having a special rule, hopefully an open rule, bring it to the floor of this House, and then let each and every Member vote those earmarks up or down. And you can have them sectioned off for each of the 11 or 12 appropriation bills.

That's the opportunity that we want to give to the new majority, and I hope the leadership will, in consultation with the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, a member of almost 40 years of this body, will come to that conclusion, because as one of my colleagues said last night, we don't want to trade in our voting card for a piece of paper and a pen so that we can write a letter.

That's taking away the rights of the minority, but even more importantly, Mr. Chairman, it's taking away the rights of the American people. It's unfair. It's not the right thing to do.

And I pledge and plead and beg my colleagues in the majority to do the right thing.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Dr. Harlon Crimm, who last week announced his retirement as president of Chattahoochee Technical College.

In the past 24 years, Dr. Crimm's contributions to Chattahoochee Tech have been profound. He quadrupled enrollment, making Chattahoochee the largest technical institution in the State of Georgia. He oversaw the college's accreditation by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools. He instilled a sense of mission and pride in the institution, helping it gain national prestige.

But Harlon has been molding Georgia's young minds for nearly half a century. He began his career as a high school teacher in Mississippi, later becoming the principal of Lockheed Elementary School in Marietta and director of personnel for Marietta City Schools. My four children attended Marietta, and they benefited greatly from their exposure to Dr. Crimm.

Now in retirement, Dr. Crimm will be able to spend more time with his wife, Jo Ann, a retired Ph.D. educator, and his children and grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me in thanking Dr. Harlon Crimm for his years of service educating Georgia's young minds. In fact, Dr. Crimm eloquently summed up his own work when he referred to his past 44 years in education not as a job or a career, but as a calling.