Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commend a brave and giving man from my district, Dr. John Burson.

Dr. Burson is the CEO of Chattahoochee Healthcare in Carrollton, Georgia; and he was recently honored with a Healthcare Hero award for his selfless efforts on behalf of injured civilians in Iraq.

As a physician myself, I know many doctors but few with the tenacity of Dr. Burson. At age 71, he packed his bag for Baghdad, where he worked all during the day at the United States Embassy clinic and by night at the Combat Support Hospital treating injured Iraqi citizens. He even treated ABC news anchor Bob Woodward after he was injured by a roadside bomb.

Dr. Burson is a retired Lieutenant Colonel from the United States Army Reserves, where he spent 30 years serving our country. Thankfully, his retirement from the Reserves has not ended his commitment to service. In fact, Dr. Burson traveled to Iraq last November so he could relieve younger military doctors who wanted to spend the Christmas holidays with their families.

Mr. Speaker, Dr. Burson has used his skill and passion to improve the lives of patients from Georgia and Iraq; and I ask you to join me in saluting this brave American.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I believe our Nation needs to secure its points of entry and we need to do it now. Specifically, I believe we should prevent any additional countries from joining the United States Visa Waiver Program until we have the technical and human resources to secure our points of entry. And that is my amendment. I do not believe our Nation can afford the security risk of allowing more visitors to the United States without screening them prior to arrival. This amendment would prevent funds from being used to negotiate additional visa waiver countries.

Mr. Chairman, the State Department would not be using funds to negotiate new visa waivers until the machine-readable and tamper- resistant biometric identification standards on passports that were mandated by the PATRIOT Act and the 9/11 Act in 2004 as the cornerstone of this entry-exit system are fully operational. There are currently 27 visa waiver countries, and I believe it is simply too risky to negotiate additional countries without first having our security screening system in place.

Mr. Chairman, we cannot allow additional visa waiver countries which could provide more opportunities for terrorists to breach a loophole in our security. How long will it be before Immigration Customs Enforcement, ICE, the Air Marshals, or TSA, Transportation Security Administration, misses the next Richard Reid?

Mr. Chairman, I understand concerns about how spending or limiting the Visa Waiver Program may adversely affect cultural exchange or possibly hurt the airline and tourist industry. However, at what point are we willing to risk security for new pen pals and business as usual?

Habib Zacarias Moussaoui, a French citizen of Moroccan descent and a name we all know very well, used his French passport without a U.S. visa on February 23, 2001, to fly from London to Chicago and on to Oklahoma City where he began flight training at an aviation school. On August 16, 2001, the INS arrested Moussaoui because he remained in the United States well beyond the 90 days allowed for the Visa Waiver Program entrants and was in violation of the requirement that Visa Waiver Program travelers enter for business or tourism.

Had INS and law enforcement not been on top of their game, Moussaoui could have been a part of the 9/11 attacks, thanks to a visa waiver. In fact, we have referred to him as the twentieth hijacker.

So, Mr. Chairman, the Visa Waiver Program was only designed to be a temporary program for a small and a select group of nations, starting with the UK, Japan and France in 1986. Today, 27 countries are eligible under visa waivers, opening the door widely for unscreened terrorists to attack the United States. Twenty-seven countries are 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 commitments to security first.

So, Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues, please support this Gingrey amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have tremendous respect for my colleague from Illinois; and I know his passion for the Baltic countries and particularly Lithuania. And this is not about them. This is not about any specific country, although there are two that are in line to expand this Visa Waiver Program from the current 27 to 29. It is not the Baltic countries. But we are in a situation where we have got to accept the reality of the risk that we are in.

If I really had my way, I would like to see the Visa Waiver Program completely suspended, all 27 countries suspended. In fact, I have introduced a bill to that effect and brought that amendment to the 9/11 bill. And I had a colloquy then, withdrew that amendment with the agreement that hearings would be held and this issue would be addressed.

The 9/11 bill in 2004, the PATRIOT Act called for making sure this entry-exit system and the biometrics on the passports were secure by a date certain. We are beyond that date certain, Mr. Chairman. And now, from these countries, no, they weren't coalitions of the willing, but France certainly has been our friend and for the sake of tourism, but we can't afford to continue to do that in this time.

I urge my colleagues, I beg my colleagues to support my amendment.

I yield back.

Madam Speaker, as we head into the 4th of July holiday, millions of Americans will feel the pinch of high gasoline prices as they travel to see family and friends. We are watching gas prices climb higher and higher, and it has become readily apparent that America is too dependent on foreign crude oil.

Earlier this year, the House passed legislation to allow drilling in a tiny portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge of this frozen tundra of Alaska's north slope. Despite the fact that oil from ANWR could supply my State of Georgia's energy needs for 54 years and that drilling would be conducted under the strictest environmental standards, many Democrats still oppose this legislation.

This week, we have another chance to support domestic energy production when we vote on legislation to use America's massive energy resources in the deep seas on the Outer Continental Shelf. The bipartisan legislation is one way we can start weaning America off our foreign oil dependency.

Madam Speaker, the American people are tired of paying high prices at the pump. They demand action, and this Republican majority is delivering. I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join me in supporting the development of domestic energy sources.

Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 890 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose of debate only.

Madam Speaker, H. Res. 890 is an open rule, and it provides 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations. This resolution waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and provides that under the rules of the House, the bill shall be read for amendment by paragraph. This resolution waives points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI, prohibiting unauthorized appropriations or legislative provisions in an appropriations bill, except as specified in the resolution.

It authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record and provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions. This resolution provides that it shall be in order, any rule of the House to the contrary notwithstanding, to consider concurrent resolutions providing for adjournment of the House and Senate during the month of July and provides also that H. Res. 878 is laid on the table.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 890 and the underlying appropriations bill.

H.R. 5672 will fund many of the priorities of this Nation, combating terrorism and crime, strengthening our economy, fostering diplomatic relations and, finally, advancing scientific growth and innovation throughout this country. Each of these priorities is essential to ensure a stronger and a more secure America, and this bill increases funding over last year for almost each and every one of these priorities.

I should also add, to the credit of the committee, under the leadership of Chairman Wolf, that this bill also contains almost $200 million in savings for our taxpayers. I want to thank Chairman Wolf for his stewardship of this bill.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 5672 provides $22.1 billion for the Department of Justice. That is almost $724 million above last year, and it is $1 billion above the President's request.

This $22 billion includes $6 billion for the FBI, as they develop and execute better ways to combat terrorism and fight various forms of crime, from child exploitation to gang violence. This increased funding means improved information technology, better counterintelligence capabilities, and a greater number of highly trained human assets on the ground.

Additionally, because State and local law enforcement play a fundamental and a critical role in fighting crime, this bill includes $2.6 billion for their efforts. And that is an increase of $1.1 billion over the President's request.

H.R. 5672 also includes $558 million for the Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grants program. That is $147 million over last year, fiscal year 2006.

And to fight this scourge of methamphetamines which sadly pervades so many of our communities, including those of my own, Georgia's 11th, this bill provides $1.75 billion for the Drug Enforcement Administration, the DEA.

Unquestionably, this bill demonstrates the commitment of this Congress, working with the President, to continually reassess and strengthen our security and our law enforcement priorities, ensuring that threats at home and abroad are identified and neutralized.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 5672 also provides $22.7 billion to fund our Nation's scientific priorities, with $16.7 billion for NASA as well as $6 billion for the National Science Foundation. Having practiced as an OB-GYN for almost 30 years, I cannot emphasize enough the importance of encouraging scientific advancement in saving lives and improving our quality of life. Scientific innovation also captivates the minds of our children and other generations to come as they dream to develop technologies that will change the world of tomorrow.

Madam Speaker, this bill also includes funding to further improve the world of today by providing $9.7 billion for the State Department. Of that, $1.7 billion goes to secure and replace our vulnerable embassies throughout the world.

H.R. 5672 includes $5.95 billion for the Department of Commerce, $900 million for the Securities and Exchange Commission, $294 million for the Federal Communications Commission, and $213 million for the Federal Trade Commission.

Madam Speaker, these dollars are essential to not only building a stronger economy but also ensuring a fair and a level playing field for everyone who participates in this economy.

Madam Speaker, last but not least, this bill also includes $643 million for the SBA, the Small Business Administration, which will support business loans to help entrepreneurs across our great Nation access critical start-up capital for new businesses. Without question, our economy is driven by small businesses and the entrepreneurs who are willing to take a chance and turn a dream into a reality.

In conclusion, this bill also makes provisions for three very important programs in the 11th Congressional District of Georgia. I want to mention these because they are so important.

The Inner Harbor EXCEL Program in Rockmart, Georgia, in Polk County, provides quality services for at-risk youth and offers a viable alternative to incarceration. It funds the Douglas County Zero to Three Program which helps the county's juvenile courts to better address the needs of neglected and maltreated infants and toddlers.

And, lastly, the National Association of Court Management, which aims to improve our courts and develop related educational programs.

I want to again thank Chairman Wolf for his support of these programs which are so very important to the people of northwest Georgia.

Madam Speaker, as we move forward with this debate, I want to encourage my colleagues to please support this rule and support the underlying bill as we stand together in support of funding our Nation's priorities.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I want to yield as much time as he might consume to the distinguished chairman of the Rules Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

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

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

Madam Speaker, in regard to some of the minimum-wage arguments the gentleman from Wisconsin is making, I want to point out, and these are not my statistics, but these are accurate statistics, that one-third of minimum-wage workers are children of the head of a household. Over half, 52 percent, actually of minimum-wage workers are under 25 years old. Less than 1 percent of minimum-wage workers are in households with a total income of $20,000 or less.

The big concern, of course, Madam Speaker, in regard to minimum wage, and I am certainly not suggesting that that issue might not be considered by this Congress in a more appropriate setting than this appropriations bill, indeed it might, and indeed we may need to raise that minimum wage somewhat, but we have to be very, very careful that in the process we don't destroy some of these jobs.

The gentleman talked about a situation with his own mom, and there are plenty of people in those situations. But if we raise the minimum wage to too high a level, then they won't have any job at all to come home from.

Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney), a hardworking member of the Appropriations Committee.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

The gentleman is talking about how he would pay for his amendment that would cost $600 million. Madam Speaker, I think it is important that we point out that they always say how much of a tax break people making more than a million dollars, and they talk about a $114,000 tax break, and we are going to cut that down to $112,000, but they never say, the gentleman from West Virginia certainly did not say, how much these people with an adjusted gross income of over $1 million are actually paying in taxes every year. It is a huge number, and they do not want to share that with the fellow Members.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time I have no additional requests for time, so I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, in response to some of the comments the gentlewoman from Connecticut was making, and the gentleman from Wisconsin earlier said in his remarks that they wanted an opportunity, and was taking an opportunity on this bill, to discuss the minimum wage issue even though it was not the appropriate format, and I agree with that, I think that the discussion of this issue certainly would be more appropriate for the next appropriations bill that we will be considering, Labor-HHS. Or maybe it will come up even as a stand-alone measure. I do not know.

But it just seems to me that on this appropriation bill, Science, State, Justice and Commerce Appropriations Act, that this is not the right format to bring up the issue.

I do not question the gentleman's right or any of the Members on the other side of the aisle who have spoken during this rule time about the minimum wage issue. But this is not something that this is the last opportunity to get this done.

I want to say, Madam Speaker, too, in regard to this issue, listen to this, minimum wage hikes pit low-skilled adults against teenagers from higher income families. This was an article in a newspaper May 13, 2004.

Employers react to minimum wage hikes by replacing low-skilled adults with teenagers from high-income families who are drawn into the job market by better pay. Decades of research confirmed what President Roosevelt's Department of Labor found just 1 year after the minimum wage made its debut in 1938.

In a number of instances there have been reports that workers who have been receiving less than the minimum wage have been laid off and replaced by more efficient workers. Minimum wage hikes can destroy jobs and destroy them permanently. When jobs are destroyed by minimum wage hikes, those jobs often never come back.

Again, this is a newspaper article from May 13, 2004. Following minimum wage increases, employers often replace less skilled employees with machines or simply reduce the level of service to customers. Businesses automate their telephone reception. Fast food diners bus their own tables. Gas stations go self-service. Shoppers scan and bag their own groceries.

The point I am making, Madam Speaker, is that you have to be, and I know the gentleman from Wisconsin certainly understands these issues as well as anybody, but the concern is that you do not want to destroy jobs by raising the minimum wage to a level, that this in fact happens, as I quoted from some of these articles in past statistics.

I do not think that this side of the aisle is opposed to looking at this issue, and, again, whether it is on the Labor-HHS bill or whether it is on a stand-alone situation, but I do not think this is the appropriate time to have this debate.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

I just want to make sure that the gentleman from Wisconsin knows that this Member voted against giving himself a COLA and has consistently done

that in the two terms that I have served.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, in regard to minimum wage increases and the hope, the fact is that as minimum wage increases, hope for job seekers decrease. A Duke University economist found recently that for every 10 percent increase in mandated wages, the probability of job seekers finding a job decreased by nearly 3 percent, according to the Employment Policies Institute.

Other top researchers found similar results. This one, a Boston University study, noted that low-skilled adults in States that raise their minimum wage are often crowded out of the job market by teens and students.

Research from Michigan State University echoed this conclusion, finding that high-skilled teens are those who are perceived as desirable employees often displace low-skilled employees in a minimum wage job after a mandated wage hike.

Madam Speaker, I rise again in support of this rule and in recognition of the importance of this underlying bill.

H.R. 5672 funds the critical operations of our government from the diplomatic affairs of the State Department to the law enforcement activities of the Justice Department.

Additionally, it provides funds for the various watchdog agencies that ensure a free and fair economic playing field for businesses and consumers alike.

This bill has substantial funding for sciences, to make sure that America stays on the forefront of medical and technological innovation as we continue to reach for the stars, both literally and figuratively.

While some critics may call for more funding of this program or that program, they not only fail to realize the limited funds available in this Federal budget but also fail to fully appreciate the hard work of the subcommittee in balancing our funding needs with the need to respect the taxpayer dollar.

Madam Speaker, while this bill may not be perfect, no bill is, it is a good bill that sets priorities and it sets a solid vision for the future on multiple fronts.

So, in conclusion, I again want to thank subcommittee Chairman Wolf, Ranking Member Mollohan, full committee Chairman Lewis and for all of the hard work and the time that went into this bill before us today.

I want to encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this rule and the underlying bill.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

I appreciate the gentleman from New Jersey yielding, and I thank him, Mr. Speaker, for bringing these statistics to the floor of the House this evening. Clearly, these numbers show that this economy is doing well under this Republican leadership and this Republican President. The blue chip report that the gentleman talked about on fiscal year 2007, and he mentioned those 50-something prestigious financial organizations, says that the economy will continue to do well the rest of this fiscal year and into 2007. Mr. Speaker, it is because of the policies of this administration and this Republican-led Congress. Those policies I am speaking of, of course, are that you grow the revenue when you cut taxes.

This is not a novel idea that we just invented over the last 2 or 3 years. This happened under a Democratic President in 1960, John F. Kennedy. It happened again in the early eighties under President Reagan. You cut taxes; you grow the revenue. All of these statistics that the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton) has pointed out in regard to low inflation, low unemployment, robust gross domestic product over something like 12 straight quarters now. Five million jobs since 2001.

I know when I first got to the Congress in the 108th in 2003, all I heard, Mr. Speaker, from the other side was how many jobs had been lost since George W. Bush was first elected. They pounded on that. I have not heard too much from the other side recently, because clearly this economy is robust, these jobs are growing, and they will continue to grow.

We have this arcane scoring system, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, and I know everybody agrees, and this is really not in dispute, that when you cut taxes, they calculate a number of how much it is going to cost. I think with the Bush tax cuts, it was estimated that it was going to cost $1.3 trillion in reduced revenue; $1.3 trillion less coming into the Treasury because of a reduction of every marginal rate so that everybody in this country, every American taxpayer, would get a reduction in their Federal taxes and get a check in their pocket. To double the child tax credit, to eliminate the marriage penalty, to lower the capital gains and dividend rates to 15 percent for almost everybody and, indeed, for some as low as 5 percent, and to give our small business men and women, Mr. Speaker, we are talking about the mom-and-pops of this great country who probably create 65, 70 percent of all these jobs that we are talking about, to let them more rapidly depreciate their capital improvements so they can, with bricks and mortar, new machines, new equipment, whether it is in my profession, the health care industry, or any other, to put people back to work, so that more people, albeit at a lower rate, are paying taxes.

What happens is instead of costing $1.3 trillion over 10 years, in about 2\1/2\ years our revenue increased, and I know the gentleman from New Jersey will confirm this and agree with me, by something like $250 billion, increased revenue, because of the boldness, the courage, and the good common sense to look at historical perspective and understand that when you cut taxes, you pull a country out of recession and you don't cause decreased revenue coming to the Treasury, you end up with more.

This is a great opportunity that the gentleman brings to us tonight to make sure the American people and all our colleagues on both sides of the aisle understand. Every Member is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts. I commend the gentleman from New Jersey for bringing us the true facts this afternoon and this evening on this floor of the House.

Offered By: Mr. Gingrey

Amendment No. 6: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding, and I do rise today in strong support of the rule and this underlying bill, and I encourage all my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support them both.

As a cosponsor of H.R. 89, the full repeal of the death tax, I was disappointed to see the inability of the Senate to obtain cloture on a full repeal of the death tax. I firmly believe that the death tax, the estate tax, is a double taxation and, philosophically, it is wrong.

We have all heard the statements, I think Steve Forbes said this several years ago, that there should be no taxation without respiration. More recently, I have heard the comment that we shouldn't try to balance the budget by robbing the grave. And there are other comments: a death should not be a taxable event. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) just said that. I fully agree with every one of those statements.

The gentleman from New York also said, well, you know, in this time of war, in this time of deficits, in this time of debt, we should be able to get this money. We are not, Mr. Speaker, always going to be in that situation. But if we continue to double tax any American, that is a forever situation and it is forever wrong.

So, clearly, I was in favor of full repeal. However, I believe the bill before us today is a very strong compromise. It will protect many more families, small businesses, and family farms from this double taxation, or the so-called death tax.

It is my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that it also, with a manager's amendment, is indexed for inflation. Those of us, the fiscally conservative Members of our side, felt very strongly about that, and I am pleased with that addition.

I know many of my colleagues are as disappointed with the failure of the other body to pass a full repeal as I am; but as many of us say, we cannot let the perfect become the enemy of the good. So I think there is a lot of good in the bill that Chairman Thomas has brought to us today and that we are discussing at this moment. We have an opportunity to take a substantial and a permanent chunk out of the death tax with a bill that can pass the Senate. They assure us, and I believe, that there will be 60 votes for this bill.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, again I want to thank Chairman Thomas and the committee for their commitment and all of the hard work in bringing this bill before us today. Now is the time for us to pass some real tax relief and eliminate the most egregious form of double taxation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and this underlying bill, and I want to first of all commend Representative Paul Ryan of the Ways and Means Committee for bringing up this legislation.

The Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006 takes a very measured approach that enables the President to recommend budget savings, but preserves the Congress' power of the purse.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of speeches this morning from the other side, and it is amazing how they are railing against two very strong, fiscally sound bills that we are going to vote on later today, a limited line item veto for the President and the virtual elimination of the death tax. Mr. Speaker, it gives them a great opportunity to rail against this Republican majority and this President, but I hope the American people are watching closely when they vote, if they vote against the virtual elimination of the death tax and against giving this President the limited power of a line item veto.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4890 will serve as an additional tool in our arsenal to reduce spending. This bill gives the Congress another set of eyes to review spending, with Congress still having the final say.

The gentleman from Massachusetts, one of the previous speakers, said that, well, you know, some Member might have a really great project, but some President takes political retribution. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that we Members on both sides of the aisle would recognize that, and with a simple majority would vote it down. Rather, what would happen is that some Member would have some earmark that is nothing but a bunch of junk, like another rainforest in Iowa or a buffalo museum somewhere. The President would recognize that; he would ask us to rescind it so that that money could buy yet one more up-armored Humvee to protect our soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I know some of my colleagues would prefer an even stronger bill such as a line item veto constitutional amendment, while others fear that even the underlying bill cedes too much power to the President.

Well, Mr. Speaker, this bill, I believe, balances these concerns, allowing for an additional avenue to reduce the deficit with the approval of the Congress.

However, even with the passage of the underlying bill, we must also redouble our efforts to continue the progrowth policies enacted over the past 6 years, to reduce the tax burden, which in turn increases tax revenues through a strong economy and an increased number of citizens participating in the American dream.

At the end of the day, the American people, through their ingenuity and productivity, will fix this deficit with economic growth. We just have to continue to trust them and reject these calls from the other side to raise taxes.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask for my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the impressive work our troops are doing to fight and win the global war on terror.

Last week, we debated a resolution pledging our commitment to victory in Iraq. I was troubled by some of the rhetoric I heard coming from other side of the aisle. Many Democrats are still advocating a withdrawal policy, and that is a policy that is sure to fail.

Mr. Speaker, we are making significant strides toward a secure Iraq and a more stable Middle East. At that critical moment, it would be a tremendous mistake for us to set a hard deadline for troop withdrawal. A deadline only serves to embolden the terrorists because they know they only have to hold out for a few more weeks or months, or 6 months.

Instead, the House last week sent a resounding message to al Qaeda that we will withdraw when the Iraqi security forces are ready and able to defeat the terrorists and their brutal tactics. This, and not some arbitrary deadline, is our true measure of success.

Mr. Speaker, once again, we have assured our troops that we will support them and will allow them to finish this critical mission.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of effective, fair, and secure immigration reform, not the amnesty plan passed by the Senate this month.

The Senate plan allows millions of illegal immigrants to get a green card and a path to citizenship. Mr. Speaker, let me ask you, what does this say to all the law-abiding people patiently waiting to become American citizens? It says they should have sneaked into our country and ignored our immigration laws like everyone else.

Mr. Speaker, there is a better way to achieve meaningful immigration reform, and I am committed to passing the right kind of bill. We need to secure our borders first; give businesses a fail-safe way to ensure the workers that they hire are legal; and above all,

start enforcing the immigration laws already on the books. Until we can accomplish these goals, any so-called ``reform plan'' will be little more than a recipe for failure.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that you and all of my colleagues join me in standing firm and saying ``no'' to the Senate's amnesty plan.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule for fiscal year 2007 Department of Defense Appropriations Act and the underlying legislation. I would like to commend Chairmen Lewis and Young, as well as the ranking member and the staff of the Defense Committee and subcommittee for their tireless effort in support of our soldiers, our sailors, airmen, and marines who are bravely defending us at home and abroad.

Mr. Speaker, this bill most importantly meets the immediate needs of our warfighters who are fighting and winning the global war on terror. It is a good bill that provides funding for many important programs which are our military's top priorities.

Not the least of these, Mr. Speaker, is F-22 Raptor. I am particularly delighted for the work the Appropriations Committee has done to fund the F-22 program this year. The full funding of 20 planes will go a long way toward providing stability for the program and ensuring that America maintains air dominance for the foreseeable future.

In light of emerging military threats globally, the F-22 will continue to increase in significance, as it is the world's most capable fighter. I therefore wholeheartedly agree with the Department of Defense that the F-22 should be fully funded on a multi-year contract basis, and that the procurement life of the program should be extended beyond fiscal year 2009.

Further, Mr. Speaker, during this time of conflict as we fight the global war on terror, the United States must, without question, continue to modernize and strengthen our ability to support our men and women in harm's way. Maintaining our Nation's airlift capabilities is critical to this mission, and I would like to applaud the committee for their recognition of this in funding 9 C-130Js and the C-5 modernization.

Today, the C-130J is the most modern military transport in service. Both United States and allied C-130Js are exceeding expectations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The KC-130Js have been deployed continuously to Iraq dating to February of 2005, and their unprecedented capability, reliability, and maintainability have been impressive. Over the past year of deployment, the C and the KC-130J mission capable rates have been between 89 and 93 percent, which is more than a 50 percent improvement over legacy aircraft. Similarly, the C-5 has also proven its ability to provide critical support. While the C-5 fleet has flown less than 25 percent of all cargo missions in operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, they delivered nearly 50 percent of all cargo to our troops on the ground. Clearly, the C-5 has demonstrated its effectiveness, and therefore further modernization of a C-5 fleet is imperative.

The funds for C-5 AMP modernization will be used to make critical upgrades of the cockpits with modern avionics and flight instrumentation that meet both Air Force and congressional mandated standards.

Additionally, Mr. Speaker, the funds allocated for the C-5 RERP program modernization will be used to replace old engines and systems with newer ones. These replacements represent significant improvements to the aircraft, making them even more reliable and easier to maintain.

Again, Mr. Speaker, this bill does a remarkable job in addressing a wide scope of issues that are vitally important to our armed services. I would like to again thank the chairmen and ranking members of the respective committee and subcommittee for their hard work on this bill. I urge support of the rule and the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in full support of H. Res. 861.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this resolution, H. Res. 861, and to emphatically declare that we will prevail in the War on Terror across the globe, and in Iraq.

We've already amassed a long list of accomplishments. Mr. Speaker, since being liberated from the oppressive Taliban regime, native Afghans have returned to their homeland in droves, many of whom are highly educated teachers, healthcare providers, and community leaders that were thrown out of the country by the Taliban.

The Afghan economy continues to power ahead and previously unheard-of opportunities are opening up, particularly for Afghani women.

Regrettably, these accomplishments don't seem to generate much enthusiasm with the mainstream media or our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. If you did nothing but listen to their negativity, you would not know that more than 3,600 schools in Iraq have been rehabilitated, or that 240 hospitals and 1,200 medical clinics have been reopened, nor that 13 power plants have been built, providing about 60 percent of Iraq's power generation, or that over 250,000 Iraqi security forces have been trained, equipped, and are fighting on the front line against the insurgency!

Further, Mr. Speaker, without our policies and efforts in carrying out the War on Terror, Libya would not have given up their WMD programs, free elections would not have taken place in Afghanistan and Iraq, a national unity government would not be in place in Iraq, and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would still be carrying out terrorist operations.

Instead of heralding the unparalleled successes of our troops and our policies in prosecuting this war, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would have the American people believe we are losing.

Perhaps Mr. Speaker, the hope of political gains has some of my colleagues seeking to exploit the few missteps we have incurred while ignoring a much greater number of victories.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot give in to the anti-war rhetoric, which only serves to embolden our enemies while offering little hope and little vision. It is always easier to pull back the reigns and watch from the sidelines, but we in America choose to be active in determining the course of history. Make no mistake, we are in a tough fight for the future of peace, freedom, and democracy in the Middle East and around the globe, but winning should be our only option.

As we debate this resolution today, let us not forget that nearly everyone of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle when presented with the same pre-war intelligence that President Bush had concluded with high confidence that Iraq was continuing its' WMD programs contrary to U.N. resolutions. For those who now want to claim the pre- war intelligence was in some way fabricated, both the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee in 2004 and bipartisan Robb-Silberman Committee in 2005 did not find any evidence to support that claim. It is shameful that ``Monday Morning'' critics who hate Secretary Rumsfeld and President Bush are now resorting to false claims about pre-war intelligence

Given that Sadaam Hussein had used weapons of mass destruction on neighboring

countries in the past, along with his desire to bring us harm, Republicans and Democrats alike reached consensus that the potential for him to either harm us directly with these weapons, or indirectly by passing them on to terrorists, was too great a risk to take. The terrible human rights atrocities committed by Sadaam and his blatant disregard for repeated U.N. resolutions were further compelling grounds for our bi-partisan actions.

Mr. Speaker, none of these facts have changed. What has changed is the resolve of many on the other side of the aisle who in the process of changing their footing on the war, have become more interested in playing politics than in defeating terrorism and defending freedom. When these Members of Congress who are advocating a defeatist strategy, sometimes referred to as ``cut and run'', were presented with the opportunity in November 2005 to vote on withdrawing our forces from Iraq immediately, only 3 of those behind these calls stood by their words.

Mr. Speaker, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki of Iraq made the following statements this past Friday: ``We believe we will soon reach a tipping point in our battle against the terrorists as Iraqi security services increase in size and capacity, taking more and more responsibility away from the multinational forces. With our allies, we will also persevere to make Iraq a prosperous democracy in the heart of the Middle East.''

Mr. Speaker, it is easy to see great hope and potential in the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people. However, ill conceived and short sighted strategies threaten any chance of Iraq becoming a bastion for democracy in the Middle East. I sincerely hope the defeatist rhetoric of the minority party will not dishearten the brave men and women who are defending and advancing freedom around the globe.

Therefore Mr. Speaker, I urge all members to support this resolution. Let our brave men and women in uniform know that we will never break faith with them. Let the Iraqi people know that their patriots have not died in vain.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in memory of C.J. Fouts, a businessman and community leader in the city of Smyrna, Georgia, in my district. Mr. Fouts passed away this week, leaving behind his wife, Betty, three children, eight grandchildren, four great-grandchildren, and a community full of grateful citizens.

Mr. Fouts captured the essence of the American dream, Mr. Speaker. He came to Smyrna at age 18 from rural Georgia in search of work. He started his own business, a service station that later grew into a sales shop for cars, trucks and equipment.

Mr. Fouts gave his time, energy and passion to the Smyrna business community. He has the distinction of possessing the longest active business license in the city of Smyrna, 54 years. Just a few weeks ago the city honored him with a plaque commemorating him as a founding member of the Downtown Development Authority. I am so thankful to have been in attendance.

Mr. Speaker, our communities are blessed with men like C.J. Fouts. Their work ethic boosts our economy, and their determination allows our towns and our cities to flourish. Smyrna, indeed, and the State of Georgia, lost a great man this week, but his work and vision live on throughout the city.

Mr. Speaker, I ask you and my colleagues to join me in honoring Mr. Fouts' memory.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule, H. Res. 861. I firmly believe that the installation of democratic governments in Afghanistan and Iraq, coupled with the recent completion of Iraq's National Unity Government and ratification of a Constitution, the elimination of Abu Musab al Zarqawi, and the continued success of our reconstruction efforts in these countries are tremendous accomplishments in the global war on terror.

We are at a point in Iraq where we can build on these successes. We can advance democracy and freedom and stand by the Iraqi people while honoring the commitment that we have made. Or we can withdraw, as many on the other side of appeasement are suggesting, leaving the progress we have made and the future of Iraq to chance. Just as in Europe and Japan following World War II, there is only one option, Mr. Speaker, and that is to stand by the Iraqis until their government, police, military can ensure the security of their own nation. Then, and only then, will be the appropriate time to disengage, leaving a strong ally and flourishing democracy as an example of a peaceful and free nation to others in the Middle East region.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we simply cannot give in to the anti-war rhetoric which only serves to embolden our enemies, while offering little hope and little vision. Rather, we must continue to advance policies which make our Nation safer, which are responsible for the liberation of over 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan. It has led Libya to abandon their weapons of mass destruction program, and it makes every new year worse than the previous one for the terrorists.

In this fight for the future of peace, freedom and democracy in the Middle East and around the globe, winning should be our only option.

This past Friday we heard Prime Minister Maliki of Iraq make the following statement: ``With our allies we will persevere to make Iraq a prosperous democracy in the heart of the Middle East.''

Mr. Speaker, it is easy to see great hope and potential in the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people. Unfortunately, the minority party offers no hope. All we hear are ill-conceived and shortsighted strategies which threaten any chance of Iraq becoming a bastion of democracy in the Middle East.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to support this rule and the resolution, which sends a clear and a positive message to the new Iraqi government and its citizens. But just as importantly, Mr. Speaker, it sends a clear message to those soldiers who have been injured or killed and their families that this Congress will never break faith with them.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank our brave servicemen and women for their exceptional work in fighting the global war on terror.

I recently spent time in Iraq with the 48th Brigade Combat Unit of the Georgia Army National Guard. This unit was doing some incredible humanitarian work for the Iraqi people, building schools and managing health clinics. Of course, these aren't the stories that you read about on the front page of the New York Times, so I want to share one with you today.

One evening during my trip, I was having dinner with a young sergeant named Keith Weathers. This sergeant would explain to me why his unit was doing so much to help the Iraqi people. Sergeant Weathers said it was because he and most Americans have hope and opportunity, and it was his mission to share the abundant opportunities our Nation enjoys with those struggling to achieve freedom in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, our soldiers are bringing hope and opportunity for the Iraqi people every day. The war on terror is not an easy fight, nor is it an expedient fight, but it is undoubtedly the right fight.

I hope we all take Sergeant Weathers's words to heart and continue supporting our troops and their mission.