Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, as I said a number of times in the past, it remains a tremendous honor to step here on the floor of the United States House of Representatives and address you about how this dialogue that we have across America is a great big national conversation, 300 million people, many of them talking about the very subject matter that my colleagues in the previous hour have discussed, and that being the issue of the global war on terror.

Particularly, because of the hearing today, the joint hearing between the Armed Services Committee, and it used to be the International Relations Committee, and now it's the Foreign Affairs Committee, many of our colleagues in the room of the 435 Members of Congress, over 100 in the room and many others were watching television in offices and in gatherings around this Hill. There was a national conversation going on and taking place here.

As we move forward with our discussion, one of the things that happens is, as talking members of the 300 million people of America carry on their conversation, a consensus forms. As a consensus forms, it works that the constituents across the country call up and write letters and send e-mails to and stop in and see their Members of Congress and their staff.

As that goes on, if the American people are informed, if they are informed honestly and objectively, if they can get there, they can get their eyes and their hands and their ears on the facts, the American people often come to an appropriate and proper conclusion.

But it happens to be a fact that nearly every week that we have been in session in this 110th Congress, now into September, having gaveled in here in January, nearly every week, there has been at least one bill on the floor, that was a bill, I believe, sought to undermine our efforts in this global war on terror.

Except for last week, there wasn't one. Yet, the commitment that was made on the part of the request to Congress, and on the part of our military and the President, was to deliver a report here to Congress by September 15, on or before September 15, that would be an objective update on the operations in Iraq, which I will stipulate again is the most centralized, the most contested battleground in this global war on terror.

We all knew this report was coming, and today we received that report. That report was delivered here to Congress in written form and verbally by General Petraeus and by Ambassador Ryan Crocker.

Well, it's interesting that when the date of this report became something that was published and people were aware of, that's when the debate began.

We started to see an intensity of the different amendments and the resolutions that came before Congress. There are no resolution to unfund the war and call our troops home, but resolutions to try to do that without having to admit that that was the effort. As each one of those resolutions came up, by my view, each one of them one way or another failed with the American people. The argument was continuing. The debate was continuing.

The people that were invested in, let me say, cut-and-run policy and tactics in Iraq, those people thought that they were going to win this argument with the American people, before General Petraeus brought his report before Congress. That's why those resolutions came to this floor every week, in my view, and that's why the media was delivered, message after message, that there was a failed effort in Iraq.

That's also why I and many of my colleagues went to Iraq during that period of time. I made my fifth trip over there on the last weekend of July with a number of my colleagues in codel Burgess. On that fifth trip, it's hard to say, even when you go back to the same place, what was different. Because you will see sometimes different people, and you get a bit different report.

But one thing you do is get briefings, internal briefings, classified briefings, from our top officers that we have and compare the information that comes from General Petraeus and General Odierno and Ambassador Crocker and Admiral Fallon. Those people that are at the front of this that are in the lead that are calling the shots from the highest levels, all the way down through the ranks, when you walk into a mess hall and simply say is there anyone here from Iowa, pretty soon you have a table full, know their hometowns and know some of the people that they are related to and know that there is an instant contact there. We compare notes Iowan-to-Iowan and then compare those notes with the briefings that we receive from our top officers.

Close the door and have an intense, classified discussion with General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker, then come back here to this Congress and listen to the debate and watch the effort here on the other side of the aisle, the effort that I believe was invested in defeat. I will say even a significant number are still invested in defeat.

But, yet, they thought they could win the debate and convince the American people that the cause was lost in Iraq. They thought they could win the debate before General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker delivered their report to this Congress that it would be a moot point. Whatever it was that General Petraeus might offer today, they wanted to have the American people convinced. A majority number of Members of Congress were convinced that it was a lost and failed effort in Iraq.

Well, enough information came out from that part of the world; enough Members went over and saw for themselves. Enough Members like myself went into al Anbar province that, according to General Petraeus today, was politically lost a year ago. It was a hopeless case a year ago.

As I was there the last of July, every single tribal area in al Anbar province, and I would remind the body, that that is one-third, Anbar province is one third of the geographical area of Iraq. It represented over half the deaths and violence of Iraq. It was the center of al Qaeda in Iraq. Ramadi was the center of death for the country.

Still, every single tribal area in the entire province of that one- third of Iraq was, a year ago, controlled by al Qaeda. Hamas was preaching an anti-U.S., anti-coalition, anti-Iraqi defense force message.

But as I match the maps, as the tribal zones change and the sheikhs, the tribal leaders, got together, the they made a commitment to come together to kill al Qaeda with coalition forces and with Iraqi defense forces. Every single tribal zone, every sheikh in all of al Anbar province came over to the coalition side, to the side of freedom, and to the side of a free Iraqi people.

When that happened, there was a dramatic sea change in al Anbar province. If you looked at the map of the tribal zones, it was already a year ago painted red because that was al Qaeda. Today, every tribal zone in al Anbar province is green, meaning they are on our side now, they are with us. They said they want to come kill al Qaeda with us. That was their message.

When you see that kind of briefing, and you hear the briefing that came from General Petraeus today, but some of this information came out piece by piece, week by week, as there was an effort to undermine our effort in Iraq, came to a head today. Those who were invested in defeat had to make a case today that there was something weak about this military effort, something weak about the security effort, that there was something disingenuous about the delivery, about the report that was delivered today.

What I saw today was truly two highly intelligent people with worlds of experience in the Middle East, Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus.

As I saw them with their delivery and their presentation and the facts that they laid out carefully, completely, objectively, with caution about those parts that aren't going so well, brought out before we heard the good news about the parts that are going well, this was a stellar report that the American people can take to the bank. We don't have all the problems solved in Iraq. There is a ways to go, and maybe a long ways to go. It's not going to be easy, but it looks far better today than the news media has characterized it to be.

So there is much to be said about this momentous day today, this watershed day today, the records that were accumulated from General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. As I watched my colleagues listen to that delivery and ask their questions and probe, I can only reflect that the people that came out of this thing with their integrity intact were the ones delivering the report. The ones who were their critics were silenced in the end. That's the conclusion that I think an objective media will be reporting tomorrow.

But at this point, I recognize the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Zach Wamp.

I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for his delivery. And I reflect that General Petraeus' last part of his prepared testimony said, in closing, it remains an enormous privilege to soldier again in Iraq with America's new Greatest Generation. Our country's men and women in uniform have done a magnificent job in the most complex and challenging environment imaginable. All Americans should be very proud of their sons and daughters serving in Iraq today.

He also said that he believes that this is perhaps the most professional military to ever take to the field. And I recall a discussion that we had in Baghdad just about 5 or 6 weeks ago, and the statement was made that this is not only the most professional but the best military that's ever been put into the field, that's ever gone to war.

And one of the remarks they made, in addition to well-trained and brave and dedicated and well-equipped and patriotic and all of those adjectives that we use, one of the other ones was and the most perceptive. The most perceptive.

And that caught me off guard, Mr. Speaker. I didn't expect that. But I understood what that meant; to have the perception to know the difference on when to shoot and when not to shoot, when to be the ambassador and when to be the soldier. That's one of the hardest things, and sometimes a decision has to be made in a split second. And that's what they meant by the

most perceptive military to be sent off to war.

And again, much was said today, much will be said about today. But at this point, I'd be happy to yield as much time as he may consume to the chairman of the Policy Committee from Michigan, Mr. Thaddeus McCotter.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan, the chairman of the Policy Committee, for the insights he has shared with us tonight.

And we get those insights on a fairly regular basis here, and it is quite interesting to track the intellect of Mr. McCotter and causes me to reflect upon the constitutional limitations that this Congress has, Mr. Speaker. And in spite of the bill after bill, resolution after resolution, and policy piece after policy piece that have been brought forward here by almost an average of one a week the entire 110th Congress, there are only just a few things that we have the constitutional authority to do when it comes to war, Mr. Speaker. And the first thing that Congress can do is raise an army and a navy, and that is constitutional, and by implication, an air force. It's clearly a constitutional responsibility of the Congress. And the second thing we can do is we can declare war, and that is constitutional responsibility also that is clearly defined in our Constitution. And the third thing we can do is fund the war.

But there is no provision in this Constitution for micromanaging the war. That goes outside the bounds of our constitutional authority. The management of the war and, in fact, the micromanagement of the war lies within the authority, the constitutionally invested authority, of the Commander in Chief. That is why that is drafted in the Constitution in that fashion. It gives the authority to the Commander in Chief because our Founders went through a difficult Revolutionary War period. They were the Continental Congress. They were essentially a confederacy that had gathered together because of a common cause. And the Continental Congress raised the Continental Army, and the Continental Army was an army that was driven by consensus. And they understood the difficulties in fighting a war if you had

to reach a consensus before you could move forward and make a decision.

They knew you had to have a Commander in Chief, a Commander in Chief who could evaluate all the information, gather his officers around him, gather the information, and then make a definitive directive to be able to give an order to take bold action with intelligence, with military action, both offensively and defensively. They understood that. They learned some bitter lessons during the Revolutionary War. You can't fight a war by consensus. You have got to have a Commander in Chief at the top. That's why the Constitution is drafted in the fashion it is, and that's why the Constitution prohibits us from micromanaging a war.

And yet the effort continues, an effort by this Congress, to micromanage this war that's going on. I recall the Speaker and the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee sitting over there in Syria negotiating with a person whom we have declared to be a state sponsor of terrorism, and the chairman of that committee announced we have a new Democrat foreign policy. Well, I would like to think that when you pledge an oath to uphold this Constitution, you also are obligated to read it and understand it. And in that are the limitations that say to us, Congress, you can raise an army and a navy and by implication an air force and you can declare war and you can fund them, but you can't micromanage that war and you can't conduct foreign policy. Both of those things are forbidden by the Constitution. They are vested in the Commander in Chief, our chief executive officer, because we have got to speak with one voice and we have got to fight with one effort. It can't be a divided effort, and it can't be an effort to undermine our military.

I would be happy to yield to the fast-thinking, slow-talking gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

I thank the gentleman from Georgia. And I appreciate your passion and the rapidity with which you speak tonight, Mr. Gingrey.

I would be happy to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

I thank the gentleman from New Mexico, a veteran and a C-130 pilot himself, and now a passenger in C-130s over in Iraq, year to year picking up firsthand information, veterans, active-duty personnel, just this last weekend. That's the level of involvement that you see here on the part of a lot of Members of the United States Congress, Mr. Speaker.

One of those other individuals who has had a high level of involvement is an individual who led codel Burgess in the last weekend of July over to Iraq, a number of stops, Bayji, Balad, Baghdad and Ramadi, those places come to mind. And I very much appreciate the leadership and the initiative it took to put that together and to lead that trip over there.

I would be happy to yield all but the last 3 or 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess.

I thank the gentleman from Texas. Again, I thank him for leading a codel over there. That was one of the most meaningful that I have been on. I picked up a lot in watching the observations of my colleagues and listening to their questions, as well. It is fresh information and helped fill in a lot of the blanks we might have had going into this hearing that we had today.

I would, again, be happy to recognize the chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee, Mr. Thaddeus McCotter, for the balance of the time this evening.

I thank the gentleman from Michigan. He poses a question that is a difficult one for those who want to withdraw from this operation, the simple cut-and-run version, to answer. It is left for those to answer, Mr. Speaker.

I would point out also that yesterday I did a memorial dedication at Charter Oak, Iowa, for all of the military personnel that have come from that area since the beginning of the conflicts, since that area was settled. It starts with the Mexican-American War, goes to the Civil War and on up to today.

They placed out in the field there by the memorial 4,200 flags representing the lives of the Americans that have been sacrificed in this global war on terror in this quest for freedom. It also represents 50 million people that live free today that didn't at the beginning of this global war on terror.

I looked back at the dedication and the sacrifice of all of them, and I added to that dedication another sacrifice, a sacrifice that we hear very little of, and that is those over-5,000 Americans who gave their lives during a time of peace during the period between Desert Storm and the beginning of this global war on terror, 510 a year, Mr. Speaker.

I thank you for being recognized. I thank all the speakers here tonight that have spoken up for freedom.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 35 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, September 11, 2007, at 10:30 a.m.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment brought by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Perhaps I will work backwards through this from what I have heard during this debate. One of them would be the decision that was made in Rice v. Cayetano in the year 2000 that Native Hawaiians are an ethnic group and that it is unconstitutional and in violation of the Civil Rights Act to provide special protected status and privileges to people based upon their ethnicity. To raise that issue as an argument here on the floor isn't railing against judicial activism. To bring an amendment here to the floor of the United States Congress and ask the people's House to provide a majority vote on whether or not to authorize funds to go to Native Hawaiians, it isn't a conflict with judicial activism; to the contrary, it calls upon the people through their elected representative to make that decision. I think it is very consistent with our Constitution. It isn't railing against judicial activism; it simply recognizes the case and recognizes the Constitution.

With regard to Chief Justice Roberts making the argument in favor of the Hawaiian side of this argument, if my recollection is correct, and I believe it is, that was then private sector attorney John Roberts who made that decision who was under the employment of people who had hired him to make the best argument he could make. But I don't remember him saying he had won the argument. So we know that when attorneys are in private practice, they take on clients and they do the best job they can of making that argument. The attorneys that argued in Rice v. Cayetano, the prevailing side was the side of the Constitution and the side of the people.

I have represented two reservations now for 11 years in either the Iowa Senate or the United States Congress. I have had good relations with the people there on the reservations in my district, and it echoes across the Missouri River into Nebraska. I am not without some sense of experience and sensitivity when it comes to these issues that have to do with tribes, reservations and ethnicity.

But I am concerned about a consistent and constant effort to balkanize America, to encourage Americans to divide themselves into groups and identify themselves based upon their ethnicity and the national origin of their ancestors.

I listen and I hear there are 2,100 Native Hawaiians living in Georgia. Why can't we just call them Georgians? Why can't we call them Americans? Why can't we, as the voice of the people, encourage each other to remember our history and remember the legacy and remember the cultures that come, but focus on being Americans and erase the lines between us rather than drawing continually brighter and brighter lines, further balkanizing America, encouraging people to gather together as ethnicities in enclaves.

And I am going to be one who will be, if the day comes that this Hawaiian legislation, the big bill comes to this floor, I will be opposing it as well, Mr. Chairman, because that divides Americans and it sets a new standard that has not been set and that is recognizing ethnicities as tribes. If that happens, any ethnicity that can gain the political leverage to gain a majority vote here on the floor of Congress, here in the House and in the Senate, can then be raised to the same level that we have set aside for Native Americans that we are dealing with here in this bill.

So this slipped in. This authorization slipped in in the year 2000 without a lot of opposition. I agree with the gentlelady's position there. It should have been opposed. I think it was a mistake by Congress, and it brought about a $9 million appropriation in 2007. It is probably a $25 million appropriation obligation through about the year 2012.

This is where we draw the line. This is where we have to take the stand on what is really the Constitution and what is right. Ethnicities can't be granted special status.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is one that everybody in this body has seen before. It is an amendment that I brought to a number of the appropriations bills, and at least three times has been adopted by a bipartisan effort. In fact, I don't believe it has come to a recorded vote at any time.

What it does is it limits the use of the funds that might be authorized by this bill. It says no amounts made available pursuant to any authorization of appropriations under this act or under the amendments made by this act may be used to employ workers described in section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

What this amendment does is it ensures that as funds are appropriated under this authorization, that they will not be used to hire people that cannot lawfully work in the United States. That would include those who are here illegally and those who are here legally without work authorization.

I would point out that our Federal Government, by the statistics that have been produced by the inspector general of the Social Security Administration is likely, and I say ``likely,'' I don't think they say ``likely,'' the largest employer of nonauthorized workers in the United States.

We issued millions of Social Security numbers over the years going back into the 1990s to people who were not authorized to work but they needed a Social Security number for one reason or another, a list of benefits which I also don't agree with nor comprehend. We slowed that down dramatically, and I don't know that that practice continues to exist.

But those Social Security numbers have been used to gain employment and to gain employment with the Federal agencies. They monitored seven Federal agencies, seven State agencies and three local governments; and out of that came a number that about 44 percent of those non-work Social Security numbers had been used to gain employment. Even though those cards will say on them non-work, and even if you run the numbers through the Social Security Administration database, they all come back and say not authorized to work, we still have those people working for government at all levels and especially the Federal Government.

And so if we are ever to clean up our act, if we're ever to compel private employers to no longer hire those who are illegally present in the United States, the least we can do is ensure that the employees of government are lawful employees.

And so this amendment says that none of these funds that are authorized may be used to hire those people who are not legal to work in the United States. This would include illegal aliens. It would include non-work Social Security numbers, and to give a broader definition of this, those that are here on student visas without authorization to work, those who are here on visitors visas, those kind of lawfully present as well as unlawfully present people are not authorized to work in the United States. These funds would be prohibited from being utilized for that purpose.

This is a step down the path, I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we need to continue to take. We have a consensus that we need to turn up the pressure on employers. Well, government's the largest employer, and in fact, all of government in the United States has over 21 million employees. Out of 300 million people, over 21 million employees, and of those 21 million employees, a significant number are those that are not authorized to work in the United States. That means that whatever they might be doing, under this act they should be lawful employees.

They can use the basic pilot program which now we call e-verify and run those Social Security numbers through there. I've sat and run it myself. It's pretty easy. The longest delay I could create by giving it a confusing message was 6 seconds. It's instantaneous analysis.

We also need the Social Security Administration to run their database against the Department of Homeland Security's database. They would flush out most of these non-work Social Security numbers. The administration has to have conviction on this issue. This is a way to bring them towards more conviction on this issue. They've been reluctant.

I would urge adoption of this amendment. This is something that, again, three times has passed this floor, and it's something I believe that's common sense that the American people strongly support, and I would urge its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Price amendment.

One of the things I wanted to speak to was the list that was read to us earlier about Native American issues that show growing numbers of Republicans that voted ``no'' on appropriations or authorizations for Native American issues, the 50-some that went to 70-some that was presented by the gentleman from Hawaii, whose judgment and opinion and spirit and personality certainly I appreciate here. I make nothing but complimentary comments with regard to that.

But I would submit that voting ``no'' on a bill that increases spending or expands authorization and considering that to be somehow a vote against a Native American tribe or against an ethnicity, protecting the American taxpayers and protecting the Constitution is a vote for Americans. That's what we have to be first. That was a point I made earlier.

I just wanted to have that opportunity to speak to that issue, that voting ``no'' on appropriations and authorizations because they have something in their title that sounds good that has to do with our collective national history or heritage doesn't mean that it's against the descendents of the ones that earned that reputation.

What it does mean is that we defend the Constitution, we defend the appropriations process, the taxpayer, fiscal responsibility and PAYGO. That's what I am standing here now and endorsing, promoting and asking adoption of the Price amendment because it defends PAYGO.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia. Again, Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Price amendment and PAYGO.

PAYGO often, in this Congress, includes finding new ways to collect revenue from people that didn't owe it before. That was never my idea of PAYGO. My idea of PAYGO was we would limit our spending to stay within the constraints of the revenue stream that's coming in.

So the day is going to come when the American taxpayers rise up. They understand what's going on here. They are seeing that a lot of the effort to ignore PAYGO is resulting in increased taxes and increasing the revenue stream of the United States at the expense of our businesses.

We know that businesses don't pay taxes. It's the consumers that pay taxes, businesses tack the tax onto the retail prices.

We need to slow down this appetite for spending. We need to slow down this appetite for expanding authorizations and appropriations and the services of the Federal Government. You can go with one of two equations, and one of those equations is government can be all and do all and become the complete nanny state, or you can ask for more personal responsibility. That means less government, it also means less taxes, and the bottom line is, more freedom.

The Price amendment endorses PAYGO, holds us to those guidelines that we have agreed to here, and, in the end, it yields more freedom, more personal responsibility and less tax burden.

I urge adoption of the Price amendment.

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

Offered By: Mr. King of Iowa

Amendment No. 1: Page 18, strike lines 1 through 6.

Offered By: Mr. King of Iowa

Amendment No. 2: At the end of the bill, add the following

new section:

I thank my friend from California for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to this debate. I think I will start with the constitutional side of this and what I believe is a disagreement and maybe a fundamental and real disagreement in the Constitution.

I will make this statement, that the Constitution grants Congress the

power to do three things with regard to war: One of them is to declare it, and that is clear; the second one is to raise an Army and a Navy and, by implication, an Air Force, and that is clear; and the third thing is to fund it. But there is nothing in this Constitution that says that we have the authority to overrule the Commander in Chief, nor to micromanage a war. Nor are there any 535 generals that are somehow or another empowered within article I or any other article of the Constitution it.

So when the gentleman says that it is a constitutional responsibility of Congress to conduct foreign policy, I would ask, where in this Constitution do you find that? I find that all vested in the powers of the President, where he appoints ambassadors, he sets foreign policy. Yes, with the advice and consent of the Senate on the confirmation, but it is the President's foreign policy, it is the President's State Department, and it is the President's military to command.

When we deviate from that, we put ourselves in the condition where our Continental Army was back before we established this Constitution. They knew what was wrong. The Continental Congress was trying to fight a war by consensus, and that is why we have a Commander in Chief, and we must adhere to that.

If you really want to give some rest to these troops, don't tell the President what he has to do. He is doing all he can to give our troops all the rest he can.

I just came back from there. Expand this standing, active duty military so that they can get some rest. Don't pull them out of the field. And if you are sincere about this, don't limit it to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Expand this globally. If you really mean it, they get tired wherever they are, in Afghanistan, Iraq and wherever they happen to be on the globe.

The President knows that. He cares about these troops. I looked him in the eye last week. He is doing everything he can. Everyone is a volunteer, and everyone is a volunteer not just for the military but for this mission. And you cannot separate your support for the troops from support of the mission. You must support their mission. If you are going to ask them to put their lives on the line for us, then you stand for their mission. The least we can do is wait for General Petraeus' report.

I thank the ranking member from California for yielding and for his leadership on the Rules Committee. That has been an important model leadership for our conference.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this modified closed rule for a number of things, but the issues that I may be able to raise in this amount of time is that as the chairman of the Appropriations Committee said, the amendments that are approved under this rule are Republican amendments, but I would point out that those which are adopted under the rule, the self-executing amendments, are not Republican amendments for the most part.

I have in my hand an amendment that says ``offered by Mr. Mollohan of West Virginia,'' the one that was the subject of Mr. Sessions' remarks that strikes those three earmarks that were in there.

Now, they were stricken because, according to the chairman, they were in controversy. Now, this controversy has not been something that has been a large area of discussion here on this floor. But the gentleman from West Virginia has said he is unaware of any investigations. He may be the only one in this Congress that's unaware.

I would point out that the Speaker handed the gentleman from West Virginia the gavel to the appropriations subcommittee that he chairs. He held and still holds the purse strings of the agency that's been reported as looking into this that has brought out this controversy.

That is why we are here on this. These three earmarks that came from West Virginia from Mr. Mollohan stricken by a self-enacting rule, now is this also going to be the policy in the case on the Department of Defense appropriations bill that comes up? Because there are at least nine earmarks in that bill as well. So these are the consequences of a closed rule. There is friction, there is controversy, there is 4\1/2\ hours of debate, which is greatly to the resentment of the gentlelady from Connecticut.

But I would say we got through Justice approps through an open rule, and we did so with legitimate debate, and we were here to perfect the legislation, and we did so to the extent and we executed the will of this body. This rule does not execute the will of this body. This rule self-enacts. Vote down the rule.

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

I listened attentively to the other gentleman from Georgia, who spoke with such confidence and authority on the Davis-Bacon wage scale. I may be the only Member of Congress, I know of no others, who has earned Davis-Bacon wages and paid Davis-Bacon wages, and I have lived underneath that for over 30 years, 28 years writing paychecks, over 14 consecutive months meeting payroll. I know what this does.

But I can tell you the history of it also goes back to an Iowan, an Iowan President, as the gentleman said, Herbert Hoover.

But this is the last remaining Jim Crow law on the books that I know of. It was designed to keep blacks out of the construction trade in New York. And I would ask the gentleman from Georgia to join me in helping to start the repeal of this process because this is the aspect of freedom between the employer and the employee.

Prevailing wage by definition, union scale in practice, there is no other way

to analyze this. Union scale is what gets produced when the Department of Labor produces the proposed prevailing wage.

And when you talk about $4 billion set up for cellulosic and its being a highly sophisticated project, yes, it is; and we build these projects without its being union labor sometimes. If they can compete, we do it with union labor. My former crews have done so, and they are highly skilled and highly trained, and they get paid a wage that often is a 12-month-a-year wage, not something for just the hours they are on the job but wages and benefits so they can make a good wage and stay with you year round.

There was over a billion dollars invested in renewable energy in my district last year. There will be over a billion dollars invested this year. We are number one in biodiesel production in America of the 435 districts. We will be number one in ethanol by the end of this year. And there is no way that any other district in the country has a hope of catching up with the Fifth Congressional District of Iowa if you are going to impose Davis-Bacon wage scales on this and burn up at least 20 percent of the capital that will go into this. The cellulosic is experimental, and it is in my neighborhood. We need to invest the dollar as well.

I thank the gentleman from Georgia.

It's interesting to me how the components of history don't match up the same from what I read and what the other gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott) reads. And I've read through a fair amount of this history.

But the foundation of the Davis-Bacon wage scale went back to a Federal building contract that was awarded on low bid in New York City. And there was a contractor that brought in labor from Alabama, and it was African American labor from Alabama because they would work cheaper than the union labor in New York City. That's an historical fact.

This is a Jim Crow law. And I would appreciate it if the gentleman would join me in repealing it from the books. But it's a practical application today. It's 8-35 percent more money when you go Davis-Bacon wage scale. I average it out to 20 percent.

My company, that I sold to my oldest son, has done work on these sites, and we know the costs and we know the skills that are there. And we're developing the skills within our region and our neighborhood because we keep those people 12 months out of the year. They don't always go in and out of the union hall; if they can compete, they do. But we need to develop the skills and intellectual property. We need to develop our fuel so that we aren't importing oil from the Middle East.

I urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment that I bring before the House is an amendment that I brought on at least two other appropriation bills. The section of the Code that it addresses, 274A(h)(3), is the section that defines those who are not lawful to work in the United States. It includes two categories of people. It would be those who are unlawfully present and those who are lawfully present without work authorization.

My amendment prohibits any of the funds that are appropriated under this act from being used to employ persons who are not lawful to work in the United States.

It is a standard amendment that I brought in the past. Should the gentleman ask me to yield, I would be open to that, obviously.

Meanwhile, the point that inspires me to come to the floor more than any other is a report that was released in June of 2006 by the Office of the Inspector General of the Social Security Administration that identified that approximately 11,000 employees were likely working for the government, 7 Federal agencies, 7 State agencies, and 3 local agencies, under nonwork Social Security numbers. All the Federal Government needed to do was run their databases against each other, the Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security. They could have identified these employees.

The category that I have described only includes those who are lawfully present but not authorized to work, but there is another category of those that are not lawfully present that this amendment would address, as well.

I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the chairman. I concur with the analysis that he has delivered to the floor of this House, Mr. Chairman. I would encourage adoption of my amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Colorado for yielding.

As I listen to this debate, there are a number of things that race across my mind. One of them is the constant repetition of the statement, ``This is a real cut. This is a real cut.'' It is a real cut in a real big increase. So if you want to describe it as a real cut, you have to say a real cut in a real big increase or you're not telling the American people what is really going on here.

There are a few areas of our budget that are discretionary spending, and there are a few areas of our budget that aren't discretionary spending. Those that are on auto pilot we can't do a lot about in the appropriations process. Yet those that are discretionary spending, we can do something about. Yet the majority seems to be determined to continue to accelerate the increases in spending in the discretionary sections of our budget. It is like you are driven to grow this government no matter the price to the taxpayers.

So I have come in a realization here in the first 6 or 7 months of this 110th Congress: You guys really believe in what you do. I didn't think so before. I thought maybe there were some people who were a little cynical, but I believe now you really believe in what you're doing. I believe you really do want to grow this government. I believe you want to raise taxes. I believe you want to take the responsibilities off of all the people all the time and take it into a maternalistic, socialist government. I now believe that. You've convinced me. And you've been constant and you've been repetitive and you have been consistent and persistent in driving this growth of government across this floor of Congress.

One day, the American people will rebel to this if they can get over their apathy. I'm for the Musgrave amendment.

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

Madam Chairman, I thank the ranking member for yielding me this time.

I said earlier there were five reasons to vote against this bill. I just sat down and wrote a list. Now there are seven. Some of them have been added to it since it passed the committee. We are facing a tax increase, a huge tax increase. That is something that a lot of us can't cross.

The abrogation of treaties. When you think about the implications not just of companies doing business in the United States but the reaction when the retribution comes from foreign countries when they start to change their trade agreements and treaties with us. That is going to mean it is going to be nearly impossible for us to negotiate bilateral trade agreements, WTO trade agreements; and that draws a bright line against trade.

There is Davis-Bacon wage scale in this bill. I will make the prediction that the 5th Congressional District of Iowa will remain the number one renewable fuels congressional district in America. Last year we put over a billion dollars of private capital into that, and we did so without the Davis-Bacon wage scale. We did it with merit shop wages. We built good plants, state of the art, and developed the technology. We are number one in biodiesel in my district. We will be number one in ethanol by the end of this season. We will stay there because they are not going to use this component because they will not be able to afford it. It is a 20 percent increase in cost. Where you could build five plants before, now you can only build four. We have a 46 percent increase in Food Stamps under the argument of food insecurity, but yet no one was going without food. They just thought some future meal they might have to worry about. So 46 percent increase in food stamps.

The Pickford v. Glickman that was mentioned by the gentleman from Georgia, there were black farmers that were discriminated against. And some were. But a billion dollars was paid out to some of them. And $100 million was spent in administration of Pickford, and I looked into that. What we have are 18,000 black farmers in America, 96,000 claimants and a future liability to this bill of $3 billion in the Pickford piece. I know it is not all authorized, I know we have not found all of the money, but you open the door to that.

I will vote ``no'' on this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is an amendment that I bring to the floor here reluctantly. It's an issue of conscience, and I think an issue of appropriate posture that this Congress should take.

We have been, throughout the course of some in the 108th, and many in the 109th, and now more issues coming up within the 110th Congress that have to do with questions about the propriety of some of our Members, both sides of the aisle, Republicans and Democrats. And we're well aware of some of those cases. In a number of those cases, it was a good thing for us to step above that and seek to improve the integrity of this body.

The public is aware, I believe, that there is an investigation that is underway. It has been taken up by the Department of Justice and published in

the New York Times, in the Wall Street Journal, and a number of other places, and the circumstances being that a former member of the Ethics Committee stepped down from the Ethics Committee to avoid the appearance of impropriety during an investigation. And yet, since that investigation began, the same Member has opted to step forward and take on the gavel of the very appropriations committee that deals with the funding of the investigation that's being conducted.

This was an issue that was a subject matter before the Judiciary Committee in hearings that brought our Attorney General Alberto Gonzales forward. And I asked the Attorney General, after the allegation was made by a majority member on the committee about impropriety of investigations or political intimidations on the part of the Department of Justice, I asked the Attorney General if he was intimidated. I said, ``The question I would ask,'' and this is quoting from the Congressional Record, ``to you is, Mr. Attorney General, if the chairman of the Justice Appropriations Committee happened to have been under that kind of scrutiny, would that affect the kind of prosecution that takes place out of your Justice Department with regard to that particular Member of Congress?''

The question has been raised, it's been raised by the national media, it's been raised before the Judiciary Committee, and it needs to be raised here on this floor while we deal with this issue of propriety. I make no allegations about guilt or innocence. I simply say that there is a huge question of impropriety when the chairman of justice approps has in one hand the gavel, and in the other hand the pursestrings that funds the very people that are conducting the investigation.

I bring this amendment forward to strike $1 million out and put $1 million in so that that $1 million can be used directly and exclusively for the investigation that's going forward and has been going on since December 2005. That's not swift and sure justice. That doesn't let this Member off the hook. He deserves an answer far more quickly from December 2005 until at least July of 2007.

All of those issues before us are raised and should be considered by this body. And I urge that the Members consider the reason that I reluctantly brought this amendment forward to take $1 million out and put $1 million, but to direct that that money be used to accelerate and complete the investigation that's underway now that casts such a shadow over this entire process, and particularly this appropriations process that's taking place before us here on the floor of Congress.

I think it's inappropriate. I think a decision should have been made by the Member. It has not been. That's why I have to bring this forward.

I urge the Members to support this amendment, and I intend to be able to review the Record that we expect to have on this amendment. So I would urge adoption of this amendment directing $1 million for the FBI to continue and accelerate their investigation so that they can either move forward to completion, or clear the individual who sits underneath this cloud.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for coming to the floor and gaining some time to give me the ability to respond to the gentleman from West Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, I listened to his response. His response was measured. It was appropriate. But I didn't hear a response to the question about the intimidation factor and, in fact, the appearance of impropriety that the man holding the gavel is also holding the purse strings of the agency that is doing the investigation, according to the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal and a number of other publications across this country.

I think that is an appropriate question. I think this Congress has to ask that question. I think we have to answer that question. I had hoped that it would get asked and answered by the leadership on the majority side of the aisle. The leadership knew about this when they made the appointments to the Chairs of the committee.

So it is reluctantly that I bring this here. I wish that someone had stepped forward and taken this cup from me. But I can't cross this spot, which I recognize to be the Rubicon, knowing what I know, without raising the issue for the Members, to ask them to make a decision as well.

It is appropriate for any Member to raise an issue when it hasn't been properly dealt with by the leadership of this Congress. It is appropriate to lay facts out in front and debate those facts. It is not inappropriate to ask questions and ask for answers.

There is a lot more data here that I am aware of, but, factually, this is as far as I care to go with this issue. I want to ask the Members to make a decision. History will make a decision on this moment here on the floor of this Congress. Our decision is just temporary, but history will write this.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the gentlemen that have bought this amendment to the floor. It is something that all America has been fixated upon, because they understand the injustice that underlies the prosecution of these two Border Patrol officers. And I would like to characterize this perhaps a little bit differently.

Listening to the gentleman, my friend who just got done speaking, talking about the mandatory minimums being something that comes back to bite us in the you-know-where, no, this isn't the mandatory minimum issue that is before us tonight. This is the equivalent of a private bill.

We have brought private bills through this Congress a number of times when we see issues that there is such an egregious case for specific individuals that we will generally bring that language through the Judiciary Committee, through the Immigration Subcommittee and on through Judiciary and onto the floor. It has happened a number of times in my time here in Congress. In fact, I have one here today that one of your colleagues from your side of the aisle offered to me, and I will consider it. But this is actually in my jacket pocket. This is a private bill asking for relief for people who have violated the law but find themselves in unique circumstances and pleading upon this Congress to make an exception because they are unique circumstances, and this is a measure to our heart.

What does our heart have to say to us when you see two Border Patrol officers who put their lives on the line on a daily basis and find themselves caught in this legalistic vice that has unfolded because, I think, of a discretionary decision by a U.S. Attorney in his prosecution?

What I am concerned about is if this Congress doesn't stand up and defend these two people, Ramos and Compean, Border Patrol officers will be reluctant to pull their weapon in the line of duty and they will be in the line of fire. And I am afraid we will lose one or more Border Patrol officers in the line of duty because they will be hesitant to ever pull their weapon. That is a piece of their thing.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas, and again thank him for his work in bringing this amendment to the floor.

Mr. Chairman, I'd say also there is a bill following this. If this doesn't do the job, I have a bill ready to introduce that grants them a new trial, a de novo review, and it removes the jurisdiction to the Northern District of Texas.

We're going to find a solution this. We're going to stand up and defend Ramos and Compean. This sends the message. It might get the job done. I urge adoption.

I yield back.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for bringing this amendment, and I appreciate the gentleman from West Virginia coming down to defend this particular language that's here.

I think we need to take a look at this thing from a perspective that's perhaps broader than this particular project, that being that the issues that have been raised here in this Congress will be discussed again and again throughout this appropriations process.

But if the project has merit, it should have merit. It should be able to succeed in its efforts without being specifically identified.

But I think it has a fair amount of weight to drag with it, in that that trail has been there a long time. It could wait awhile longer.

I would submit that the issues that surround the particular district that the gentleman represents should be considered in light of this particular appropriation. The report that came out in the Wall Street Journal that's a little more than a year old, about land that has been purchased along the river that happens to be the same river that this trail runs along, I don't know that it's adjacent, brings a question to mind as to whether or not the gentleman

from West Virginia will be able to follow through on statements reported in the Wall Street Journal that say any claim whatsoever that says these investments are in any way related to my actions as a Member of Congress is categorically false.

I don't deny that statement. I don't actually take issue with that. I would just ask the gentleman if he could suspend his aggressive effort to fund this project until such time as these questions that surround this Cheat River project could be resolved.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the offer of the chairman. I wonder if he might concede to a 15-second blurb here in order to get a couple of words into the Record. I appreciate the incentive and the concession.

This amendment simply says none of the funds shall be used to hire people who are not legal and eligible to work within the United States. That's it. I think we have a consensus on this.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's acceptance of the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

This amendment follows through on the theme of the previous amendment, only it addresses that no homeownership assistance will be applicable to those who aren't legal to work or lawfully present in the United States. Again, it is a simple concept. It supports current law.

I am happy to yield.

I thank the chairman for his comments. I urge adoption of the amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is the amendment that strikes the requirements for the Davis-Bacon Act within the appropriations of this bill, and the Davis-Bacon issue is something that I have lived with for at least my 28 years in the construction business as an owner and operator, and we'd add about four or five more years as an employee.

I have received Davis-Bacon wage scales. I've paid Davis-Bacon wage scales. I've managed my way through the combination of paperwork and requirements that are part of this. I'm maybe the only one in Congress who has real hands-on experience for years of dealing with the additional costs that are involved with the Federal wage scale that's Davis-Bacon.

And my numbers throughout my history of working with these projects vary from anywhere from 8 percent increase in the cost of the projects up to 35 percent increase in the cost of the projects. I round that down to a round number of 20 percent additional costs.

We're in a situation where we're arguing that we need to bring in more labor from foreign countries to do this work, and yet we're setting a Federal wage scale for this work, and we know that labor is developed by supply and demand. I am a supporter of labor being able to collectively negotiate the value of their work, but I'm not a supporter of the Federal Government telling the workers and the employers what they need to pay their employees.

I believe that if two adult individuals want to enter into a contractual agreement, they should be able to do so without interference of the Federal Government. This is not a prevailing wage in practice. It's only a prevailing wage by statute. Actually, it is union scale imposed upon wherever the money is spent.

Any construction project with $2,000 or more in it takes the inflationary cost of a Davis-Bacon wage scale. Some places, it's actually below the prevailing wage. Other places, it distorts that prevailing wage dramatically. In almost all cases, it costs a lot of money, and for example, if it's a 20 percent increase, then if you can build five projects or 5 miles of road, this will let you build six. Why would we limit the resource and the infrastructure that we are building with this project by imposing such a draconian, top-down,

Federal management tool that not only costs a lot more money, but it makes it a lot, lot harder to manage your projects?

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the amount of time I have remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I rise as one, again, who has worked on union shop and merit shop jobs, both as an employer and as an employee. As an employer, having been a union shop, I have paid union scale and also, of course, prevailing wage, Davis-Bacon wage scale. I've worked under a union shop, and I've worked on a merit based, and to look at the difference in the workmanship, I don't think we can apply high quality strictly to union. In fact, merit shop employees do a fantastic job with the work that they're doing, and they take pride in it, and they have to compete in the competition of the project.

My son's now in the construction business, the second generation King Construction. I know the decisions he has to make, and sometimes he will pick up a set of plans and take a look at that and figure on bidding that project and find out that it's a Davis-Bacon wage scale. He understands that that messes up his flow of his employees, and it limits his ability to manage those employees on the job.

For example, if you're paying an excavator operator $24 an hour and you're paying your laborer on the ground with a shovel or a grease gun let's say $10, that man is not going to get off of that excavator and pick up that grease gun or pick up that shovel, even if it's for a half hour or an hour if he knows he's going to be paid union scale for that when he could be paid the $24 an hour to sit on the machine. Those things work against our efficiency.

My greatest frustration with Davis-Bacon wage scale is not the wage itself. It's that it takes away my ability to manage a project and my ability to provide incentives for employees to make decisions themselves on the ground.

I have to manage them more when they're under a Davis-Bacon wage scale. I have to tell them what to do. I know people that are owners and operators of their company who get up in the morning and go out to the job at five o'clock to grease and service their machines because they can't afford to pay their operator to get out the grease gun and do it, and they'll be there at night, too, working 16 hours a day while that employee is at 8 hours a day on a Davis-Bacon wage scale.

It distorts the work we do. It distorts the skills and the complement of the skills, and it raises the cost of everything that we do in the construction business. It injects the Federal Government in the way between that relationship between an employer and employee.

Additionally, my employees have received 12 months of work, not seasonal work, health insurance benefits and vacation pay, all of that flowing because we can pay them what they're worth for a week's work as opposed to an inflated value of what they're worth for an hour's work. They make out better, we make out better, and we've got more consistent employees. That goes across this country almost universally.

So I would urge adoption of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, as I reflect on what the Labor Relations Act of 1935 means, it says specifically in the act that there will be no discrimination with regard to hire or tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment by membership in any labor organization, et cetera, and essentially says, by my recollection, that no one shall be coerced into joining a union, nor shall they be discouraged from joining a union.

It's a balanced labor relations act that's there, but the statement that was made by the gentlelady from Texas said it provides for a report for projects on federally funded projects. I don't know where that might exist in the statute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlelady from Texas for a question. I noticed in your remarks your amendment provides for a report for union workers on federally funded projects. I don't recognize where that might be in the 1935 act, and I am wondering, since I don't see it in your amendment, what the basis of that might be.

Reclaiming my time, I thank the gentlelady from Texas. I did happen to write that quote down verbatim, I am confident.

We have a lot of debate here on the floor. Some of us offered more than one amendment. I would simply thank the gentlelady for that statement.

I, for myself, we have the law on the books, and this law is a neutral law. It's not one that promotes union labor, and it's not one that promotes nonunion labor. It's one that promotes the freedom and the discretion of the employee to make that decision.

It does allow for union members to approach workers on the job. That's a protection that's in there, but it also allows the freedom for those workers to make the decision as to whether they would want to collectively bargain or not based upon a vote within that workforce.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I have remaining.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentlelady from Texas for that clarification. I listened carefully to the presentation, and the clarification comes now that it is union and nonunion workers protected equally alike, on balance, between union and merit shop employees.

The advocacy here is for current law.

Now, as we have made this clarification into this record, I appreciate that.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my opposition to the amendment and congratulate the gentlelady from Texas. I appreciate her patience.

Offered By: Mr. King of Iowa

Amendment No. 29: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Sec. 410. None of the funds in this Act may be used to

employ workers described in section 274A(h)(3) of the

Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1324a(h)(3)).