Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding.

I rise to talk about briefly coddling terrorists.

There is no one in this body, no one in this country who wants to coddle terrorists. But let me remind my friends that Saddam Hussein was taken out of a hole and captured. And we did not torture him, and we have accorded him legal rights to hear the evidence, to address the court, and be represented by counsel. Why did we do that? Because we wanted to coddle Saddam Hussein? Did this administration want to coddle Saddam Hussein? Absolutely not. But because our values and the values of the international community suggested that.

And the ``Butcher of Belgrade,'' Milosevic, who murdered tens of thousands of people and ethnically cleansed 2 million people, we accorded him legal rights because we wanted to coddle him? No. Because that was our value system.

And, yes, even the butchers of Berlin, those who murdered millions of people in the Second World War, at Nuremburg were given their rights to see the evidence, to confront their accusers, and to have the proof adduced at trial. Why did we do that? Because we wanted to coddle the butchers of Berlin? Absolutely not. It was because those are our values, the values of the international community, and the values of our Founding Fathers.

Let us not rush to judgment in this instance. Let us recognize and honor our values. That does not mean that we coddle the murderer, the rapist, or the terrorist. It means that we want a civilized society in which to live in this country and, yes, around the world.

Is it therefore safe to assume that the port security bill would be the last bill on which Members would be required to vote, or would there possibly be other business following that?

Mr. Leader, if you would, can you clarify for the Members what you contemplate the schedule to be from now until we get to the port security bill?

I yield to my friend.

So that will be some time after 9 o'clock?

So after this series of votes, Members could be confident there will be no votes prior to, say, 9:30?

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding and I thank her for her leadership on the Rules Committee in one of probably the most frustrating jobs on this Hill, because we have not had open debate.

Dana Milbank wrote about that this morning. Dana Milbank quoted David Dreier. David Dreier criticized Democrats yesterday for not having alternatives. David Dreier's Rules Committee prevented the Democrats from offering any amendments to yesterday's commission bill. How ironic.

Mr. Speaker, I adopt the comments made by the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi who was right on point, in my opinion. I truly hope the American people are watching today because, if they do, they will see why this Republican Congress is the do-less-than-the-do-nothing Congress of 1948, which is failing to address the priorities of the American people. That is what the gentleman from Mississippi was talking about.

Let us look at the facts. This do-less-than-the-do-nothing Republican Congress is projected to be in session just 93 days prior to leaving for the elections. The do-nothing Congress met 111 days. That is 17 fewer days in session than the do-nothing Congress of 1948, which was famously derided by President Truman. Now, if we had done a lot of work in those 93 days one could say, well, we did not need to meet as much because we did a lot of substantive work. Let us look at the record.

Today on this House floor, we have the time to consider a bill recognizing the 225th anniversary of the American and French victory at Yorktown, Virginia, during the Revolutionary War. That was a critical juncture in our history and deserves recognition. Yet, we have still failed to enact a budget. We do not have a budget. Now Mr. and Mrs. America probably know that the budget year begins just 4 days from today, but we have not enacted a budget for the American people.

Today on this House floor, we have time to consider a bill congratulating the Columbus Northern Little League Baseball Team from Columbus, Georgia. I think they are world champions. They are deserving of recognition. I do not resent the fact that we are doing that. God bless them. Congratulations. Yet, this Republican-controlled Congress has failed to enact the recommendations, as was pointed out by the gentleman from Mississippi, of the 9/11 Commission.

One of our most important responsibilities is keeping America and Americans safe. That is what the 9/11 Commission was about. Republicans and Democrats came together. Governor Kean, former Republican governor of New Jersey, and Lee Hamilton, distinguished former Member of this body, a Democrat, came together and made recommendations, said we can make America safer, but they have given us Fs and Ds on our performance.

Today on this House floor, we have time to consider 12 post office renamings. I am sure that every American is concerned about the name of their post office. Me, too. Yet we have failed to enact a long overdue increase in the Federal minimum wage which has not been raised since 1997. People in America, the richest Nation on the face of the earth, 6.6 million working 40 hours a week and living in poverty, but we can rename 12 post offices.

We failed to enact real immigration reform to keep our borders safe, failed to address the fact that 46 million Americans have no health insurance. Yet we rename 12 post offices. And we have failed to enact legislation that moves us toward energy independence, a security issue, an economic issue and an environmental issue.

The truth is, Madam Speaker, this Republican Congress is failing the American people, and the fact that the Republican majority is here today asking us to consider noncontroversial bills while key priorities go unaddressed is the clearest evidence of that failure.

I go around this country and Americans tell me they want a change. They want to move in a new direction.

As Tom Mann, a congressional scholar at the Brookings Institution, and Norm Ornstein, one of the most respected congressional scholars in America who works at the American Enterprise Institute, wrote yesterday in the Los Angeles Times, ``This Congress hit the ground stumbling and has not lifted itself into an upright position. The output of the 109th Congress,'' they went on to say, ``is pathetic measured against its predecessors.'' Republican and Democrat.

Mr. Speaker, this Republican rule is nothing less than a mission of failure and ineffectiveness. Even our Republican colleagues have a hard time denying that. Let me quote Jack Kingston from Georgia, who has been such a prominent part of the Republican leadership, who said it best earlier this week. I quote Republican Jack Kingston, part of the Republican leadership, ``It is disappointing where we are, and I think Republicans need to be up front about this. We have not accomplished what we need to accomplish.'' If I were in church, the people would say ``Amen.''

It is time, Madam Speaker, for a new direction in America.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, every single Member of this body supports giving our Commander in Chief the tools necessary to track terrorists, to intercept their communications, and to disrupt their plots. Any suggestion otherwise, any suggestion that any Member of this body somehow seeks to coddle terrorists who want to attack our Nation and kill our people demeans our discourse and is beneath the dignity of this institution.

Make no mistake. Our highest duty is to protect the American people, secure our homeland, strengthen our national security, and defend the Constitution of the United States. This legislation, unfortunately, is deeply flawed and not bipartisan, and would turn the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act on its head. It fails to explicitly preserve FISA's exclusivity. Thus, by implication, it allows the President to conduct surveillance of Americans pursuant to any inherent authority argument.

The bill makes sweeping changes to the definition of electronic surveillance, allowing the National Security Agency to listen without warrant to the content of any communication that is from the United States to overseas or vice versa. The bill allows for warrantless surveillance after an armed attack or a terrorist attack or anticipation of an imminent attack; yet these terms are not defined or are loosely defined.

It is truly a shame, Mr. Speaker, but not surprising that the majority refused to allow the Members of this House to consider the reasonable bipartisan substitute offered by Congressmen Schiff, Flake, and Inglis, two Republicans, two Democrats, and Congresswoman Harman.

The gentlewoman said that we ran out, running down the street. There is a time to stop running down the street and think and give us an opportunity to offer alternatives. What a shame that we have not done that. What a shame we still run. What a shame we still hark to politics rather than the policy.

For example, just listen to what William Sessions and William Webster--among others--stated recently.

Recall, Mr. Sessions is the former Director of the FBI during the administration of George H.W. Bush, and Mr. Webster is the former Director of the FBI during the Carter and Reagan Administrations and former Director of the CIA during the first Bush Administration.

They stated (and I quote): ``Legal uncertainty is exactly what will result if Congress heeds the President's call to enact legislation that replaces the obligation to use the procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act with broad language about relying upon the President's constitutional authority.''

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted nothing more than to come to this floor today and vote for a military commissions bill that comports with our American values, that the rest of the world would see as fair and humane, that honors our international commitments and protects our own troops who fall into enemy hands and, as the ranking member has pointed out, the Supreme Court would uphold.

I regret that the chairman and the ranking member are not shoulder to shoulder on this issue, as should be the case. Too often have we considered these weighty matters of defending our country, defeating terrorism, protecting Americans in a partisan fashion. I think that is regrettable. I think the American people think it is regrettable.

Make no mistake. Every single Member of this House wants our President to have the intelligence necessary to prevent future terrorist acts on our Nation and our allies. Every single one of us wants those responsible for 9/11 and other terrorist acts to be tried fairly and punished accordingly. And we want those convictions to be upheld by the courts, and we want to stop future attacks.

But, regrettably, the bill before us today, in my opinion, falls far short of the high standards that this Congress and the American people expect and demand and indeed that the world expects of America. This legislation at bottom is really more about who we are as a people than it is about those who seek to harm us.

That is true if it were domestic. It is true internationally. No one wants to defend murderers and rapists, those who would harm our people, whether they live here or they live abroad. However, defending America requires us to marshal the full range of our power, diplomatic and military, economic, and, yes, moral. And when our moral standing is eroded, our international credibility is diminished as well.

We must not lightly dismiss the somber warning of our former Secretary of State, the leader of our Armed Forces, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, serving on the administrations of President Bush I, and serving as his Secretary of State.

He said this, and I quote Colin Powell: ``The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. I fear this legislation before us will further diminish that credibility.''

While this bill properly lists as punishable offenses certain grave breaches of article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, it leaves almost unfettered discretion to the administration to define anything less than such grave breaches.

Why should we be concerned about providing this administration with such discretion, one might ask? Because our President and our Attorney General have routinely flouted congressional authority with signing statements and legal interpretations, which give to them unfettered authority.

As the Washington Post has stated, and again I quote: ``The Bush administration's history is one of interpreting limitations on interrogation tactics, including Mr. McCain's previous legislation, banning cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, as permitting methods most people regard as torture.''

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, this bill eliminates the fundamental legal right of habeas corpus. What is habeas corpus about? Why should we care for terrorists who attack our country? Because we might make a mistake. That is why we build in protections, to protect against mistakes because we are human.

The bill would greatly minimize judicial oversight by establishing a new appeals process and centralizing consideration of cases in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, thus stripping other appellate courts from hearing cases currently pending before them.

Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely committed to winning the war on terrorism and bringing to justice any and all terrorists who would threaten us, harm us or cause harm to our country. However, I also believe we have an obligation to the Constitution and to our oath to do so in a manner that is consistent with our values, that makes us different than other nations in the world, that secures just convictions and that enhances our international credibility, thereby strengthening our national security.

I end as I started. I regret that I cannot support this legislation, and I are regret that it is not being offered in a bipartisan fashion. It would have been better for us, for the people, and for our country.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, this legislation--the so-called Public Expression of Religion Act--not only is brazenly hypocritical, but it also is politically cynical and would set a very dangerous precedent.

Quite simply, this bill would bar the award of attorney fees to the prevailing parties asserting their fundamental constitutional rights in cases brought under the establishment clause of the first amendment.

This is, indeed, a change of heart for a Republican party that has tried in vain for years to impose a ``loser pays'' rule on attorney fees in tort cases.

In fact, with this bill, the House Majority lays bare the outcome determinative agenda that guides the Republican party when it comes to issues that involve our legal system and judiciary.

That is, the majority seeks to enact legal procedural advantages for those with whom it agrees.

Make no mistake, if this bill became law, it would single out one area of Constitutional Protections under the Bill of Rights and prevent its full enforcement.

Without question, that would set a dangerous precedent.

The substance of the Constitution is meaningless unless all Americans have a fair and equal opportunity to go to court when their constitutional rights are curtailed by the state.

By barring the award of attorney fees to prevailing parties asserting their constitutional rights in cases brought under the Establishment Clause, H.R. 2679 will discourage Americans of limited means from defending their rights.

Taken to its logical to conclusion, this bill would make the U.S. Constitution the tool for those who can afford to vindicate their rights in a court of law.

As such, it is a dangerous bill that runs counter to more than 200 years of American jurisprudence.

I urge my colleagues: vote against this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Speaker, I have every intention of voting for the underlying appropriation bill, which will fund the Department of Defense for fiscal year 2007, presumably, and I believe critical to our national defense. Yet it has been languishing for 9 months. In the last breath before the election, we bring the bill to the floor.

However, I have noticed as well, I am sure many Members have, that the Republican leadership has chosen to insert the must-pass continuing resolution in this important legislation, rather than allow a free- standing vote on that issue.

Let no one be mistaken. The Republican leadership, by tucking the CR in the defense appropriation bill, does so because in my opinion it is embarrassed by its own incompetence and ineffectiveness. Just look at the facts. This do-less-than-the-do-nothing Republican Congress is projected to be in session just 93 days in 2006. That is 17 fewer days in session than the do-nothing Congress of 1948, which was famously derided by President Truman.

Yet despite the light work schedule, the Republican majority has failed to enact a budget for fiscal 2007. It has failed to act on even one appropriation bill as we are 5 days from the end of the fiscal year.

No conference reports. That is why we are having this continuing resolution. Furthermore, the Republican-controlled Congress has failed to enact the recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission.

Failed to enact a long overdue increase in the Federal minimum wage. Failed to enact real immigration reform, and protect our borders, protect our country. Failed to address the fact that 46 million Americans are uninsured today, and failed to enact legislation that moves toward energy independence.

The record, frankly and sadly for the American people and for our country, is that this Republican Congress on fiscal issues is simply abysmal. We go deeper and deeper and deeper into debt.

In 6 years, this Republican Congress and the Bush administration have turned a projected 10-year budget surplus of $5.6 trillion into a 10- year deficit of almost $4 trillion. Republicans' failed fiscal policies have created record budget deficits and forced this Congress to increase the debt limit four times in 5 years.

In the last 4 years of the Clinton administration, we never once raised the debt limit. In fact, in the entire 8 years, the debt limit was only raised twice, in the first 4 years as we were coming out of the fiscally irresponsible first Bush administration.

Mr. Speaker, this continuing resolution, tucked as it is in this defense appropriation bill, is an admission of failure by the Republican Congress. As our friend from Georgia, Congressman Kingston, a Republican leader, said

yesterday: ``It is disappointing where we are. And I think Republicans need to be up front about this. We have not accomplished what we need to accomplish.''

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree with Congressman Kingston more on that particular issue. The CR tucked in a defense bill, a CR, an admission of failure, a CR in a bill that is critical to our national defense and to our country. How sad. What a stark admission of failure.

Will my friend yield on that point?

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, as you know, I have been here for many years, 26 to be exact. The gentleman mentions 9/11, a cataclysmic event in the history of our country. He is right to mention that. Obviously it cost us money.

But I have served here for 26 years, as the gentleman knows, 18 of these have been with Republican Presidents, 8 with a Democratic President. I tell my friend, in every one of the 18 years with a Republican President we ran deficits above $100 billion.

During the Clinton administration, as you know, we ran 4 years of surplus and 4 years of decreasing deficits, the only President in our life time who had a surplus, i.e., $62.5 billion surplus; the only President in our lifetime who did that during his tenure.

Further, I say to my friend, in 1993, with Democrats in control of the Congress of the United States, and with not one Republican vote, we passed an economic program which raised revenues, which you mention frequently, I do not mean you personally, but your party mentions frequently, but you never mention the fact that in that same bill, we cut $254 billion in spending.

Furthermore, in terms of spending, you say restraint of spending. Democrats do not control spending at all. We do not have control in the House; we do not have control in the Senate. Yet the Republicans have spent, as you well know, at twice the rate of spending under the Clinton administration. I thank you for yielding.

I thank my friend Mr. Lantos, and I want to thank my friend Mr. Smith as well. Mr. Smith and I had the honor of co-chairing, he was in the minority at that point in time and I was chairing the Helsinki Commission, but there was no distinction in terms of party. Mr. Smith has been a strong and compelling voice on human rights.

Mr. Lantos, my friend of over a quarter of a century, has been a giant on behalf of peace and security and human rights, and I am honored to support his resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly support the bill before us offered by my good friend, the ranking Democrat on the International Relations Committee. It calls on the President to take immediate steps to improve the security situation in Darfur, Sudan.

Mr. Speaker, for 3 years the world has turned effectively a blind eye to the genocide in Darfur, the vast region in Western Sudan; a blind eye not because we did not hear and not because we did not see, but because we have not acted.

Already more than 200,000 civilians have died and more than 2.5 million have been driven from their homes as a result of violent warfare between the government-sanctioned Janjaweed and the disparate rebel groups. Frighteningly, Mr. Speaker, a report in the Washington Post just 2 weeks ago suggested these numbers could indeed be higher, maybe even double the figures I have just cited.

Did we not learn anything from the lessons of Bosnia, Kosovo, Rwanda and other places in Africa? Did we not learn the consequences of our negligence in the 1930s? We watched in horror as troops in blue helmets in Bosnia stood by and witnessed the rape, murder and displacement of thousands.

I don't know how many people, Mr. Speaker, saw Hotel Rwanda. Nick Nolte played the colonel. As Rwanda was imploding and thousands were being murdered, the manager of the Hotel appealed to Nick Nolte, the colonel, in charge of the UN troops, ``Do something.'' And his sad response was, ``My duty is to watch and report. I neither have the troops nor the power to intervene.''

Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the situation in Darfur is the world's worst current human rights crisis. There are others, of course, of significant magnitude, but this clearly is currently the worst.

We must do more to stem the violence. The measure offered by Mr. Lantos as well as those offered by Chairman Hyde and Congressman Wolf are a good start. Mr. Smith's leadership on these three bills is appreciated by all.

Chairman Hyde's bill is the long-awaited Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, which already passed this Chamber once with my support; and I am pleased to support it again. The bill includes key sanctions, provisions and authorizes the support for an expanded African Union mission in Sudan.

A year-and-a-half ago, maybe 2 years ago now, I had a discussion with Secretary Powell about supporting the contingent from the African Union. In fact, we have done that. Moneys have been made available, as has equipment.

H.R. 723, introduced by Congressman Lantos, goes even further, insisting that the President do more to improve the security situation in Darfur by calling for an interim NATO civilian protection force. That was similar to what we did in Bosnia.

Finally, we are considering here H. Res. 992, calling on the President to appoint a special envoy for Sudan. Recognizing that the President appointed former USAID Administrator Andrew Natsios to the job last week, I nevertheless intend to support the resolution. By doing so, I believe we send a

strong message to the President that he should have long ago designated such an envoy, and I applaud him for doing so now. It is never too late to do the right thing.

July, 2004, this Chamber voted unanimously to declare the crisis in Darfur a genocide. July, 2004. July, 2004. Twenty-seven months later, thousands of souls murdered, hundreds of thousands ripped from their home and their security.

And we continue to talk. For more than 2 years we have stood by as the situation deteriorated and ignored the mounting casualty and dislocation rates.

Sadly, Mr. Speaker, the case of Darfur is yet another demonstration of the international community's collective lack of will to confront those who would commit such horrific acts of cowardice.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the world needs the United Nations. I believe that we need a collective organ for international security and stability. But if that organ cannot act either because the Security Council permanent members veto such action or because of the lack of will of that body, then others must act. If morality plays any part in the consideration of the policies of this country and the civilized countries of this world, there is no course but to act.

I congratulate my friend and a great leader of this House, the gentleman from California, Mr. Lantos, for his leadership on this critically important issue.

Mr. Speaker, I want to offer my congratulations today to my good friend and Fifth District constituent, Betty Buck of Upper Marlboro, Maryland, who was recently elected as the Chairman of the National Beer Wholesalers Association. Betty is well known for her leadership in the State of Maryland, and this week she made history by being elected the first woman to lead this important national business trade association.

Betty is the President of Buck Distributing, a beer wholesaler in my District, where she oversees a business with annual sales of more than $40 million and employs more than 100 workers. This is not the first time that Betty's professional vision and competence have elevated her to a leadership position. She has been recognized for her business acumen by serving on the Committee of America's Women Business Leaders and as a past Director of the Greater Washington Board of Trade. In addition, she was named one of the Most Powerful Women in Washington in 1997, and was selected to be a member of the Top 500 Women Owned Business Group and the Top 25 Women Who Mean Business by the Washington Business Journal.

Betty is also a dedicated public servant who is deeply concerned about our community. She has served on numerous boards and foundations in the greater Washington, D.C., area, including the Prince George's Hospital Foundation, the University of Maryland's Foundation Board of Directors, and United Cerebral Palsy.

In addition to her charity work, Betty has also given her time and expertise to her community by serving as a member of the Maryland Judicial Compensation Committee, the Anne Arundel Planning Advisory Board, and the University of Maryland Commission for School Cooperation.

It is a testament to Betty's talents that she has accomplished so much in the professional world while also raising a wonderful family, including her children Kelly, Erin, Tim and Dan.

Mr. Speaker, Betty Buck is an inspiration to all those who desire a career in business and who also want to raise a family and be engaged in their community. I salute her efforts, as she rises to the position of Chairman of the National Beer Wholesalers Association.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to my friend, the majority leader, Mr. Boehner, for the purposes of inquiring about the schedule for the week to come.

I thank the gentleman for that information. To clarify, am I correct that the three bills that you mentioned prior to the mentioning of the last conference report, the NIH authorization bill, the Open Space and Farmland Preservation Act, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Modernization Reform Act, am I correct they will all be suspension bills?

I thank the gentleman.

On the schedule, last week we talked about the 29th being the target date, and that we were going to get out on the 29th. But that being Friday, we might go over to Saturday if we did not finish on Friday, and we have advised Members to make sure that their Saturday schedule was flexible to accommodate that. But can you clarify that additionally as to what your thoughts are and the possibility of being here on Saturday?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman for that information.

It reminds me that before we had a court of appeals opinion in Maryland, before I went to the Senate, constitutionally you had a 90- day session, but as you point out, on the last day you weren't quite sure how long that last day would be.

I hear you. I will advise our Members not to have Friday night planes scheduled, and to have maybe a little later Saturday scheduled, maybe well into the morning.

November is when we will next reconvene, it is my understanding. You previously indicated that after we have our last votes, the House will not be in session again until Monday, November 13. Is that still your intention?

I yield to my friend.

What can you tell us about the rest of the November and December schedule so that Members might be planning for that as well? Are we likely to have votes on Friday, the 17th, for example; and what about the following week and Thanksgiving week?

I thank the gentleman for that information. We understand it has to be tentative, and we understand that the leader cannot anticipate exactly what will and will not pass within certain time frames. We appreciate sort of the ballpark estimate of what would be available for time if we need it.

You have not noted, but there has been a lot of talk about tax- related legislation and speculation as to whether or not we will consider any tax or trade-related legislation, for example, the tax extenders, prior to leaving for the elections. It is not on your schedule. Do you have any expectation that we would be considering prior to the election, not after the election but prior to, any tax legislation, extenders or otherwise?

You do not. Thank you.

There is noted on the calendar a bill which is the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. Would it be your expectation there would be any other legislation prior to the election dealing with that subject, abortion?

I thank you for that.

You mentioned we are going to have, and you are going to try to pass a rule, I suppose, to give you suspension authority all of next week. Are there any other bills that you are contemplating bringing up under suspension? You noted the three that we discussed. Are there any others?

I yield to my friend.

It is a challenge, isn't it, Mr. Leader?

I thank the gentleman. I understand there are a lot of bills that are possible, and we appreciate that fact and appreciate his working with us to try to accommodate Members on both sides.

Two last things. Mr. Goodlatte and Mr. Peterson have been very concerned, as you know, about the drought and the stress that many of our farmers in rural areas of our country have been experiencing. There has been a lot of discussion about assistance that we could give. Is there any contemplation that next week we might be able to consider an emergency disaster assistance bill, H.R. 5099, that will help our farmers and ranchers who have been badly hurt by floods, droughts and other natural disasters?

I appreciate that.

The last question will not come as a surprise to you, I know. We still have yet to pass one appropriation bill.

We have passed the others, but it is still out there. It is a large bill that deals with the education of our children, the health of our people, and the ability of our working people to succeed. I know that there is great attention being given to that bill. We are hopeful that it will come to the floor, and we are hopeful when it comes to the floor, there will be an opportunity to vote up or down on increasing the minimum wage over a period of time. Is there any hope or expectation that that bill might come to the floor?

I thank the gentleman. Reclaiming my time, we would hope that you would continue to consider that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in opposition to this bill.

The gentleman who has just spoken represents Georgia. Georgia passed a bill. The superior court has now twice held that bill to be unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional because it undermines the ability of Americans to vote. It in effect imposes additional tests.

In my State, I have been active for 40 years, I will tell my friend, I don't remember a case, not one, where citizenship was raised in our State. I venture if I asked all of you to prove to me you were a U.S. citizen right now, nobody on this floor could do it. Not one of you. You might give me a license. You might say, well, I was born here, there or everywhere. But nobody could prove they were a U.S. citizen.

Ladies and gentlemen, this bill is tantamount to a 21st century poll tax. It will disenfranchise large numbers of legal voters and disproportionately affect elderly people with disabilities, rural voters, students, racial and ethnic minorities, and low-income voters. Indeed, that may be its purpose. Hear me. That may be its purpose. All of these folks are less likely to have the current valid photo identification required by this bill.

It is highly ironic, Mr. Speaker, that just a few short weeks ago, this Congress reauthorized key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 after defeating a number of crippling amendments offered by the other side of the aisle, that landmark law designed to make voting easier and more fair, to address centuries, centuries, of discrimination. People were told they couldn't vote because of the color of their skin. People were told they couldn't vote because of their gender. They were told you can go to war, but you can't vote. We have changed that. Let us not now retreat and say, yes, but we are going to make it more difficult.

Today, through this voter ID bill, the Republican majority would make voting more onerous and burdensome for many, many Americans. Show me the cases. Show me the examples of the problem you are trying to solve.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is nothing more than a partisan political stunt. All of us are united in seeking to eliminate voter fraud. I stand against voter fraud. I worked with the Help America Vote Act Coalition to pass the Help America Vote Act. We have staff on here who worked very hard on that bill. We debated this issue, and the Congress rejected it. But now, 7 days left in the session, let us appeal to the fear, and, yes, perhaps the prejudice of people.

I ask that this bill be defeated. It is a bad bill for America. It is a bad bill for democracy. It is a bad bill for the House of Representatives to pass.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

They found 1,500. Can the gentlewoman cite me one instance of a criminal charge being proven that that is the case? I don't doubt that you can assert that some people said there is fraud. Yes. Can you cite me one conviction of anybody who facilitated one of those 1,500 dead people going in, saying, ``I am Sam Brown,'' who is dead, ``and I want to vote''? Can you cite me one example of one conviction where that was found to be the fact, as opposed to an assertion?

Can I respond that I do agree with the gentlewoman that fraud does occur, and when it occurs, we ought to prosecute it. When fraud occurs, we ought to put those people in jail, because they undermine the rest of us who are voting honestly and fairly.

What we ought not do is respond to that by making it more difficult for many Americans to cast the basic right that they have as American citizens, the vote.

I thank the gentleman for yielding the time, and I am pleased to join him and certainly adopt his remarks, which I think are fundamental to this debate that will be going on for the next 6 weeks in our country about how we effect Real Security. That is our objective. That is our commitment as Democrats.

We believe that terrorism is a real threat. We believe that we have a responsibility to confront and defeat that threat. That is our responsibility as citizens, and that is our responsibility as elected representatives.

I am pleased to join Mr. Schiff, who has been such a leader on national security issues in the Congress; my dear friend from Maryland and colleague Mr. Van Hollen, who has a depth of knowledge and experience in foreign policy issues and national security issues; and my good friend from the State of Georgia, Mr. David Scott. The State of Georgia has historically had leaders in national defense. On our side of the aisle, most recently was Sam Nunn, one of the most extraordinarily able and thoughtful spokespersons for national security.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues for taking this time. Our highest duty as Members of this Congress is to protect the American people, to protect our homeland and to strengthen our national security. We Democrats are proud of our party's strong tradition of leadership in world affairs from Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt to Harry Truman and John Kennedy, indeed to Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton, it will be recalled, most recently marshaled the NATO Alliance, received the imprimatur of the United Nations, confronted the genocide being led by Slobodan Milosevic, defeated and stopped the genocide, stopped the ethnic cleansing, and put Slobodan Milosevic in the dock in trial at the Hague, all without losing a single American life in combat.

These leaders demonstrated that defending America requires our Nation to marshal the full range of its powers, economic and moral, diplomatic and military, to fight for freedom, to foster democracy, and to defeat tyranny and terrorism.

I believe that Members on both sides of the aisle are committed to this Nation's security. Any suggestion to the contrary, in my opinion, is either mistaken or quite possibly malicious partisanship. Furthermore, I believe that members of the loyal opposition, in this case us congressional Democrats, have the responsibility to critique the wisdom and effectiveness of the policies pursued by the majority party. That is what our Founding Fathers conceived. That is what our Founding Fathers believed was absolutely essential for the success of our democracy: A Congress and an executive and indeed a judiciary that provided checks and balances, provided thoughtful alternatives to policies being pursued, and provided constructive criticism. The fact is our Nation and our people are not as safe today as they could and should be.

I accept the fact that we are safer, but I repeat, that we are not as safe as we could or should be. Osama bin Laden, the architect of the worst terrorist attack on America in our history, remains at large. We still have not fully implemented the recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, for which the commission itself has criticized us sharply. In fact, Tom Kean, the co-chair, the former Republican Governor of the State of New Jersey, the co-chair of the 9/11 Commission and the former Republican Governor, as I said, of New Jersey, recently stated: ``We are not protecting our own people in this country. The government is not doing its job.'' What powerful words and what a call to attention are Governor Kean's words.

Meanwhile, the nuclear threats from North Korea and Iran have increased dramatically in the last 6 years. The Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan, where roadside bombs have increased 30 percent and suicide bombings have doubled. And anti-Americanism has unfortunately and dangerously risen by substantial proportions. Even former Secretary of State and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell, who has served this country so honorably in uniform and as a diplomat, remarked last week: ``The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism.''

That is an extraordinary dangerous condition. We cannot nor should we fight this war against terrorists alone. We must have allies. We must have allies who respect us, who believe that our word is credible, and believe that our leadership is based upon values, insight, good intelligence, and conviction. Without question, Madam Speaker, our continuing military action in Iraq has fomented much of this anti- American sentiment.

Let me add that I supported the effort to remove Saddam Hussein as the dictator in Iraq. Democrats, however, as the loyal opposition, believe that we have a duty to honestly appraise the gross miscalculations and, I suggest, even incompetence that have plagued Operation Iraqi Freedom from its very start and to offer alternatives.

The administration ignored the advice of top military commanders and sent far too few troops to accomplish the task at hand. Recall, if you will, that we sent over a half million troops in the fall of 1990 to confront Saddam Hussein and his army in the late winter of 1991. We sent those troops to eject Hussein from Kuwait. We sent a force one- third, however, the size in 2003 not only to confront Saddam Hussein's army but to take control and stabilize an entire nation of 22 million- plus people and to ensure its stability.

As Tom Friedman of the New York Times has stated: ``If we're in such a titanic struggle with radical Islam and if getting Iraq right is at the center of that struggle, why did the Bush administration fight the Iraq war with the Rumsfeld doctrine, just enough troops to lose, and not the Powell doctrine of overwhelming force to create the necessary foundation of any democracy-building project, which is,'' of course, ``security?''

The administration, with Mr. Bremer as its viceroy in Iraq, fired police and security forces and oil workers, which increased, not decreased, instability. It initiated the war before making alternative plans when the Turks told us that we could not come in through the north so we could shut the back door to Baghdad. And as a result, many of those in the Saddam Hussein armed forces escaped and were a basis for an insurgency.

In fact, just this month Brigadier General Mark Scheid revealed that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said he would ``fire the next person'' who talked about the need for a post-war plan. There was no effective plan for post-Saddam Hussein regime nation-building. As a result, chaos occurred.

The administration failed to properly equip our own troops, Mr. Schiff has pointed that out, nearly 2,700 of whom have given the ultimate measure of sacrifice in this war. All of us in our districts have lost people in this war.

The administration grossly underestimated the cost of the war at about $60 billion. Today, the war costs stand at five times that amount, in excess of $300 billion. All of that has happened, I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, without significant oversight and appropriate hearings being conducted by this Congress, which is our responsibility to our constituents and to our country.

The administration hired inexperienced and unqualified political appointees for the Coalition Provisional Authority, as The Washington Post reported on Sunday. And when confronted with concrete evidence of widespread mistreatment of detainees in American custody, the President failed to hold anyone in his administration accountable.

All of this, Madam Speaker, has undermined the effectiveness of an effort that I supported. Some did not. But whether you supported it or you did not, you must lament the fact that the execution of the policy has been so unsuccessful.

Madam Speaker, as Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold, the former commanding general of the 1st Marine Division, has stated: ``What we are living with now is the consequence of successive policy failures.'' That is not a Democrat or a Republican but a three-star general concerned about his troops, concerned about our country, concerned about the success of an effort given to our Armed Forces.

The current strategy for our military, our security, and the Iraqi people is neither working nor making us more secure. Our colleague Congressman Skelton of Missouri has pointed out that there is not a single Army nondeployed combat brigade currently prepared to meet its wartime mission. That, Madam Speaker, is an extraordinary assertion and I suggest an accurate one as well.

Meanwhile, the news in Iraq is equally dire. The chief of intelligence for the Marine Corps in Iraq has concluded that prospects for securing that country's Anbar Province are dim and there is almost nothing the U.S. military can do to improve the political and social situation there. Thirty-four people were killed in suicide attacks on Monday in Tal Afar and Ramadi. Fifty-two bound and tortured corpses were found across Baghdad on Friday. And just today General John Abizaid, the commander of the U.S. Central Command, said that the U.S. military will likely maintain or possibly increase current force levels through next spring due to rising sectarian violence and the slow progress of the Iraqi Government.

Madam Speaker, I want the Iraqi Government to succeed. I want democracy to flourish. I want a robust economy creating jobs and hope for its people to be in place. However, Madam Speaker, the policies that we have pursued have not accomplished that objective.

Clearly, Madam Speaker, we need a new direction. I believe, as former National Security Adviser Brzezinski has said, that American and Iraqi leaders should jointly consult on a plan to transition from active American leadership and policing and securing Iraq to increasing Iraqi responsibility.

I do not believe that we should announce an arbitrary timeline, but I do believe that discussions on this transition should be agreed upon and jointly announced.

In addition, the Iraqi Government, not the United States, should then call for a regional conference of Muslim states to ask them to help the new government establish and consolidate internal stability. I suggest, Madam Speaker, that is in the interest of every regional state in the Middle East.

Additionally, the United States should convene a donors' conference of European states, Japan, China, and others to become more directly involved in financing the restoration of the Iraqi economy. A stable, secure, and free Iraq is in the best interest of the entire international community; and because it is in their interest, they bear a joint responsibility to effect that end.

Madam Speaker, this is our last best chance, in my opinion, to salvage success in Iraq. Our commitment there has been unwavering, but it must not be unending. Our strategy, hampered by gross miscalculations by our civilian leadership, is not working; and we believe that we have a duty to advocate for policy changes that will better serve our security interest and this great Nation we love.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I reiterate, Democrats are committed to defending America, making safe Americans, and defeating terrorists who would harm our Nation and undermine our values. Our policies that we are pursuing have not worked. They need to be changed.

Again, I thank Mr. Schiff for his leadership on this hour.

Thank you very much.

Will the gentleman yield?

Of course our small State has given your large State our leader.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, every single Member of this House understands that we must secure our Nation's borders. Our Nation is at war, and those who seek to harm our homeland and our people will attempt to exploit our national security vulnerabilities. There is no question, to protect our country, we must know who is in our country.

But rather than work with Democrats to achieve this consensus national security objective, the House Republican majority today is engaging in a cynical charade, I suggest.

This is not a feel-good measure. I agree with most of what my friend from Arizona had to say. This is not a feel-good measure; this is a political measure. This is a political measure, because Americans are rightfully concerned about their borders being secure. They were concerned about that in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and, yes every day up until today. But they know our borders are not secure.

Now, we haven't been in charge of the administration, the Congress or the Senate. Prior to that, if you look at the record, we were more secure at the

borders. If you look at the record, honestly, you will see in terms of the numbers of people coming in, the numbers of people being stopped, the numbers of fines being levied on employers, there was more, not less, in the Clinton administration than there is in the Bush administration.

This is, I suggest to you, to score political points that are going to be, not could be, are going to be demagogued in 30-second ads. I guarantee you they will be used in ads.

The legislation before us solely contains the border fence provisions that were added to the Sensenbrenner immigration reform bill that passed this House last December with overwhelming Republican support.

This is what I call to some degree the ``regurgitation process'' that we are in so much. We pass a bill, it doesn't go anywhere in the Senate; we pass it again, it doesn't go anywhere in the Senate; we pass it again. Why do we do so? To appeal to the fears and the passions of our people.

Let me just say, building a fence along 700 miles of our southern border is no panacea to our very real national concerns that must be addressed. In my view, it is a political grandstand play that wastes precious time.

Here, in fact, is what the President of the United States, President Bush, said, in May regarding the issue of immigration reform and border security, exactly what the gentleman from Arizona, the Republican chairman of one of our subcommittees of the Appropriations Committee. President Bush said, ``An immigration reform bill needs to be comprehensive because all elements of this problem must be addressed together or none of them will be solved at all.''

We passed a bill. The Senate passed a bill. But we haven't gone to conference. The Republican leadership of the Senate and the House have been stuck in the mud while America knew it had a problem that needed to be solved.

Today, the House Republicans come forward with this rifle-shot bill, this regurgitation of one aspect of the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we all know that the Republican bill, if it does pass, is going nowhere. It will not be passed. We are wasting our time and the American people's time.

For months now, Republican infighting has prevented this Congress from enacting true immigration reform and protection, and that infighting and unwillingness to compromise on the part of House Republicans is what instigated this narrow bill.

Now, what compels us on this bill? We only have 2\1/2\ weeks, 3 weeks to go, the elections are coming, and, very frankly, the Republicans aren't doing too well, and the fear factor is one of their major political ploys.

Our Republican friends are desperate for a legislative victory and desperate for political talking points. They recognize that, as Senator Specter, the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said, ``Republicans control both Houses and the White House. If we don't move forward and solve the immigration reform problem and border security, we are not doing our job.'' Today, we are pretending to do our job.

We are not doing our job. There is a bill in conference, but we are not working on it.

Today, I urge you to support the comprehensive alternative that will be offered by the ranking member of the Homeland Security Committee, which deals in a comprehensive way, which is what President Bush suggested we ought to do.

We should be coming together, on a bipartisan basis, on comprehensive legislation that would make us safer by beefing up security along our borders.

That is precisely what the Reyes-Thompson substitute would do-- providing the technology, personnel, equipment and infrastructure to monitor and secure every mile of the border every hour of every day.

Instead, House Republicans are engaging in this charade.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the majority leader, for the purposes of inquiring about the schedule for the week to come.

I informed his staff of the length of time I thought this would take, I am sure she has informed him, and he is still here.

I want to thank the gentleman for that notice to Members. I think that is very helpful. He and I talked about it last week and he said he would work on it. I very much appreciate that and I know the Members do as well. I thank you for that.

Mr. Leader, this may have been an oversight. You did not mention that first votes will be 6:30 on Tuesday of next week. Is that correct?

On H.R. 4844, the Federal Election Integrity Act, I have not talked to any members of the committee nor the Rules Committee. As you know, I was the sponsor of the HAVA act, along with Bob Ney, and very interested in this entire issue.

Can you tell me about whether it will be open to amendments or that amendments need to be into the Rules Committee at a certain time, what you contemplate?

I appreciate that. I would hope, Mr. Leader, that on this bill it could be open to amendment in some form, because clearly this is a critically important issue. As you know, we have just had our primary in Maryland. We had a number of glitches. I don't think there was any wrongdoing, but there was certainly some negligence which led to disruption. I don't think there was anything that perhaps deals particularly with this bill, but I am hopeful that we can consider it in a way that will allow Members to offer their own suggestions. I thank the gentleman for consideration of that issue.

With respect to the border security related legislation, there is a mention of other security legislation possibly coming to the floor. Can you be a little more specific as to what you contemplate might be on the floor next week?

I thank the gentleman for that information.

On the military commissions/domestic surveillance, you list a bill regarding military commissions for next week. Is there any possibility that we might also have on the floor legislation dealing with the issue of domestic wiretapping surveillance?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the leader for his information.

Again, briefly, I was not going to ask it, but I am constrained to ask it. Is there any chance, Mr. Leader, that we will be able to consider the Labor-Health bill on the floor? It is the only appropriation bill, as you well know, that we have not passed through the House. We have done the other 10.

Do you have any expectation that that bill might be on the floor either next week or the week thereafter?

I yield to my friend.

I thank the gentleman. As the gentleman knows, I have an amendment on the minimum wage in that bill.

I am very interested in it, and I would hope we could move it.

Notwithstanding the fact that I told your extraordinarily able staffer who sits behind you that it was going to take about 45 minutes for this colloquy, I will yield back the balance of my time at this time.