Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. King of Iowa

Amendment No. 105: Page 17, line 23, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $5,000,000) (increased by

$5,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. King of Iowa

Amendment No. 103: Page 17, line 23, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $4,100,000) (increased by

$4,100,000)''.

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

I want to thank the gentlewoman from Wisconsin for presenting this resolution to this Congress, and I notice that many of the statements that she has made have laid out I think the history of this Loving case very well to the Congress, and so what I will seek to do is perhaps just add and fill in perhaps some of the blanks that may have been left, although I'm not convinced that there are many.

And that is the emphasis on equal protection and due process clause of the 14th amendment. I think it was clear when a unanimous decision in the Supreme Court in the Loving case, and it isn't often that you see an issue that has been traditionally rooted from the time of our Founders up until 1967, have a unanimous decision of the Supreme Court, even though it met that resistance at every step of the way throughout the entire appeals process until it got to the Supreme Court.

Today, it looks like a clear decision. It looks easy; it's simple. None of us would have any trouble with this Loving decision; but, in fact, then it was a matter of an idea whose time had finally come.

But the Supreme Court laid out very clear language in their decision that legislative classifications based on race

were ``odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality,'' and further condemned Virginia's interracial marriage statute. And then the Court concluded: ``There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the equal protection clause.''

I just appreciate the privilege to emphasize those things, and then I'd like to add then some other thoughts to this record, Mr. Speaker, and that is that we rightfully celebrate the anniversary of the landmark decision here today. The institution of marriage between one man and one woman is older than the Nation itself. It predates government itself, and it also limits the power of government because traditional families are the fundamental units of our society.

Through them, we pour through that crucible our values from a father and a mother into the children and the values of our patriotism, our faith, our work ethic, our culture. The things we eat and the things we do, every component of our culture and civilization is concentrated through those values of those children that we have and that we're so well-blessed with; and without marriage, government would be bound to expand to take its place and would try lamely to do so.

But marriage embraces only one principle, and that is the marriage of a union between a man and a woman, and the further distinction of that and to have government draw a distinction between people based upon their ethnicity should be abhorrent to a free people.

And I stand here, Mr. Speaker, before you this afternoon, and I take this position that I believe we are all created in God's image, and what He has created, I believe it's an insult to Him if we draw distinctions between His creation. He has also seen to bless us with some specific characteristics that help us identify one another. And because He has seen to bless us with those characteristics, and in this case it was skin color, it doesn't mean it still isn't a reflection of God's image.

And I recall stepping into a church in Port Gibson, Mississippi, the Catholic church there that was built in 1848 by the hands of some of the family of Jim Bowie, and the priest in that church was Father Tony Pudenz, and he showed me in the church that this church that was built in 1848, the floor of the church was built for whites, the balcony was built for blacks. And just a week before that, they had buried the editor of the newspaper who had in 1967 taken his white family from the floor of the church and walked his five children and his wife up there where they sat in the balcony with the African Americans, thereby sending a statement where half of the congregation walked across the street to the Episcopal church where they go to church to this very day. But the balance of that congregation is an integrated congregation.

And so I would say we can't be for equality if we're not in support of intermarriage. God has created us all equally, and based upon that, I support this resolution. I think it's appropriate that we bring it today.

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

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

I rise in support of this legislation which would add Father's Day, the third Sunday in June, to the list of holidays listed in the U.S. flag code on which it's particularly appropriate to fly the American flag.

It's altogether appropriate that Father's Day be added to the list of holidays on which the flag should be flown. Both fathers and mothers are essential elements to the basic family unit that has made America so strong. And so the flag should be flown proudly on both Father's Day, as provided by this bill, and on Mother's Day, as already provided in existing law, as a sign of respect for both mothers and fathers and the essential role the traditional family plays in raising new citizens in our democracy.

I would add, I want to also thank Congressman Todd Tiahrt for bringing this initiative to Congress. It's interesting to note that there was a class in his district that when they were studying the history and studying the days that the Federal Government encourages display of the flag, they noticed that Father's Day was missing. They had written a letter to Congressman Tiahrt asking that he take action on this, and he has introduced a bill and it complements this bill before us.

So I thank him for that and I wanted to emphasize how important it is for citizens to weigh in and to reach out and communicate with Members of Congress because here's a perfect example of how young people saw a gap, had their voice heard, and we have an opportunity here now to fill that gap.

The first Father's Day celebration occurred in Fairmont, West Virginia, in 1908, and the first Mother's Day celebration occurred just 15 miles away in Grafton, West Virginia. So that neighborhood is the home now of Father's Day and Mother's Day. But it's a historical anomaly that Mother's Day and Father's Day were instituted so close in time, but it has taken until today for the House to pass a bill to add Father's Day to the day on which it's especially appropriate to fly the flag.

President Calvin Coolidge recommended Father's Day as a national holiday in 1924; and in 1966, President Johnson made Father's Day a holiday to be celebrated on the third Sunday of June. The holiday was officially recognized in 1972, during the Presidency of Richard Nixon. I look forward to President Bush signing this legislation into law and encouraging all Americans to fly the flag of their own fatherhood celebrations, which will happen at my house.

And as a father, I'm particularly pleased to be here on the eve of the next Father's Day, helping support this piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume.

Mr. Speaker, listening to Mr. Scott talk about the importance of fathers and mothers in the family and the home and the children, I can't any longer resist reflecting through the generation and what this means to me as we discuss this bill that will encourage the special attention to flying the flag on Father's Day.

All of us, each of us has a father. We don't always get to know that father, but I certainly got to know mine. There is hardly a day that goes by that I don't think of him.

I know that there is never a day that goes by that his influence on me doesn't show up in me in something that I do. I look at the grandfathers that I have known. I had the privilege of knowing one of my grandfathers. I watched the message that came from them, the work ethic and the history, and to sit on his knee and to listen to him tell me about his father and his grandfather and the relation of the families and about how far it goes back and rooted into the settlers that came across the country, the pioneers.

My grandfather on my mother's side was sent at a young age, about 13 years old, to go from Indiana to Iowa, to go work on a farm that had only daughters and no sons. What little bit of pay that he got, even at that young age, he had to send back to Indiana. Then when he needed a pair of shoes, he had to write a letter and ask, can I have some money, I need a pair of shoes.

Well, he was a smart young man, and he married the farmer's daughter, and another generation began. That farmer's daughter and that fellow, of course, that young man, were the parents to my mother.

But on my father's side, my father taught me some things that I think have been invaluable in my life. He was the one that always challenged me. Every evening we sat down, all our life was about like the book ``Fun with Dick and Jane.'' Every evening we sat down at the supper table, and Dad carried the conversation. It was either about his day at work, or it was about current events, and then sometimes and oftentimes it was the same thing, given his job. He was the one that taught me to be intellectually honest.

First, you listened before you spoke, and you looked for an opportunity, and the amount of seniority you had in the family and credibility gave you a little bit more opportunity to speak. But if you spoke, and you could not support the statement that you made, he would be there to challenge you on what do you support that statement with. Why can you make a statement like that when these are the countervailing facts?

So, from a young age, one of the most important things my father taught me was to be intellectually honest and expect to be challenged if you are not intellectually honest.

On one of those occasions we began a discussion of whether you can convert watts to horsepower. We had a debate going on, an argument going on, that lasted for 3 days. Every night at supper, I would start that debate up again.

Then I went to the school library and went through a book and finally found the equation that showed how to do the math between watts and horsepower. I snuck that book down to the supper table, marked it, set it on my knees throughout supper. Then when we finished eating and the conversation began, we went into that discussion again.

When I got him just to the right point in the conversation that I could win the debate, I pulled out the book, opened it up to the formula and said here, so many watts equals horsepower. I thought I had the argument won. But I had not been apparently intellectually honest enough, because he said, that's not what I am talking about. Horsepower is mechanical power, watts is electrical power, and you can't equate the two. I learned a real important lesson there as well, but time after time, day after day, the important values of hard work and ethics and integrity and telling the truth and knowing that when I looked him in the eye he knew what was in my mind and he knew what was in my soul.

Even when I watch my hands work today, they are the hands of my father doing that work. When I come here to work here in this Congress, I know that I just don't represent the 600,000 people in my district, which is a profound thing and a tremendous honor to be able to do that, but all of us are the legacy of our fathers and mothers, the work ethic that they taught us, the values that they taught us. We are what has come through that crucible. We are the representatives of the generations.

And to be those representatives, we can thank two people in our lives more than any others, and that's our fathers and our mothers. And I think that came through Mr. Scott's discussion here very well, and I appreciate that that's in the record and we had the opportunity to hear that. I wanted to add some of those words from my side of this as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the privilege to be recognized here on the floor of the House of Representatives and to have the privilege to make some remarks tonight about the life of a former colleague for some of the Members here in Congress and one of the real stars in the Sioux City area that I have the privilege to represent today, and that is the life of former Congressman Wiley Mayne who passed away a little over a week ago at St. Luke's Hospital in Sioux City, Iowa.

Late Congressman Mayne represented the 6th Congressional District of Iowa for 8 years here in this Congress. That was during a time when this country experienced great turmoil. He came from Sioux City and represented much of the northwest Iowa area. He was elected to Congress in 1966 and was sworn in here on this floor in 1967 and served until the early days of 1975.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the '60s and the '70s were tumultuous years for America. But despite the challenges before him, Congressman Mayne accepted an appointment to the Judiciary Committee. Serving on the Judiciary Committee, I appreciate what that means. Only a few years later, he participated in that panel's hearings on the impeachment of President Nixon. That was in the wake of the Watergate break-ins but actually before the Nation heard the tapes that confirmed what actually happened. For his service to America during this tense time, he will be long remembered; and to a significant extent it defined his political career.

Tonight, we are here to celebrate a man whose service and accomplishments went well beyond the work of any congressional committee.

Mr. Speaker, I have much to say about the gentleman whom I have had the great privilege to represent, former Congressman Wiley Mayne.

But I inherited that representation from the gentleman next to me, who also represented the Sioux City area for, I believe, 8 years prior to my privilege to represent them, and that's the gentleman to my left, Congressman Latham, who now represents the north central regions of Iowa, and I would at this time yield to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham) for contributing his time to this cause, and then for me it is a privilege, also.

I wonder, if Wiley were here today, what he would say about Tom Latham actually being the first Republican Congressman to represent Sioux City who had not been educated at Harvard since 1966. I would imagine he would have a couple remarks to make about that had he given it any thought. I'm going to be interested to hear what the family might have to say about that as well.

It is one of the things that is the distinction as the second Republican who isn't Harvard-educated, but there has been a certain trend that's there. And I think one of the consistent themes that you hear and one of those certainly that I reflect in my experience in time with Congressman Wiley Mayne was the fact that he was a consummate gentleman, and I can see him sitting there at those events with that smile on his face. He enjoyed sometimes just watching, listening to speakers, watching people, meeting people, being part of it, didn't have to be in the center of the action, but enjoyed being where there was activity and people. And there was a certain glow about him, and the consummate gentleman portion of that was a portion that I always recall.

And my last memories are sitting in his conference room there in the attorney's office with his son, John, and talking politics, talking current events, talking all kinds of things but never with a sense of what was high stress or high intensity. If my approach to things gets to be a little bit herky jerky, his was always smooth and well-thought out, with a course in mind.

And one of the comments that I've heard that's consistently come up has been, if you find yourself on opposite sides with Wiley Mayne, you still end up being his friend in the end, and that's an Iowa characteristic perhaps. I'd like to think it is, but it's a characteristic that certainly Congressman Wiley Mayne carried with him throughout his life and his service here.

I've had a number of Members come to me today that have served with Wiley in this Congress, and some have asked the opportunity to revise and extend their remarks, and we'll see more of this Congressional Record unfold as we commemorate the life of Congressman Wiley Mayne.

And so what I would like to do, if the gentleman is ready, is simply be in a position to wrap up my thoughts at the conclusion of this period of time. In order to do that, I'd be very happy to yield to the other gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Braley), who is more of a new arrival here to this Congress.

Well, I thank Mr. Braley, and in reclaiming my time, I appreciate you coming to the floor tonight to enter your remarks into this Record and to voice your sentiments about Wiley Mayne. I didn't realize that you had a relationship that had connected across the State over to Sioux City and with John and with Wiley.

And I'm always pleased to find out that sometimes we think that it's a small world, but in fact, I think it's a big neighborhood.

I thank very much Mr. Braley, and I'd like to reflect upon some of the things that have been written and said about Wiley Mayne, former Congressman, and most recently passed away Congressman Wiley Mayne. These are just some blogs that were posted in the paper.

And I would reflect that, when you've been out of public life since the first days of 1975, and 33 years pretty much, that's a lot of time that's passed. And it's more than just a generation, and it approaches a second generation. And many of the people that live in the Sioux City area were not there and maybe were not born yet when Wiley Mayne was our Congressman.

I remember those days, though, when he was, and I remember his image he had in our household. And we spoke reverently of Wiley Mayne for the positions of character that he took, and we watched him go through the agonizing period of time during the Watergate break-ins and the period of time that was very tumultuous.

We were in the middle of Vietnam War. We had the Watergate break-in. It's interesting that Marilyn and I were married on the same day of the Watergate break-ins, as was Governor Branstad on June 17, 1972. That's how we remember that.

Wiley Mayne was my Congressman then. We had great reverence for him and great respect for his integrity. But the reflection back on that, that many years, to inspire someone to go to the keyboard and type some words in to post on a blog that may not be read, but they will be, because I think it's important for me to put this into the Record.

Here is one from Mr. Joel Greer, and it's published May 29. ``Wiley Mayne is one of the last of the fine, older generation of gentleman lawyers that have made Iowa a good place to practice law. By the end of the case he had against me, we were friends. I loved travelling to depositions with him because he had so much worldly experience but was so humble. He gave good counsel to clients. He comported himself well as our Congressman. He was the consummate volunteer as President of the State Bar Association. I am pleased to have known him, and I thank his family for sharing him.''

I second those sentiments.

From Mr. Ronald Scott, same day. ``It was a pleasure to have met Congressman Mayne. He was a friend of my father, Harold Scott; and I met the Congressman when I had my first trip to Washington, D.C., in 1968. I deeply appreciated the time Congressman Mayne spent with our family. I remember him as a true gentleman and an excellent representative.''

Think of that, from 1968 until a little over a week ago, to have made that kind of an impression on a visit here, that that would cause Ronald Scott to go to the keyboard and put those words in on the passing of Congressman Wiley Mayne.

Here is a gentleman I do know, Mr. Keith Uhl, who happens to be an attorney. ``As a member of Ben Reifel's (R-SD) staff in Washington D.C., '68-'72 we worked closely Congressman Mayne in Iowa and South Dakota. Wiley was always pleasant, cooperative and effective. His spirit continues thru his efforts for many. As growing up in Mapleton, Iowa, then the western Iowa communities appreciated his fine representation. God Bless. Keith Uhl, Des Moines & Mapleton, Iowa.''

Those are some of the sentiments that have come out about Wiley Mayne. I have a series of things that have been repeated by Members who have come here to speak about Congressman Wiley Mayne.

But as I look across his record, I can't help but reflect that his expertise went beyond being a congressman, of course. He went on to also being President of the Iowa State Bar Association, where he served with distinction; and he was also a trumpet player in college. I noticed in one with of the obituaries that I read that not only was he successful there, but he was also successful in debate, which would be a natural thing.

I would have liked to have had the opportunity to have debated with him on opposite sides to see how he actually comported himself when I get a little wound up. I expect that he would have still applied his gentle nature and his keen intellect and his insightfulness to probably calm me down a little bit, and I would not have wanted to be in a position where I hoped to prevail in that particular debate.

But his roots going back into Sanborn, Iowa, where he was born and raised and graduated from high school there in 1934. He actually won the Iowa State oratory and the trumpet competitions as a senior in high school. He went on then to Harvard, and he became chairman of the Kirkland House, and he was order of his class there in 1938. That's some pretty tough competition, I would say.

Just 3 years later, he graduated from the Iowa law school and received one of the highest bar exam scores in the 1941 Iowa bar exam test. Now we can look back on his life and see a great leap in maturity for a young man, even as well educated as Wiley Mayne.

In fact, we can look back and see his life shifted greatly to a life- long commitment to public service, especially at the tumultuous times that I mentioned earlier. But from 1941 until 1943, Congressman Mayne was a Special Agent with the FBI, assigned here in Washington D.C., also Los Angeles and San Francisco.

Then he heard the call to serve our Nation's military; and during the thick of the fighting during World War II, he entered into the U.S. Naval Reserve as a lieutenant with the Judge Advocate General in the Navy. From 1943 to 1946, he served aboard a destroyer escort, the USS Stockdale, in the north Atlantic, which was a difficult place, but also the Mediterranean and the Pacific, another difficult place to be.

Upon returning to the States, he began practicing law in Sioux City; and from 1946 until 1964 he practiced law in Sioux City during some of that time. And 1963 was the year that he served as President of the Iowa State Bar Association and then also as a member of the House of Delegates of the American Bar Association from 1966 until 1968.

He was also chairman of the Grievance Commission of the Iowa Supreme Court and Commissioner of Uniform State Laws. He has a long history in working to help support our laws and our community.

But, again, at a time of turmoil, Congressman Mayne was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1966 to represent northwest Iowa. There he served for 8 years as Congressman of Iowa's 6th Congressional District.

But as a member of the Judiciary, and we haven't mentioned yet the Agriculture Committee, and it's interesting that I have the privilege to serve on both the Judiciary Committee and on the House Agriculture Committee. To some degree, I have the duty and the responsibility, however heavy and difficult the load, of carrying on some of Congressman Mayne's legacy in both of those locations.

It has been inspiring to me to be able to serve on the Judiciary and on the Agriculture Committee. It's odd that a nonlawyer like myself could serve on the Judiciary Committee, but it's also not odd at all that a lawyer from Sioux City would serve western Iowa, northwest Iowa, in the United States Congress and serve on the House Agriculture Committee, because, of course, of Iowa being one of the leading agriculture States.

We grew up with agriculture all around us. It doesn't matter whether you are a lawyer or a pastor or a bulldozer operator, you are going to know something about agriculture. You cannot escape it if you grow up in the State of Iowa, especially if you are born and raised in Sanborn, Iowa. But I have the great privilege of serving on the two committees that Wiley Mayne served on.

But he also served as a delegate to the Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome in 1973, and it was during Congressman Mayne's final term in the Judiciary Committee in which he served where they investigated a break-in at the office of the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate Hotel. He was one of 10 Republicans that served on the Judiciary Committee that voted not to impeach President Nixon.

But shortly after that the Watergate tapes were revealed. Congressman Mayne stated that, as that evidence came out, he didn't have enough evidence at the time that he voted to vote for impeachment of President Nixon, but after the tapes came out, it became, the preponderance of evidence, that Mr. Mayne announced he would have voted differently if that information had been available to him at the time.

That's an intellectually honest way for one to conduct themselves in this Congress. The integrity that he held through that is part of the legacy that's here and part of our obligation to uphold. I don't believe that history has judged him as well as he deserves on that issue, and he was straight up all the time in our family and household as we discussed this issue. We judged him as a man of character, a man who called them as he saw them, a man who felt the obligations to serve his country and did so and gave us a straight answer each and every time.

But the hindsight was superior to the foresight, and that will always be the case in the real world. But sometimes history is not forgiving; and I think, though, that the legacy that Wiley Mayne has left here has overcome any of those senses, because we know he did what he believed was right at a time that what did he know and when did he know it might be the question he would pose if he were here today to ask it. I think he acted appropriately and honorably on the information he knew when he knew it. The record will show that. History should judge that, and we need to honor his effort in that fashion.

In recapping this, I want to express my sense of sympathy to the family of Congressman Wiley Mayne, to his two sons and daughter and their children, the grandchildren that are part also of his legacy. I want to express that sympathy and that appreciation for having known him and having the privilege to have been able to call him a friend and a supporter and an adviser. But I think I am more the beneficiary of having been his constituent than I was of any other component.

He served me as one of his constituents and a resident in northwest Iowa during those years, and he inspired my family and the people around me. He helped lead us through some very difficult times. He was a steady hand at the throttle when we needed a steady hand.

When the time came for him to leave this Congress, he left this Congress graciously, gracefully, with honor and dignity and integrity. He left a legacy of those adjectives, and his family remembers it well.

The Siouxland area remembers him well. We can't say enough good about a man who made this kind of contribution and had an extraordinarily good life, a long life, for the most part a healthy life with a good family and good friends.

He very much enjoyed his time here in this Congress and his time as a retired Member of Congress, but a very active member of the Siouxland community who will long remember Wiley Mayne. We will regret losing him, but celebrate his life and extend our sympathies to his family.

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

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 7 o'clock and 43 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, June 8, 2007, at 4:00 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that, and I appreciate the gentleman from Tennessee for organizing this special order tonight. As I had the privilege to sit here on the floor and listen to each of the speakers, it was a good education for me to listen to the eloquent voices that stand up so well and speak for defending our freedom.

To take us towards the to the point towards conclusion of this hour, it is hard to pick up on that tone that was left by Mr. Franks of Arizona, the understanding of over 6,000 casualties on that first day. I presume that they were those killed in action on that day, and on D- Day landing on Omaha Beach and on Utah Beach and on other points there in Europe. That is a place and a location that will always live in the history of this country. It is a place of glory. It is a place where freedom was begun to spread back across Europe.

As I look at that, and I see these 60-some years hence the D-Day landing, I can't help but think that those countries in Europe that have experienced freedom the longest seems to hang on to that freedom the least, and those countries in Europe, particularly eastern Europe, that have lived under tyranny the most recently, seem to want to grasp that freedom and hang on to it and fight for it and defend it more aggressively.

That is reflected, I think, in the troops that are part of our coalition troops in Iraq. In one of my trips over there, I found myself standing with a British general down in Basra. I looked around his headquarters there, and I exempt the Brits from that definition, because they have been tenacious and stood with us in Iraq and other places around the world, but as I looked around, the uniforms and the national flags that were on the shoulders of the coalition groups, Great Britain there, Australia there, Romanians there, there were Danish soldiers there, Bulgarian soldiers there, as I recall, and the list went on.

If I remember right, it was eight different countries represented at those headquarters. I just gathered them together at random, lined them up and stood there and had their picture taken so that I could go back and reference which countries were represented.

But it surely appeared to me that the nations that had lived most recently behind the iron curtain, the one that had the least experience with freedom, were the ones that were the most likely to be there serving with and defending us and defending the freedoms of the people of Iraq and helping with the liberation that is there. That does not take away from the commitments that we have seen on the part of the British, and especially the Australians. They will let me know always that they have been with us in every war, and sometimes they beat us there. So I count them among our best friends and our best allies.

But here we are, with a debate that is going on continually here on the floor of this Congress. The questions that come to mind, as I listen to this discussion, I have to ask this question, what do liberals think? What are they thinking about? How can they draw a conclusion that somehow, even though Iraq is the central front in the war on terror, and that al Qaeda has streamed into Iraq to fight us there, in a way, a lot like the bug light. It is attractive, millions of them have been killed. They were captured and taken out on the field of battle there in Iraq. I would a lot rather have it there than here, and so would the American people.

But how can one argue that the war against terror is not in Iraq, it is anywhere else where they might be. We listened to the gentleman from Tennessee go through a long place of places around the world where the Islamic terrorists have attacked, a lot of times, free people. With that list, you have to know that this is a global war. These jihadists are attacking people, not like them, and their belief that they could expand, they should expand the caliphate at least around Western Europe and to the United States and presumably to the rest of the world, how can one conclude then that you would take a place off the map that has been paid for with the blood of American patriots, coalition force patriots and the blood of Iraqis, and the treasure, and say we are going to give it up.

We have liberated it. We have earned it, we have paid for it, and, now, we are going to give it up and hand it over to the terrorists because the war on terror is not in Iraq, even though Osama bin Laden believed it was there, and al Zarqawi believed it was there and al Zawahiri believes it is there.

It is obvious, General Petraeus has told us over and other again, that's where the central front is. In fact, Speaker Pelosi conceded that same point in one of her remarks here in a failed attempt to override one of the President's vetoes on one of their unconstitutional appropriations bills, but Iraq is the central front in the war on terror.

To argue that we should pull out of there and let that country become whatever it would become, and that would be the off limits, safe ground and territory for al Qaeda to set up shop, because, politically, it was a good argument to make.

All right, I can't follow that rationale, I can't follow that. If it is logical, someone has got to explain that to me. So we have a liberal approach to this. It is a law enforcement problem. Yes, we should go after Osama bin Laden in the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and we should do that.

But we can fight this war on many fronts. We are a nation that can do that. Before this is over, we will have to do it in many places simultaneously. But we dare not walk away from this country that we pitched our future with. It was the right decision to go in there. I regret we had to.

The President didn't have a choice, and honest historians will write that into the history books. But if we should walk away from there now, under any kind of ruse or under any kind of an excuse, they will claim victory, and, you would see, not just sectarian violence and the devastating bloodshed that would come from that until such time a dictator emerges, it can rule that part of the world, that's not the worst of things. It is a bad thing, but it's not the worst of things.

What I believe you would see happen is the Sunni triangle would become the haven for the al Qaeda terrorists. They would set up shop there, unchallenged. We wouldn't have a way to go in and challenge them, because if we're not willing to take them out and keep them out of there now, why would we ever have the will to go in and take them out later. You know that the price would be higher, but the will wouldn't be materialized.

So I believe al Qaeda takes over the Sunni triangle, and that would be the base of their operations, and they would seek to expand that base of operations. But, worse than that, as you have right now, you have Iranians fighting a proxy war against the United States in Iraq, and in Afghanistan.

In fact, the motion to recommit with instructions that Mr. Pence offered today illustrated how Iran is engaging themselves into the operations and in the support of the Taliban and Afghanistan. But they have been engaged in this proxy war against the United States in Iraq for 2\1/2\ or perhaps 3 years.

So if we were to pull out of there, you would see the hegemony of the Iranians go into the Shi'a regions and the influence of that, get entrenched further in the Shi'a regions of Iraq. Those regions control 70 to 80 percent of Iraq's oil. That would put Iran in control of the oil in that region, and the Strait of Hormuz, through which 42.6 percent of the world's export oil supply flows.

They would be in a position to decide when their treasure chest is full of oil money, when they have purchased enough scientists and enough nuclear capability and when they have developed enough delivery capability to terrorize the rest of the world and attack the rest of the world with their nuclear capability, pick their time, shut down or shut off, I call it the valve at the Strait of Hormuz, the place where the oil has to flow through. Through that strait, they can control the economy of the world.

If that valve is shut down, that sends the United States, the effect of the cost of our oil price is going through the roof, $3 a gallon gas would be cheap if that would happen. That would put the United States into at least a recession, probably a depression.

China would follow us. They are starved for the energy the same way, and their economy is linked to ours. If we catch a cold, they sneeze, because they sell so much product to us. The biggest losers in this would be the United States, China. The biggest winners, Iran in their hegemony; and the Russians who have more oil than they know what to do with.

That's why Putin is opposed to our operations there, and that's why we are getting a lot of grief out of Putin. This outfit over here says somehow says we shouldn't fight this in Iraq. The worst scenarios are the ones that I have talked about, and I anticipate a nuclear Iran, an Iran that is committed to annihilating Israel, and an Iran that is committed to annihilating the United States.

That's the rationale that we are dealing with here. I wonder if they can actually think through this. But I also wonder why anyone would think that the voters have hired 535 liberal generals to micromanage a global war on terror. In fact, I'd ask anyone in this

Chamber, come down, and I will yield time to you, and you tell me, name me a single general that was a liberal, a successful liberal general throughout all the history of the world.

I defy you to name one, there isn't one. One has never existed. One will never exist. Liberal generals don't succeed, 535 micromanaging liberal generals certainly don't succeed. It's not Congress' business to micro manage war. It's our job to fund them and support them and equip our troops, field an Army and a Navy, and declare a war if the situation calls for it. We haven't done so since World War II.

That's our job in this Congress, and that's our constitutional limitations. We need to live by those limitations and not be busting our buttons believing that we can do something here that isn't getting done, maybe, to the satisfaction of the people on that side of the aisle or mine, for that matter.

But there is a tremendous amount at stake, and it is more than the lives that have been invested so far, those that have been lost so far. God bless them for that. Zach Wamp spoke well to that, but the destiny of America and the destiny of the free world and the destiny of western civilization are all on the line matched up against a belief that they are going to restore a caliphate and renew a 100 year-old conflict that has been taking place here in the war, here in the world for hundreds of years.

We have a western civilization belief, we believe in freedom, this has been a country that has been founded on Judeo-Christian principles. That's some of the foundation of our strength, free enterprise market economy is another one, belief in the rule of law, and the foundational principles that we have in this Constitution, all tied together, all at risk, all matched up against people that don't believe in freedom, people that believe in death, people that execute homosexuals and female adulteresses, by the way.

Many people on this side of the aisle have a different belief system. I don't know why they would want to ally themselves with the interests of those who want to restore the caliphate, stone women and execute homosexuals and destroy your freedom and your freedom of religion. All of that is tied up in the risk of this.

Madam Chairman, I thank Ranking Member Lamar Smith for yielding to me and also for his leadership on this bill and also for his overall leadership within the Judiciary Committee.

I want to also express my gratitude to Chairman Conyers, a gracious gentleman, who has worked most of these issues out in a generally bipartisan fashion, sometimes I would go so far as to say a nonpartisan fashion.

Occasionally when I come up with an idea, it is considered a good one by my side of the aisle. And it is quite rare for me to come up with an idea that is considered a good one on both sides of the aisle. And yet, in this case, I am pleased that both sides have agreed that the portion that I introduced which provides for reporting to be on the Internet in a searchable, sortable, downloadable fashion. I mean, this is the 21st century. We are in the BlackBerry and iPod age, and Congress ought to get up to speed and be able to transfer that information out to the public.

One of the things advocated by the chairman and ranking member and other members of the Judiciary Committee was that we shine sunlight on this lobbying process and the funding process. That is the anecdote to whatever we are doing here. Whenever we have tightened-up regulations, and we are trying to correct for generally one individual human failure, sometimes it is an anecdote. Occasionally it is a small group. Seldom does it go across a broad universe of people. If you look through the legislation that has passed on the floor of Congress throughout generations, I think you will find that often that legislation is specific to an incident. So those incidents reflect human failures, and human nature itself, I believe that foundation is generally good.

Well, what sunlight does, it activates that human nature and it turns loose and activates the bloggers across the country where they are sitting with now real-time access within a reporting period of time to the lobbying activities, the funding activities that take place, and they will be able to track those activities on the Internet. There will be new blogs that will open up. There will be others that will be activated and animated, and when they can search and sort and download, that means that their scrutiny of the lobbying activities that surround this Congress will be real, and it will be effective, and it will be sortable.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

I thank the chairman, as I reclaim my time. And I appreciate the tone and the tenor of this debate, as well as the work that has gone on on this policy.

I would advocate there are a few things that we can do yet to move us further into the technological age. I look up on the wall of the House and see, I can be watching on television, to walk over here, and in the 5 minutes it takes to get here from the Longworth building, the subject can change. Actually, the bill can change or the amendment can change, and a Member, a seasoned Member, can walk in here and not know what the debate is about. And yet, many of the State legislatures post, they project on the wall inside their chambers, the bill, the subject matter that is being debated. It is one of the other things that we can do in the context of shining some sunlight on. In fact, we can shine sunlight on the activities of Members in the fashion as we have lobbyists. That is not the subject of this debate here on the floor, so much as it is, I like to raise the expectations and the hopes that we can use this same philosophy and expand sunlight on reporting process of our travel activities, for example, and our financial recordings, both personal and the FEC documents, so they are in a searchable, sortable, downloadable database and give the bloggers that opportunity to scrutinize us the same way they will the lobbyist.

I think if we keep moving down the path and having this kind of debate and dialogue, we will get to where the public confidence in us raises.

The chairman also recognizes that I am concerned about some of the allegations about the electoral process. If we are able to add integrity in the electoral process, then the American people have more confidence in the whole process.

This is one component of what needs to be done. If we can add to it the same levels of reporting for ourselves as Members, if we can add more integrity in voter registration and the actual electoral process, all of those things strengthen us as a Nation.

I want to make it clear, and I don't think there is any doubt that I would rather lose an election than lose the confidence of the American people in this system. If they lose their confidence in our democratic process, then the whole system melts down. This is an important step along the way. There are other steps to take along the way. I think they are consistent with the philosophy of the bill before us. I thank all parties involved.

Mr. Speaker, as always, I profoundly appreciate the privilege to address you on the floor here of the United States House of Representatives.

We have had quite a momentous week here, and it gives one a sense who has been in the middle of this environment that there are times when this Congress can work urgently and times when our priorities finally rise to the top. And as I watched the committee action and have been involved in it across on this Hill for these last 4\1/2\ years, but especially this last week, with the intensity we had at hearings and the intensity we had at markups, and transferring those markups here to the floor for consideration by the full body and debate and occasionally amendments offered, it has been an intense week, and it has been momentous.

Before I get into the meat of the discussion that I hope to take up this evening, Mr. Speaker, I have to reflect upon what has transpired here just today on the floor of the House of Representatives, and that is passing legislation that improves our lobbying reform and puts more sunlight on the donations that come from lobbying. And I believe that, yet all of us are bound by our own ethical standards, putting sunlight on those activities allows for the public to make that judgment as well as the individual Member of Congress.

I very much support that philosophy, and I am particularly pleased that the motion to recommit spread that responsibility not just across private sector lobbyists, but also the public sector lobbyists as well. That is something that I believe should have been part of the bill, Mr. Speaker. It was something that I brought language to the Judiciary Committee to correct.

We had a significant and intense discussion on that in the Judiciary Committee, but yet the amendment wasn't quite ready for prime time, as they say. It has had a couple of technical flaws in it, so we withheld that amendment in the Judiciary Committee and brought it here as a motion to recommit tonight where it had significant support from Democrats and Republicans. So I am pleased that we have taken that step.

I am hopeful that we will be able to take up some other steps to provide more sunlight on this Congress. And particularly, the language that I offered in the lobby reform bill that passed the floor today and was eventually included in the bill was the requirement that the information be posted on the Internet in a searchable, sortable, downloadable format that would allow the bloggers across the country to be able to go on the Internet and see what is going on with campaign donations and those activities between the lobby and the Members of Congress.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and real-time reporting in searchable, sortable, downloadable format so that we are not putting people through the difficulty of having to reenter from a PDF or an Adobe file, or we are not putting them through the difficulty of trying to come up with some summarized information when easily it can go out there in a spreadsheet fashion and make it available in a format that says, we want you to know this; we want you to see this. In fact, we want that kind of oversight from the public, because this is the people's House, and the people are sovereign in America. And this legislation that passed the floor today helps with that.

But I would like to see that same level of scrutiny on the individual campaign contributions of our Members and in real-time reporting in searchable, sortable, downloadable format, Mr. Speaker. And if we can do that, if we can do our financial reportings so that they are to an exact dollar amount or within a narrow dollar figure within that dollar amount, and then file our own personal finances as well as our campaign contributions in real-time, searchable, sortable, downloadable format, hand it over to the American people with easy access on the Internet, and let them download, let them sort, let them draw their conclusions, let them write their op eds, let them fire up their base and run their Web pages, and let's let that dialogue be added to the mainstream media, the talk radio dialogue, the across-the-backyard-fence dialogue, all of the things that go together in this national conversation that we have that is an amalgamation of all of the opinions in America that helps shape and, in fact, does shape the consensus that America needs in order to move forward.

Then I would also, Mr. Speaker, suggest a fairly simple thing, and that is that when we are on the floor of this Chamber, and we are debating a bill and an amendment, the number and the name of the bill and the number and the name of the subject of the bill and the amendment are only available to a Member when they walk in here on the floor by going over there and asking staff or asking a clerk. That means then if Members of Congress can be watching this operation on C- SPAN, and walk from their Cannon or Rayburn or Longworth Office Building over here in about a 4\1/2\-minute span of time, and from the time of knowing what's going on by watching the television of the floor action and spending that 4 to 5 minutes to walk over here, the subject can change, the bill can change, the amendment can change. Two or three amendments can be passed by a voice vote in that period of time, and you will have no idea what kind of action is taking place on the floor when you walk in here without asking someone that is managing the bill or managing the opposition to the bill.

Yet I look up here, Mr. Speaker, into the gallery, and I see visitors on a daily basis, sometimes in significant numbers, and they can't know what is being debated here on the floor. They can't understand the debate or the actions that are here because we don't make it easily available to them. We don't want to make that a secret. We want people to know what is being debated here. In fact, that is one of the reasons why Members come here to the microphones is because they are able to speak, not just you, Mr. Speaker, but simultaneously to a national television audience.

Members want the public to know what we are doing, but the most obvious thing we could do we don't do, and the cheapest and simplest thing, and that would be just simply to project up here on the wall where we project our votes when we are voting the number and the title of the bill, and the number and the title and the author of the amendment. Post those things up there so that when the public comes in and

sits down, they can look and see precisely what the subject matter of the debate is.

That happens in a majority of the State legislatures of the United States, of the 50 States, and here we are stuck in time back in the 19th century or earlier, and we can't quite make that change, not because we don't agree with it, just because, well, it is a change, and change comes with difficulty here. So we don't have a crisis to cause us to step forward and make that change, and we are stuck with this reality that has gone on for a couple hundred years here.

So I would submit those changes. I hope we can move forward with those kind of changes, and I am looking forward to the opportunity to do that.

And then I take up the issue that just passed the floor of this House by a vote of 280-142. Mr. Speaker, that is finally the funding for our troops in the Middle East and Iraq and in Afghanistan. This is the emergency and urgent supplemental spending bill that the President asked for at the onset of this 110th Congress in January. This is something that we all knew needed to be done. Everyone here out of the 435 understood that you cannot put troops in harm's way and not fund those troops, and yet those who are opposed to the operations in Iraq, and I assume there are some there that are opposed to operations in Afghanistan as well, they wanted to tie conditions on the appropriations to the funding for our military, and so this debate began. And as this debate unfolded, by my count it is 108 days that this Congress has deliberated over a long Easter break while the Speaker went over to the Middle East and conferred with the Israelis and the Syrians, and a couple of other stops over there, those being the most significant.

That engagement in foreign policy is another subject perhaps for another day, Mr. Speaker. And I believe that we are all constrained by this Constitution. I don't believe any of us should be involved in negotiations with a foreign government, to engage in those acts that the Logan Act is specifically designed to prohibit. Yet, I think most of us are convinced that that is what happened. Negotiations were taking place over in the Middle East while our troops needed funding that needed to happen back here.

When General Petraeus came back here to brief Congress on the stage of the surge and the new plan and the new direction in Iraq, when he was here, he briefed a classified briefing to every Member of Congress; we were all invited. A reasonable turnout, Mr. Speaker, but the Speaker of the House was not there. The Speaker of the House couldn't work it into her schedule, at least by news accounts. She was able to go to the Middle East to negotiate over there in relations between Israel and Syria, the results of which I think both countries have some question about the message that was carried, but not when General Petraeus was here in the United States Capitol, in these office buildings around this Capitol.

We had the opportunity to hear from him, and he let us know that funding was urgent, that daily our military were making decisions that had to be done because the funding stream wasn't coming. So different weapons programs that were going on, the development of weapons programs, the procurement process, many of those things, including the training of the Iraqi military, had to all be slowed down, adjusted, in some cases stopped because the funds that were in the pipeline needed to be redirected so that our troops weren't in further danger.

But troop readiness is essential. And that is obvious from the conditions that were attached to the appropriations bill, by the majority side I will add, and those conditions that require troop readiness were being undermined and diminished by the reluctance and the delay in the appropriations that we just did today, finally, for our military, 108 days later.

I have mentioned Israel. And I can't help but reflect that Israel has found themselves, from the inception of their Nation in 1948, in one of the most violent regions in the world surrounded by enemies, enemies that have lined up against them and attacked them on a number of occasions. They have fought off their enemies courageously and valiantly. And you see the American spirit also within the Israelis, their love of freedom, their tenacity to hang onto it, the difficulty that they had in carving it out and achieving it. And yet, I still look back upon their history, about 58 years old, and in that period of time, aside from their war for independence and a protracted lengthy war in Lebanon that was more a period of taking military positions there than a period of constant fighting, aside from that, Israel has never had a war that took as long to fight and achieve a victory or a settlement in all of their existence as it took for this Congress just to fund our military.

Mr. Speaker, think about what that means. If we can't turn around funding for our military and it takes 108 days, and they are waiting to be able to make their decisions, and they are doing intradepartmental transfers of resources that are already in the pipeline, suspending the development of weapons programs, stopping and/or suspending, at least to some extent, the training of Iraqi troops, putting our troops in jeopardy, all of that going on because it takes 108 days to do what everybody in this Congress knew had to happen anyway.

Well, it finally happened today. People were able to make their political points and score their political scores over the last 108 days. And the American people are tired of it, and the White House is plenty tired of it. So, finally, we come to this resolution, and finally our troops are going to be funded.

But if that bill had hit the floor of this Congress 108 days ago, it would have passed, and the funding would have been in their hands, and we would have been in a significantly better position for military readiness across all branches of the Armed Forces and a better position within the Middle East.

But what this has done is encouraged our enemies, it has undermined our troops, it has put them at risk, and it threatens also to rear its ugly head again sometime in September and start us all through this same process. Well, that encourages our enemy. They are sitting there watching what is going on, and they would like to influence the political process here in the United States. Thankfully, our military knows what their duty is, and they are sworn to uphold their duty and obey their commanding officers and ultimately their Commander in Chief. Because of their loyalty, because of their sense of duty, we have a solid tactical position in Iraq and in the Middle East.

If they acted like some of the people here in this Congress acted, Mr. Speaker, that operation over there would have fallen apart a long time ago. So I thank our military men and women.

We're moving forward towards the Memorial Day where this Nation not just pauses, stops, stops to reflect upon the ultimate sacrifice that's given by our military men and women, the sacrifice of their lives for our freedom. And they ask us, did we adhere to this Constitution and did we exercise the freedoms that they've defended and fought for us in a fashion that's respectful and worthy of their sacrifice?

So I will say that today, finally, passing this appropriations off this floor, even though I'd like to go through there and amend a lot of that language, was closer to anything we've done this year to show that we're worthy of their sacrifice.

But the message is still the wrong message. The message I want them to hear is, it was worth it. It was worth you laying down your life for the freedom of 300 million people, and we're going to move this Nation forward into the future so that we can reach our destiny. And this destiny is a brighter destiny and a brighter future than many of the critics of this appropriations, this funding for our military.

And so, Mr. Speaker, that wraps up the portion of this presentation that deals with the current events of this week and today. But I have to roll this thing back to the current events of last week, that being that last week, on Thursday afternoon, here in this city, about 12:30, if I remember correctly, there was a press conference that took place over on the Senate side. And a group of senators got together and announced that they had finally untied the Gordian Knot of immigration and put together the best immigration bill that could be put together. They called it comprehensive immigration reform.

And they stipulated that they had been negotiating and working on this with Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts, who was one of the presenters, with the White House, President Bush, his representatives there, and that this delicately balanced comprehensive immigration bill could be and would be the vehicle that should pass through the Senate without amendment and come over here to the House, where we should certainly be respectful and just adopt the wisdom of the Senate, send the bill on to the President, who we know is waiting there with pen in hand, eager to sign the, what they would describe to be a comprehensive immigration bill.

And now, Mr. Speaker, I'd take you back, and the Members back to about January 6 of 2004. That would be the moment in time when President Bush gave his first major immigration reform speech. And I recall the speech that he gave. In fact, I pleaded that he not give it because it would split the Republican party. And it called for amnesty.

Now, we've had many debates on what amnesty is in that period of time, in that subsequent three, not quite 3\1/2\ years. And I will lay out the definition that I think emerges as the most consistent and the most accurate definition of amnesty.

Now, we know that amnesty is a pardon, plain and simple, a pardon for a violation of a crime, generally to a group or class of people. Black's Law Dictionary defines it pretty close to that. It also recognizes that the 1986 bill that was the Immigration Reform Act, Immigration Reform and Control Act, IRCA, was an amnesty bill. And that's identified in Black's Law Dictionary.

But I'll define amnesty as a way that I think it works a little bit better for the American people, Mr. Speaker, and that is, to grant amnesty is to pardon immigration law breakers and reward them with the objective of their crime; a pardon and a reward.

So what I'm talking about that's going on with this comprehensive immigration reform isn't just amnesty, but it's amnesty plus a reward. And the reward is the objective of their crime.

Now, some will say it's amnesty if they get to keep a job because that's what they want. Well, some want to work. Some don't. In fact, 7 out of 12 are working; 5 out of 12 are not. So it doesn't work to define that they're getting amnesty because they get to have or keep a job here in the United States.

Some come here to be homemakers. Some come here because they are attracted by a relation. Some come here too young to work. Some come here too old to work. Not that many of those, I might add.

But they have a whole different variety of motives for coming into the United States illegally or overstaying their visas.

But the objective of their crime, and it is a crime to enter the United States illegally, and those people who do so are criminals by any definition. It doesn't do to march in the streets and say, you're not; if you committed a crime to come here, you're a criminal.

So to pardon immigration law breakers and reward them with the objective of their crime, pardon and reward. The objective is whatever is on their list, whatever their motivation is, we grant them. And that's what the Senate proposes to do with the legislation that they have before them in debate there this week, is that they propose to not only pardon those who enter the United States illegally, but to grant them the objective of their crime. And that means we're going to let you stay here and work, but we'd like to have you working, but you don't have to work. You can follow your own path. After all, this is America.

And so to argue that it's not amnesty, first I would back up just a little bit, Mr. Speaker, and point out that the language that is comprehensive immigration reform, that phrase encompasses amnesty. And the administration has argued, and the Open Borders Lobby has consistently argued that they are not for amnesty; they're opposed to amnesty. And yet, they're proposing that everybody be forgiven, and all of those who are not convicted of a felony or three serious misdemeanors, if you haven't had your fingerprints taken in America, they want to give you amnesty. They want you to be able to stay here. And they want to give you an automatic provisional permit to stay in the United States.

They keep talking about 12 million. Well, first I want to submit that comprehensive immigration reform now means to the American people amnesty. The administration and the Open Borders Lobby has not been successful in redefining the term amnesty. They can't convince you or me or the American people that it's not amnesty if you grant someone a pass or a pardon to stay here, because it might be coupled with paying a fine, and the fine somehow is supposed to be a substitute for 6 months in jail and/or deportation.

But whatever the current penalty is for violating, the law is what it is. If you reduce that penalty and if you change the law, that means you've provided a pardon, and that's amnesty; and especially when the fine that they're proposing is a fine that's generally significantly less than it would cost to hire a coyote to bring you, smuggle you into the United States.

Yes, I know. There's a fee of $4,000, and coyotes are $1,500 to $2,500, what the going rate is. But that can be paid over increments, and it's stretched out over a period of time.

The talk is, well, what else are you going to do with the 12 million people? Well, first of all, it's not 12 million people; 12 million people is not the ceiling; it's the floor. It's the beginning. It's a minimum of 12 million people, Mr. Speaker, and that number goes up.

If you go back to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, it was predicted that that was going to provide amnesty to a million people.

President Reagan, Lord bless his memory, told the truth. He said, I'm going to sign an amnesty bill because I believe it's the best alternative. And so he signed the bill. It was for a million people, and it became 3 million people because the quickly growing cottage industry of document fraud provided for the kind of phony documents that allowed three times as many people to apply and be approved. And there was a significant percentage of those applications that were later, upon Congressional oversight, proven to be fraudulent documents that granted people a green card and a path to citizenship here in the United States, even though it wasn't consistent even with the amnesty law that was signed by President Reagan.

Now, here we are. What else are you going to do with 12 million people? We're going to give them a provisional legal status here in the United States. In 18 months, they submit that they will sign everybody up, and now we'll have everbody's fingerprints, and we'll be able to do a background check on everybody. And some of those background checks have to get done within 24 hours. You aren't going to have a private company do that. Background checks have to be done by government. Private companies do not have access to those databases of fingerprints, NCIC files, the kind of violations that are there. And government doesn't move so quickly that they can swallow up, in a matter of 18 months, the 12 million applications that are envisioned by the Senate that would be processed; 12 million applications. We have backlogs there now. We have delays there now. And the 12 million is not the ceiling; it's the floor. It begins at 12 million.

Then the document fraud, then the miscalculations, then the erroneous census and erroneous estimations on how many people are here in the United States start to show up, and those that have a clean record or have some means to present a clean record are going to come forward.

But I would ask the Members of the Senate, Mr. Speaker, even if this all happens the way you envision it, even if the good people come forward and they put their fingerprints down and that goes through the NCIC database and comes back, and even though they may be clean and they don't have felonies against them, or three serious misdemeanors, maybe all of that could happen, I guess maybe in another world it would happen that way.

But if it all happened, what are you going to do about the people that don't come out of the shadows? What can be done about the people that are here under false identification, about the people that have a criminal record in their home country and they're afraid we are going to find that out with a background check, difficult to do. What are we going to do about the people that stay in the shadows? What are

we going to do about the people that came here to live in the shadows and decided already they want to stay in the shadows and live there, that they don't have an interest in becoming part of the records of the United States?

How does that get resolved?

What do you do to provide an incentive for felons, criminals, people who have committed three or more serious misdemeanors? What do you do to get them to come forward?

And the answer to that is, if you want to deport them, they're not coming forward. If it's your goal to deport felons and triple violators of serious misdemeanors so that you can send them back to their home country, they are not going to come forward. They're going to stay in the shadows.

Some of the estimates say that 10 percent of the illegal population are criminals in one fashion or another beyond just violating immigration law. I don't know what that number is. I know that 28 percent of the populations within our Federal and State penitentiaries are criminal aliens. And so I would suspect that that percentage of population is greater.

But they're not coming forward. You'll not get felons to come out of the shadows. And so the very object of this grand idea from the administration and the Open Borders Lobby is, we can't enforce the border unless somehow we take these millions of people that are pouring across our border, legalize them so they don't clutter up our law enforcement, they don't get in the way of our law enforcement; and then, if we do that, now we can concentrate on the criminals, the felons, the triple serious misdemeanor violators, and that'll let us take our 18,000 Border Patrol officers and our extra 10,000-plus our existing ICE officers, and we will enforce the law, and we'll have more prison beds, and this is all going to work out in this grand scheme into a grand dream that will become reality.

But this grand scheme, grand dream is never going to become reality because there's such a thing as human nature. And human nature will resist if it's not in their interest. So we'll still have the negative elements out of this population that I will concede is predominantly good people, on balance. And yet the negative elements that exist there in significant proportions are not going to be brought forward by anybody's promise that, if you do so, we're going to grant you a legal status in the United States because we've already promised we're going to send you home.

So I ask this question of the Senators, Mr. Speaker, and that is, we're not willing to deport the people today that violated our immigration laws. We're not willing to pick up the 500,000 or more that poured out into the streets to demonstrate for what, benefits from the United States taxpayer that they want to go to people who are unlawfully in the United States. And I'll speak more specifically of those demonstrations a year ago last May and in the previous march than I do for the ones I saw here because they were far weaker. But that's the people that are putting demands on the taxpayers.

And to presume that they're going to come forward is a flawed notion. They will not. And we're not willing to send people home today who are just in violation of our immigration laws. So why would I, why would anyone who would contemplate voting for this Senate bill, why would we believe that the people that promote it, the Teddy Kennedys, and the other personalities over there, including the White House, if they won't enforce the law today, why do we think they'd enforce the law as this proposal matures in 4 years, 8 years or add the 18 months, the sign-up period to it, 9\1/2\ years, when they would deport the first person who was just unlawfully present from the United States?

The proponents of this bill won't do it today. They resist that, and they say you can't deport 12 million people; so that is your only other alternative except ours. Well, no. Truthfully, Mr. Speaker, I would say, yes, we could deport 12 million people. No, I am not in favor of attempting that, but if we had the will, we could put together the ability. We had the Manhattan Project. How long did that take us, 3\1/ 2\ years, or was it 34 months, right in that area, to decide that we were going to develop an A-bomb and detonate it? And if we did that, if the United States makes up its mind we are going to act, we can act, and we can get things done.

No. We don't have the will. We don't have the will to enforce the law because our heartstrings are tugged upon by our neighbors who we know are here illegally, but they are good workers and good family people. That is a constraint.

But what we need to do is we need to step up and take a look at this thing and fall back in love with the rule of law. It is one thing to have affection for your neighbors, but it is another to pay that price off and at the expense of it to be the rule of law. And that is what is presented here. It is a plain, straight-up amnesty policy. It is the destruction of the rule of law in America. And the rule of law is the most essential pillar of American exceptionalism.

If you pull the rule of law out of our Nation's history, and you decide whom you are going to enforce against and whom you are not, and let people pick and choose, and if you can get a large enough constituency group out there, like 12 million or 20 million, then you can ignore the rule of law, or you can amend the law to accommodate the constituency group that is out there.

No matter what your interests are, if you don't adhere to this Constitution, and if you don't adhere to this rule of law, and if you take the rule of law out of our history, and then you replay history forward again, back it up to July 4, 1776, pull the rule of law out of the equation, and then march forward and see what you get, Mr. Speaker, and I will submit this: You don't really have a reason to have a Revolutionary War. You don't have a reason to throw the yoke of tyranny off of our back. You don't have a reason to bring patriots forward to put their lives on the line to fight for freedom that was shaped by our Founders, and the legacy of the Founders would be out then and taken out of the continuum of American history. And if you pull the legacy of the Founders, the Declaration, the God-given rights that come from Him through the Declaration and are established in our Constitution, if you pull that all out of the equation, try to march forward towards freedom without the rule of law. Try to march towards prosperity without the rule of law. Try to march forward towards a free Nation that is conceived in liberty and dedicated to proposition that all men are created equal, and do that without the rule.

I think, Mr. Speaker, we are starting to see what kind of Nation we would have had if the people in this Congress who preceded us would have had such cavalier disregard for the rule of law, as there appears to be over in the United States Senate, as I fear there may be here in the House of Representatives. The most essential pillar of American exceptionalism is the rule of law, and it would be sacrificed on the altar of cheap labor.

The rule of law is the first thing to go, and the second thing is the middle class. It is another pillar of American exceptionalism, Mr. Speaker, the middle class. And here in the United States, because of our prosperity, what we have done is we have expanded this middle class. We have provided an opportunity for everyone to get a free public education, and that education has put them forth so that when they got out of the public education process, they went to work. And people who decided they didn't want to go on to college, every generation up until this generation had an opportunity to put on a blue collar and punch a time clock and live with a level of moderate prosperity that allowed them to aspire to buy and own a home and raise their family and live their lives in a productive fashion if that was what they wished, because we ever broadened and raised the opportunities for the middle class. But the middle class, Mr. Speaker, will be destroyed by the Senate proposal because the costs of this proposal are astronomical.

We have never done anything that had this kind of economic impact. And the economic impact, as laid out by Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation in the study, shows that if we go forward with the language that is in the Senate or with some of this that is contemplated here in the House, the Social Security burden comes crashing into the Social Security Trust Fund at

almost precisely the time that that trust fund goes into the red. And when that happens, it puts a $2.5 trillion burden on the American taxpayers. That burden and the painful march up to that period of time in the future puts such a burden on our producers in this country and the welfare benefits and the public services that will be used up by those who can't produce enough to carry their load in this society. And it is not their fault. They just can't, by their educational background and their lack of skills. Then forever this middle class is diminished. It is narrowed, and it is lowered.

So you have an ever-expanding nouveau riche at the top. You have a new aristocracy that has emerged that believes that they have a birthright to cheap labor, not just to work in their factories, but to clean their mansions. That is the cheap-labor people that are part of this. And you have the cheap votes side of this of people who know that they will get a powerful new constituency base. Those are the two ends of this, the sacrifice of the rule of law, the sacrifice of the great middle class that has been a principal pillar of American exceptionalism.

The third thing, and the least important of the three, is what happens to the Republican Party? That is where we are going if we adopt the philosophy that is presented over in the Senate. That is where we must not go if we love the destiny of this country. We must have a national debate. We need to have a CBO score, an OMB score on the Senate bill. When it changes, the Senators need to know the fiscal impact of what happens not just in the next 10 years, but what happens in the next generation or two.

This Nation has plenty of labor. The argument that this economy would collapse if everyone woke up legally in their home country tomorrow morning is false. And it is flawed on its face.

Mr. Speaker, I will take that up perhaps a little later. But what I see on the floor at this moment is the gentleman from Tennessee. And when I see that look in the face of the gentleman from Tennessee, I know I want to hear what he has to say, and I would be so happy to yield to Mr. Zach Wamp.

I thank the gentleman from Tennessee, who brings his typical insight and vigor to the floor of the House of Representatives.

And I pick up where we left off, and that is, the colossal mistakes that are often made by large bodies. And I reflect upon one way that I analyze it when I find myself in the minority of the vote, and that is, the people's judgment is what is at place here. That's what goes up on the board in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker. And the response to that, when a colossal mistake is made is, ``Nor is the people's judgment always true. The most can err as grossly as the few.'' And I would submit that there are potentially people poised to err grossly and take us down a path for which there is no return. There are no do-overs. There is no putting the toothpaste back in the tube. If we do this, it would be a colossal mistake. And something that is a basic tenet in the Senate for their negotiations, and I believe a basic tenet here in the House for theirs, is that the bottom line for Democrats is, those who are here illegally get to stay. That is their standard. They don't want to send anybody back. They won't ask anybody to go home. They won't ask them to comply with the law and self-deport. And if you're not willing to send people home, you can't have an immigration policy. So I ask the question, when would you, under the Senate proposal of the bill, deport the first person that was just unlawfully present in the United States and hadn't broken any laws? And the answer to that is, they don't know the answer. And the answer you get from the other side over here, Mr. Speaker, is they don't know the answer either, at least they can't confess to the answer, which is, not today, not next month, not next year, not in the 18 months of voluntary sign up for provisional legal status, not in the 4 years subsequent to that, which you could sign up with for a Z Visa, not in the next 4 years which you could extend it for, and not in the next 8 to 9\1/2\ years at least, and in fact, we know that not now, that not ever would they be willing to deport someone who was just illegally in the United States. And if the proponents of this plan aren't willing to deport people, then they can't have an enforcement law at all. All they can have is, we're going to sign everybody up, and we're going to hope that the felons and the criminals will sign up, too. And if they do, we will hope they don't walk back out the door, and we can maybe identify them and send them home someday. I don't know if they've examined the idea that they aren't going to show up to sign up if they think they might be deported. And if you ask them to go back to their own country and do a touchback, they aren't going to go back unless you guarantee they can come back into this country. And in fact, that's one of the other promises that they made in the Senate; well, you can go back to your home country. You have to do that if you're the head of a household, and I believe it's if you want a Path to Citizenship, unless there are exceptions of course. And so the list goes on and on.

The argument that comes is, well, it's not amnesty because it's not an automatic Path to Citizenship. So I asked the question, when have we given an automatic Path to Citizenship to anyone? And the answer to that is, we have done that five times in our history. The last time was a few years ago to the Marquis Lafayette, the brave Frenchman who fought so well to help preserve, protect and promote our liberty here, posthumously by a couple of hundred years, but we gave him automatic citizenship. The one prior to that was Mother Teresa, another one very, very well deserving, a saint. We granted her automatic citizenship posthumously. There are three others whose names I don't have uploaded into my memory, but five people in the history of America have received automatic citizenship.

So one of the best talking points that the Senate has and the White House has is, well, it's not amnesty because they don't get automatic citizenship? I mean, that is a speechless argument designed to throw you off the track.

And so I looked through a few more of these pieces, and there is language that comes out that is part of their commercial that is designed to convince us that we should be for this bill. And one of the languages is also, here we go, this is from the proponents of the bill. They say rest easy because ``no illegal alien should be able to gain employment in the United States.'' Well, oops, I left out one word. ``No illegal alien should be able to gain legitimate employment in the United States'' once this proposal is adopted. Now, think about that, Mr. Speaker, wouldn't that be the case today, that no illegal alien can gain legitimate employment in the United States today? Because if they gain employment, it's illegitimate employment, isn't it? And so this is their commercial, no illegal alien should be able to gain legitimate employment in the United States. Well, none can now.

So, you have a series of benchmarks and a series of triggers. And when you look at what that means, it's quite interesting. The triggers are not based upon performance, they are not based upon getting operational control of the border or security, they're just based upon spending money. So if we spend enough money and we build some fence on the border, up to 370 miles of that fence, that releases one trigger, and it legalizes this. Well, the trigger is the Path to Citizenship, by my view. Those who get provisional status here are everybody that walks forward that we don't have their fingerprints and that have not committed a felony or a serious misdemeanor.

So one of the triggers, to build some fence; that doesn't mean that you can't build it in such a fashion that we are building. They will go around the end. But it is not the 854 miles of fence that this Congress has mandated, that passed the floor of this House, that passed the Senate by a vote of 80-19, that went to the President where he signed it, without ceremony, I might add; without significant ceremony. No, the American people are being docked 484 miles of double wall and fence because the trigger is 370 of it built. Now they say they are going to go ahead and build the rest, but it's not appropriated, and you know how that goes. We have appropriated money to some fence, and that is $1.187 billion to that.

Then another trigger is that, let's see, that we hire up to 18,000 Border Patrol officers. That is a trigger. Well, we've got a turnover there that the new hires only have an average turnover of 24 months. So you've got to hire a lot more to keep them in place. That's two of the triggers.

But it's today in law, Mr. Speaker, that the Secretary of Homeland Security certify ``operational control of the border.'' And the definition of ``operational control of the border'' is a real operational control of the border, and that means to effectively and definitionally eliminate illegal border crossings, to force all crossings through the ports of entry, to have sufficient conditions there so that we can interdict contraband and illegal border crossers. That's one that could be a trigger that is already in law. It's not the trigger. The trigger is, cut back the fence and wall by 484 miles and build 370 of it only.

What's not in the trigger? The U.S. VISIT exit system. After September 11, we required that we establish a U.S. VISIT system that would, by computer, you could swipe your card, and it would tell you when you came into the United States; you went up on a tally sheet as in the United States. When you left, the exit portion of U.S. VISIT tallied that you left. And you have a list of the sum total of the people that are here in the United States, but the administration said we can't build U.S. VISIT. We can't make it work in the exit system, and we're not going to try. That was a few months ago. Well, this can't work without an exit system for U.S. VISIT. That's not the trigger. They think maybe they are going to go forward and build it, but it's not in the trigger, and it should be because their system can't function without it.

I said operational control of the border. Twenty thousand additional beds to help us be able to process these illegal border crossers, they don't have to be in place, but that is something that has to happen. None of this is funded, by the way.

And so, if I look at the other missing portions of this, the sanctuary cities, the significant number of large cities in America that have an executive order, or their city council has passed an ordinance or other political subdivisions that prohibits their law enforcement officers from cooperating with Federal law enforcement officers with regard to immigration status. So they say you can't even gather information on people whom are in the United States illegally even when you know they are there illegally, even when you know they are gang members. You can't go in there and interdict them and deport them because they want to be a sanctuary city. And yet, when we come across the people that don't sign up, according to the Senate version of the plan, somehow we are going to deport them, without the help and support and cooperation of local law enforcement, who are allowed to draw down billions in Federal dollars, but defy Federal law and prohibit their local law enforcement officers from even cooperating and gathering data so that they can cooperate with the Immigration Customs Enforcement people, with the ICE people.

Sanctuary cities are not addressed. They have a sanctuary in this bill to defy Federal law. We must have them in order to do that and in order to make this work.

And then, an annual hard cap. They say it's 12 million. I say it's a lot more than 12 million. I think it's more than 20 million. But they don't consider that; the 12 million is the floor, not the ceiling. There is no ceiling. And so they will sell this package without a real estimate on how many it will be, Mr. Speaker. And when you ask them, will they support or will this House, and they will get their chance to do it, will they support putting a cap at 12 million? You think it's 12 million? Fine. Put it in law that you're not legalizing or authorizing any more than those you say that you're authorizing right now. And I'll submit that they will resist that hard cap. In fact, I don't think it has been a serious discussion over in the Senate. I saw the looks on their faces when I brought up the issue, and it's like we haven't really thought of that.

I think there needs to be a hard cap. I believe we have enough labor. I know there are 69 million Americans working age that are not in the workforce. There are about 6.9 million working illegals. You could hire one out of ten of the people not in the workforce today of working age and replace all illegals. That is all it would take.

The illegals that are in the workforce are 4.7 percent of the workforce. They are producing 2.2 percent of the work, for skill reasons, and we know that. If you think that would be cataclysmic on the American economy if we got up tomorrow morning and we didn't have that labor to do that work, some places would make some dramatic adjustments, yes. But if it were your factory and your workers, you found out at 7:30 in the morning when they clocked in at 8 that 2.2 percent weren't going to show up, your alternative would be this: You would simply send out a memo to all of your people and you would say sorry. Today your coffee break in the morning and afternoon gets cut from 15 minutes down to 9\1/2\. We are going to pick up the 2.2 percent of the production, and we will still be clocking out of here and you can go home at 5 o'clock.

That is how much labor that is. That is how much production 2.2 percent is. And then you would start to hire the people to fill the gap. Hire the people that are here legally, put the people to work that are here riding already in this cart, as was mentioned by Mr. Wamp.

So we have the solutions to this here in this country. We need to adhere to the rule of law and preserve and protect the most essential pillar of American exceptionalism, that rule of law.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of today, I move that the House do now adjourn.

I thank the gentleman from Texas for organizing this Special Order and each of the Members of Congress who came down here to the floor to stand up for our he brave men and women who defend our freedom. And I know you will be there when they need you.

I just would add a few pieces to this, as I have listened to the dialogue that has gone on here tonight, and one of them is that we all have constitutional responsibilities. And 435 of us come down here to this floor, and we take an oath together to uphold this Constitution of the United States. Now, you would think that would mean something to everyone, ``So help us God.''

And by the way, I bring my Bible here to make sure that I am swearing on a Bible at the time. But I also carry with me this Constitution. And you don't have to be a constitutional scholar to read this, you can read it pretty well with a sixth- or eighth-grade education. But what it says in here is Congress has three responsibilities when it comes to war. One of them is to declare war, which we haven't done since World War II. The second one is to raise an Army and a Navy and, by implication, an Air Force. And the third one is to fund it.

And, yes, there are conditions in there that allow us to regulate some things that go on within the military, like how they're going to run their military courts and how we are going to do promotions and things of that nature, but there is no provision in this Constitution for micromanaging a war or for being a general if you're in the United States Congress. In fact, the experience that our Founding Fathers had with the Continental Congress and the Continental Army brought them to draft into this Constitution the office of Commander in Chief because they wanted to avoid the very circumstances that we are fighting off here in this Congress.

So if anyone thinks they ought to be a general, they ought to be in the military to do so. You can't be a general here from Congress. Your job is to be a generalist, someone who stands up for this Constitution, and someone who adheres to your oath to uphold this Constitution. That means maybe on a very sad day we may someday be obligated to declare a war.

Let's keep raising the Army and the Navy and the Air Force, and let's keep funding our military men and women that are out there in harm's way with their lives on the line for our freedom. That is the constitutional responsibility.

As I look back through the history of this country, I find no place where we have come to a constitutional challenge where the President had to make a decision to veto a funding bill and

have to face a veto override, which everyone knew was not going to pass, and now held the line. And I am really glad that it isn't coming down to the line where we are mothballing some of the development of our military equipment just so we can play this political game out here. That's not our job.

Even if you go back to the Vietnam War, the President signed the appropriation bills that took the military out of North and South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, out of the skies over them and out of the seas around them and said not 1 dollar will be spent in support of the military effort of the South Vietnamese and defending them themselves. And there are 3 million lives that paid in the aftermath of our lack of keeping our promise with the South Vietnamese.

That is on the conscience of the people of this Congress that didn't adhere to this Constitution. We don't need that on our conscience, and we don't need the enemy of Iran with a nuclear weapon in their hands on the control of the valve at the Straits of Hormuz, where they control the economy of the world as well as the development of the military within themselves. They can buy as many nuclear scientists as they want if they can just put their hands on the valve of the oil that goes to the world.

So that is where the problem is. We must succeed. There is far more at stake than the people on the other side of the aisle understand or will admit.

I will yield back to the gentleman who organized this Special Order, Mr. Neugebauer of Texas, and thank him for organizing this meeting.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding to me in a gracious fashion, and I think there is another viewpoint that this Congress should be considering before we bring this to a vote on this suspension bill.

I start out with I believe there are two things wrong with this legislation that is before us here on the floor. The first one is current law limits the numbers to 50 interpreters who could be brought in legally, and we have a great big problem understanding the rule of law here in America.

Now, I haven't received satisfactory answers from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services or the State Department on how it is that, with a statutory limit of 50, and it says no more than 50, how was it that USCIS processed nearly 500 applications on an annual basis; and how was it that the State Department was poised to grant, but prohibited by law from granting, these visas for the interpreters from Iraq?

Now, I join my colleagues in praising and celebrating the brave service to our coalition personnel by the interpreters that have done such a good job in saving probably dozens or hundreds of American lives over there. In fact, I have a personal friend who served as an interpreter, and he carries a scar on his wrist from one of Saddam's henchmen who attacked him for being lined up with our side of this argument. I understand from a very personal basis what kind of risk is there and how their lives are at risk, but I would point out that we have such a thing as the rule of law.

Mr. Speaker, current law said 50. I offered an amendment, and that amendment would have limited the amount of applications that could be processed by USCIS to the statutory limit. It wasn't because I think 50 is the right number, and I don't take a position on whether I think 500 is the right number, but it was because I believe the rule of law is sacrosanct. And if we are going to allow USCIS process up to 500 applications, and then come here to this Congress and say, well, gee, we must have been wrong because we have 500 applicants, not 50; or, we have no choice because it is implicit that we have promised these people that we are going to grant them the visas, how did we make a promise that exceeded Federal law? And what do we do if there are 2,500 the next time the USCIS processes? How do we adhere to the rule of law if we react to people who stretch the limits? The people within USCIS, who I actually don't blame at this point, but we are here trying to keep our word. At the same time, we are ignoring the rule of law.

Those two things don't sit very well with me. That is the number one issue.

And the next issue is something I do think we need to think about, and that is the tactical side of this. This results in not 1,000 new interpreters, but 900, because 500 was the annual limit. So it is 900 over a 2-year period of time. So that is 900 fewer interpreters to save more lives of American and coalition forces. Tactically we need to consider that. We need to understand that someone needs to be there to rebuild Iraq, someone needs to be there to defend Iraq. If 25,000 go to Sweden, that is another 25,000 of some of the finest citizens that will not be there to put Iraq back together.

Our job isn't to bring everybody here to save their livelihood here in the United States. We need to export our way of life; we need to encourage the Iraqis to rebuild their country. This depletes the resources.

But that is only, Mr. Speaker, my secondary argument. My primary argument is the rule of law. The rule of law should be sacrosanct and shouldn't be violated. And if we are going to pass this legislation, we should have adopted my amendment that limited the applications that USCIS can process to the statutory limit. If we did that, then I would have some confidence that we are going to adhere to the rule of law. As it is, I do not believe we will do that, and I think this turns out to be not probably the last, but the first amnesty bill that might pass off the floor of the 110th Congress. And if we don't have any more respect for the rule of law than we are showing here, then we are reacting to our own bureaucrats that, I will submit, that it is going to be difficult for us to adhere to the rule of law when it is 12 million or 20 million as opposed to 400 or 500 or 900 people.

I think that makes my point, Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman from

Florida for his consideration and the time to make my case.

I thank the gentleman, and I ask him for that privilege because I know he is a reasonable individual and very thoughtful on the immigration policy. But I am under the understanding that we are here changing the law almost after the fact to comply with the limitation that has been exceeded in its anticipation by the people who were promised that they would have an opportunity to get a visa if they served the United States in that capacity as interpreters.

Isn't that true?

And I thank the gentleman. But for a point of clarity, we are here. We are amending current law because we essentially have a promise we can't keep without amending current law. And that fits within a definition of amnesty, to amend current law, because if we enforce current law, there will be some people that will be penalized by that. And I don't take so much issue on this as I do the law.

If the gentleman would yield, I would submit that Congress needs to set the number. And for USCIS to process the applications beyond the statutory number is a waste of resources. But if we believe that we should raise that number, then we should come back and grant that authority to do so.

I see us as reacting to promises that were made that went beyond the limitations of the statute. That is why we have to change the statute today. That could preserve the rule of law and still preserve the numbers that the gentleman is proposing.

Madam Chair, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chair, I am offering this amendment to add language to section 1222 of the bill. This language will clarify that the prohibition on establishing permanent military bases in Iraq will not prevent the United States and Iraq from entering into military basing rights agreements for the establishment of temporary bases in Iraq.

After I offered a similar amendment in the fiscal year 2007 Defense appropriations bill in the last Congress, I wrote a letter to Chairman Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and in that letter, I asked General Pace for his thoughts on the need for the U.S. to enter into and retain the ability to enter into military basing rights agreements in Iraq and with Iraq. In his response, General Pace stated that it is the intention of the United States military to ``work closely with Iraq's sovereign government to decide the terms and what foreign military forces and bases (if any) will remain in Iraq.''

As this statement makes clear, we must ensure that the United States has the ability to work with the sovereign Government of Iraq to determine the kind of military support that will be necessary to ensure the stability and security of Iraq. My amendment will reaffirm that the United States' ability to exercise an important diplomatic responsibility in dealing with a new ally in the global war on terror. That ally is the Government of Iraq.

Historically, basing rights agreements have been a necessary part of diplomatic relations with foreign governments. These agreements outline guidelines and conditions for operating American military bases worldwide. It is both common and responsible for the United States to enter into basing rights agreements with countries hosting American troops. This is being done in every country hosting U.S. troops. The representative Government of Iraq should be no exception. In this way, my amendment ensures Iraq's sovereignty will be respected.

My amendment will simply highlight the fact that the prohibition on the establishment of permanent bases does not prohibit the United States from entering into a sensible diplomatic dialogue regarding the establishment of temporary military installations in Iraq. So, not to enter into these agreements would be to neglect the United States' diplomatic duties, and our security duties as well, with our partners.

One of the things that has poisoned this debate has been the use of the term ``permanent base.'' It is no secret that this is a loaded term. However, the BRAC process has clearly demonstrated that there is no such thing as a permanent U.S. military base. As a reflection of this, military basing rights agreements can be negotiated for any length of time and can be renegotiated at any point in time.

I am not proposing the terms and conditions for these discussions or agreements, nor am I proposing the installation of permanent bases in Iraq with this amendment. I am not interfering or engaging in that, I am simply clarifying the intent of Congress and the hope and the policy that the Pentagon has advocated through General Pace's letter. I am simply asking that we ensure the United States be allowed to pursue our historic necessary avenue of responsible foreign relations.

Chairman of

the Joint Chiefs of Staff,

Washington, DC, August 16, 2006.

Hon. Steve King,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. King: Thank you for your letter concerning long-

term basing in Iraq. U.S. military personnel in Iraq are part

of the multinational force helping the Iraqi people develop

and strengthen their own political, economic, and security

institutions. We are working with the new Iraqi government to

establish a future security relationship that is consistent

with our regional strategy and national interests. We will

also work closely with Iraq's sovereign government to decide

the terms and what foreign military forces and bases (if any)

will remain in Iraq.

Currently, Multi-National Force-Iraq (MNF-I) is efficiently

consolidating the basing footprint in Iraq to progressively

reduce basing requirements to only those necessary to support

Coalition operations. MNF-I uses a ``conditions-based''

process to synchronize basing requirements. MNF-I seeks to

minimize our presence in Iraq, including Coalition partners,

provincial reconstruction teams, transition teams, Department

of State activities, and other supporting units and entities.

This process will culminate with a transition to an

operational and strategic overwatch posture, leveraging and

maximizing support from a minimum number of strategically

located forward operating bases and convoy support centers.

Foreign military presence irritates some segments of the

population and motivates portions to support the insurgents.

However, some segments of the population are thankful for our

presence and do not desire our withdrawal until the security

situation has improved. Further, our interactions with Iraqis

and others build understanding and trust and reduce the myths

our adversaries are propagating. It is a difficult balance

and one that must be adjusted frequently. Our discussions and

decisions with regard to Iraq and the War on Terrorism will

balance our security needs, the needs of Iraq, and of our

allies while remaining attuned to the cultural sensitivities

of the people in the region.

Your continued support of the men and women of our Armed

Forces is appreciated.

Very respectfully,

Peter Pace,

General, U.S. Marine Corps.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time. I thank the gentleman from California, especially for his leadership on our national defense issues in a lot of ways. And I would just clarify the simplicity of this amendment.

It simply states that the United States has not established any permanent military installations inside or outside the United States. And nothing in this act that is before us or any other provision of law shall be construed to prevent the Government of the United States from establishing temporary military installations or bases.

That is the essence of this amendment. It is a clarifying amendment, because we had confusion last year and a misunderstanding last year that required a scramble to go to the Pentagon, to get a response from General Pace, to go to the conference committee, and to come back with language that was acceptable that secured the people of the United States and also protected our military that are out in the field protecting us. That is the essence of this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I stand here and listen to this debate, and I am wondering what kind of message the Iraqi people are getting. I suspect they might have read this amendment. They might know that this amendment clearly says, and that is what is already in the record, that the United States has not established permanent military installations anywhere, and that nothing in this act or provision shall be construed to prevent us from establishing temporary military installations or bases in those agreements in the United States or Iraq or anywhere.

This amendment addresses temporary basing rights, not permanent basing rights. It is a clarification amendment, because we have had so much confusion and miscommunication. Now we have more confusion and miscommunication; and I would direct the attention, if I could, of the Members of this body back to the language that started this, which was the language that was amended out of the bill last year that says that none of the funds made available in this act may be used by the Government of the United States to enter into a basing rights agreement between the United States and Iraq.

That reference prohibited any basing rights agreement, temporary and permanent. We had to go to the Pentagon to get support, which the administration is the voice of, in order to clarify this language last year, this amendment's clarifying language this year. It's a simple thing. It says we can enter into temporary basing rights agreements wherever it's prudent for us to do so, not permanent basing rights agreement in Iraq or anywhere else.

Madam Chair, I reserve the balance of my time.

If the gentleman would yield.

I suspect the Iraqis will read this amendment if it becomes law. I suspect that my critics haven't all read this amendment. I hope they have, because I don't think we really disagree on the policy.

Madam Chair, first I'd say that perhaps I'm here endeavoring on the impossible dream, and that would be if we could just simply use this great communication skill that we all have and use it to communicate, so that we could exchange ideas and be able to agree when we agree and disagree when we disagree on the fundamental philosophy that's there, not because we came to the floor to disagree, because we don't. We're not advocating here for permanent bases. And

there's nothing in the language of this amendment that advocates for permanent bases. This is a clarification that says we're not going to foreclose our responsibility to be able to negotiate temporary bases in Iraq or anywhere else. We've never had our United States military anywhere in the world where we didn't have some kind of temporary basing rights agreement. We have never had a permanent basing rights agreement anywhere. And we have closed many bases across Germany and Europe. We've done that. We'll do so, and we're doing so in Iraq. We've happened over a number of different bases. The last number I heard was 33. It's probably many more than that into the hands of the Iraqis for their control. And so the message that needs to come from here, if we're concerned about the message that we're sending, we should stand up and say we agree. We don't intend to stay in Iraq permanently. We do agree that it'll require some temporary bases for us to carry out our operations there to protect our American troops that are there with the coalition and the Iraqi people. It's a prudent and a wise thing to do. Having a misunderstanding and a misconception is not a good thing to do. I think we agree on the policy. We should come together on the message.

Support this amendment, Madam Chair. And if we do that that will better, I believe, for the people in this country, for our military, for the Iraqi people. And as this unfolds, where the surge tactics are, they'll have the confidence that we stand with our military here in a prudent approach.

Madam Chair, I'd urge support for my amendment, and yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. King of Iowa

Amendment No. 35: Page 144, after line 19, insert the

following:

``(8) Identification and evidence of lawful status

requirements for homeownership assistance.--

``(A) Required identification information.--The Director

shall, by regulation, provide that homeownership assistance

described in subparagraph (D) may not be provided to, or on

behalf of any individual unless the individual has, at a

minimum, presented and had verified the information specified

in section 202(c)(1) of the REAL ID Act of 2005 (49 U.S.C.

30301 note).

``(B) Required evidence of lawful status.--The Director

shall, by regulation, provide that homeownership assistance

described in subparagraph (D) may not be provided to, or on

behalf of any individual unless there is valid documentary

evidence that the individual has the status specified in

section 202(c)(2)(B)(i) of the REAL ID Act of 2005 (49 U.S.C.

30301 note).

``(C) Other invalid forms of identification.--Matricula

Consular cards and any other forms of identification not

referred to in this paragraph shall not be valid forms of

identity verification.

``(D) Homeownership assistance.--Homeownership assistance

described in this subparagraph is occupancy in housing

assisted, or homeownership assistance provided--

``(i) under subsection (g)(2); or

``(ii) from the affordable housing trust fund specified in

subsection (o).''.

Offered By: Mr. King of Iowa

Amendment No. 36: Strike line 16 on page 50 and all that

follows through line 11 on page 51 and insert the following:

``(f) Agency Workforce.--The Agency shall return to the

basis of American values and shall limit its criteria for

hiring to an evaluation of the lawful presence of the

applicant and strictly to the merits of the applicants. In an

effort to return to a color-blind society, the Agency shall

strictly adhere to the Equal Protection clause of the

Constitution of the United States and to the statutory

protections in title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1965. The

Agency shall not hire, promote, or demote based upon the

criteria in such title VII. The Agency shall not deny any

person equal protection of the laws in contravention of the

Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United

States.''.