Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for yielding. And I thank the gentleman from Iowa for bringing this resolution to honor our good friend and colleague.

And we are proud, as Iowans, to stand here today and ask for support for this resolution to name the building in Davenport the James A. Leach Courthouse.

I look back on his career, what a stellar career. All of these years, elected to Congress in 1976, served till the end of the 109th Congress, a couple of days into this year, actually.

And one of the things that stands out with Jim Leach is Jim Leach was a champion. He was a champion in 1960 as a State wrestling champion, and I'd point out to our wrestling champions here in this Congress, a State wrestling champion in Iowa is like being a national champion someplace else, just to set humility aside for the moment.

But that is a characteristic that Jim Leach had, the characteristic of real humility and the characteristic of a champion.

And as he came here to Congress and he began that long tenure that was here, he touched a lot of different issues. But his history and his experience in the financial industry was unparalleled in the contemporary Congress. And I know of no period in previous history when there's been someone that's been so respected, that has taken such leadership in the financial affairs.

And as chairman of the Finance Committee, and then later on as chairman of the Subcommittee on International Relations, Jim Leach was a leader that was respected on both sides. He was, some would call him a bipartisan legislator. I would say Jim Leach was a nonpartisan Member of this Congress. He evaluated each one of those issues that came before him, drew an independent judgment.

And if you might question his independence, I'll also make a concession on Congressman Leach in that he didn't always have every bit of his hair in place and he led sometimes with a sweater underneath his jacket, and it was only picked up by Senator Grassley as a stylish tip. But that's because Jim Leach followed his own mission, his own conscience, his own intellect and, in fact, he used his time to focus on those issues that were the good things for Americans, good things for Iowans.

So I'm proud today to stand in support of this resolution and proud to be able to call Jim Leach a colleague and a friend in the opposite order. It's with great admiration I ask support for this resolution of this Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee yielding to me.

This bill before us today is one that I have dreaded seeing come before the American people.

I was born in 1949. That was the year that George Orwell published the book ``1984.'' I offered an amendment in committee to change the title of this bill from the Hate Crimes bill to the Thought Crimes bill. In fact, you are seeking to punish thought. And even though the gentleman from Virginia has stated correctly that under this bill, they will be prosecuting crimes, they will also be sentenced for thoughts.

Orwell wrote in 1949 in the book ``1984,'' ``We are not interested in those stupid crimes that you have committed. The party is not interested in any overt act. The thought is all that we care about. We do not merely destroy our enemies; we change them. Do you understand what I mean by that?''

And he goes on to define ``crimethink,'' which is exactly the bill before us today. And he defines it this way: ``To even consider any thought not in line with the principles of Ingsoc. Doubting any of the principles of Ingsoc. All crimes begin with a thought. So, if you control thought, you control crime. Thoughtcrime is death. Thoughtcrime does not entail death. Thoughtcrime is death, the essential crime that contains all others in and of itself.''

And the definition of ``Ingsoc'' is English socialism, which is how he defined the coming creeping of socialism and Marxism that he feared.

So I make that point strongly that we have now come to this. ``1984'' has manifested itself on the floor of the United States Congress with the belief that, somehow or another, we can divine what somebody thinks and then punish them for it. And I have been called a racist on the floor of this House for using the term ``cultural continuity.'' How can someone who could make that allegation who has been elected to the United States Congress be sitting on a jury of me? We judge by a jury of our peers, or the peers of the accused and what's in their mind. That's a thoughtcrime in and of itself.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support for Mr. Ryan's budget alternative. While I maintain that we could have done a better job balancing the budget in a shorter timeframe, it is a good first step in tackling runaway entitlement spending.

This debate is more that just a debate about numbers. It is a debate about who we are as Americans, what we believe and hold sacred, and what we want the future to hold for our children. It is also about how Congress spends hard working taxpayer's dollars.

Democrats and Republicans differ philosophically on these issues. John Locke, who inspired our Founding Fathers, wrote that one of the ends of political society is the preservation of one's property.

The Democrat budget violates this principle by redistributing your hard earned tax dollars to their favorite projects. They spend at a deficit rate, running up your national credit card, and the taxpayers end up getting the bill.

The big spending Pelosi budget maintains that more government is better government. In fact, if the Pelosi budget were a McDonald's combo meal, the Democrats would be saying--Super size me! And they are sticking you with the bill for their lunch. To protect taxpayers we need self-control and moderation. The Pelosi budget does nothing to curb the appetite for bigger government or trim Federal spending. True courage is taking a tough stand and choosing to cut spending.

I believe in limited government, not a government without limits on runaway spending and high taxes. I believe increased taxation chips away at our freedom to spend or save our own money.

As a small businessman who built his business from the ground up, I know that it is individuals who put their hard work and innovation to the test--not government.

I believe that the best way to balance the budget is to control spending--not to raise taxes. This Pelosi budget marks the largest tax increase in American history--raising taxes on the hard working American taxpayer by $400 billion. Each of my constituents in Iowa will have to pay an additional $2,777.00 annually in taxes.

One in five Americans has little to no personal property or savings. Additional taxation hurts American families who are trying to save for their retirement and children's education, to purchase a home, or to purchase a car. The Pelosi budget eliminates the 10 percent bracket that helps millions of low-income workers. Raising taxes on capital gains and dividends discourages investment and savings. Families will suffer from the Pelosi budget slashing the child tax credit in half and reinstating the marriage penalty.

We are told that when we die that ``you can't take it with you.'' This is true, but we all hope that we can pass on our nest eggs to our children without penalty. The Pelosi budget allows the elimination of the death tax in 2010 to expire.

We must keep American business competitive in the face of economic pressure from countries like China and India. Democrats, especially the gentlelady from Northwestern Ohio, like to keep a corporate casualty list of jobs lost, in the United States. They mention Hershey, Hoover, Stanley, Champion, Ford, Chrysler, Huffy, Zebco, Levis and Maytag, as companies who have shipped thousands of U.S. jobs to other countries. Some of these companies could no longer compete globally and were eventually bought out or shut down.

The Pelosi budget will accelerate this process and will burden American businesses, which employ and create new jobs for American workers. It will usher in the largest tax hike in history. It will raise taxes on our small businesses and the manufacturers making it that much harder for them to compete in the world economy. Our businesses already pay the second highest tax rates in the entire world.

Mr. Chairman, I implore my colleagues to stop this runaway spending, financed by a massive tax hike on American taxpayers. Let us turn around the ship and head for dry land. This Pelosi budget is a sinking ship, full of spending loopholes and budget gimmicks. I have no problem with Captain Pelosi going down with the ship--just do not take America down in the process.

Mr. Speaker, on February 7, 2007, the House Committee of the Judiciary passed by voice vote H.R. 137, the Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2007. This is a bad piece of legislation that will greatly devalue human life in the eyes of the law.

H.R. 137 would make it a federal felony to transport a chicken across state lines for the purpose of exhibiting it in a fight. Currently, 49 states have laws on the books to address this issue. To add a federal law would add another layer of bureaucracy to an already complicated legal code.

I believe that human life is diminished by our making it a felony to transport animals for fighting, without first making it a felony to take a minor girl across a state line for an abortion. It is a strong conviction of mine to fight for the sanctity of life.

While I believe that it is important that we act humanely in our treatment of animals, I do not believe that we should put their welfare ahead of unborn babies or minor girls. I call upon the Humane Society to work for humanity to humanity first.

Until we provide a higher standard of protection for human life, I will oppose making interstate transportation of animals for purposes of animal fighting a felony. In the U.S., we are faced with the alarming practice of people taking a minor girl across state lines for an abortion to avoid their own state's laws that require the minor's parents to be notified. Federal legislation, CIANA, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act, would only make this abhorrent activity, which exploits a young woman and kills her child, a misdemeanor. Though this legislation has not yet become law, it is a step forward in the right direction. Many who I know opposed CIANA in the past will vote today for the misdemeanor in current law, transporting a chicken, to become a felony, thereby placing animal welfare over that of a young girl and her unborn baby.

I believe that we should not place more value on animal life than we do on human life. It makes no sense that killing a person is a misdemeanor offense while transporting animals to a fight is a felony, punishable by three years in a federal penitentiary.

Mr. Speaker, while on the topic of valuing human life, I would like to talk briefly about bio-medical research, which is opposed by animal rights activists. I would like to mention that there is bio-medical research being done demonstrating, through transgenics, that the immune system from a baboon, or a human for that matter, can be spliced into the DNA of a hog to grow a heart a baboon can use.

The heart was then harvested from the hog and transplanted to a baboon. The baboon lived another 6 months with a heart that was grown in a pig. This is longer then the first human heart transplant patient.

But what has been proven now is that humans can transplant through transgenics the human immune system into a hog. In doing so, and we are only 3 years, maybe 4 years away from being able to custom build the human organ. rejection genetics into a pig.

We will be able to very soon custom raise human organs in hogs. Today we are already transplanting out of hogs and into humans anterior cruciate ligaments and heart valves.

We can raise in hogs 28 different organs. Not just hearts, but lungs, esophagus, stomach, bladder, but other important organs as well, kidneys, pancreas, liver, even skin for bum patients; name your organ. Except for the brain.

The reason for bringing up these pigs is that it further illustrates how the animal rights community, through legislation such as H.R. 137, seeks to pass their agenda for animals on the rest of America. They oppose using animals for lifesaving research like I just mentioned.

My home state of Iowa is an agricultural state. We understand the importance of animal husbandry and good stewardship of our animals. However, we also understand that animals are less important than humans. Animal rights activists seek to place heifers and hogs on the same level as people. I disagree.

I strongly oppose this legislation because animals should not be elevated above humans. Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation.

I thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Smith) for bringing the highlight on agriculture here, because this is Agriculture Week. I am confident there have been some Agriculture Weeks go by here in this Congress without mention of such an important event.

I would like to take this discussion, if I could, I would like to take this discussion to a broader point, an overall point over the components that Mr. Smith has laid out here and try to put it into a perspective of where we are today in agriculture, and what it means for the future of agriculture, and what it means for the future of the world.

And I look back upon some of the great movements that have taken place in the history of humanity. And those movements being, for example, we go back to the stone age, and then from the stone age we move into the bronze age, and then the iron age, and then the industrial age.

In the industrial age we figured out how we could have labor that would be compartmentalized in its approach so that it wasn't one person that made all the components of a machine and put it together, but it was mass production. And in the industrial era, when we took to mass production, we raised the level of the standard of our living and raised the level of our technology dramatically. That was the Industrial Revolution.

And then we came along into the information age, where we figured out with the invention of the microchip that we could store and transfer information faster and more efficiently than ever before. And it took both the industrial era and the information age, took our society, took our culture to a higher level. A quantum leap in our economy.

Well, agriculture has really sat here, and since the inception of agriculture, the first time I think it was a cavewoman, planted some seeds outside the cave or recognized that they were growing, and they figured out how to cultivate crops thousands of years ago. What agriculture has done for thousands of years has just produced food and fiber. Produced it a lot better than they ever did before, more efficiently than ever before, as Mr. Smith has articulated very well about the increase in our production and our production capability, nearly an entire semi-load in a single hour today. But it is still food and fiber. Food and fiber for thousands of years the foundation of agriculture. But today we are going the next level up. We are food, fiber, and renewable fuels. A third level now for agriculture.

And I believe that the fuel components, the ethanol, the biodiesel in particular, and then the way we are able to render animal fats back into biodiesel, so now we have taken this next level not just for energy and not just for fuel, but at the same time where biotech has moved agriculture up to another level to where we are really in the middle of science at the same time.

But I think that agriculture has gone from that level of food and fiber and has taken the kind of quantum leap up into food, fiber, renewable fuel, and biotech products, the same kind of quantum leap that our society took when we went into the information age or when we went into the Industrial Revolution. Those are huge, huge things that we need to contemplate here, the efficiencies that have come into agriculture and the technology.

So today I have the privilege of representing one of the top ethanol production and biodiesel, actually wind generation of electricity production, renewable fuels production congressional districts in America. And I have watched that capital be invested. Private capital last year invested over $1 billion in infrastructure to produce renewable energy just in my congressional district, one out of 435 congressional districts, Mr. Speaker. And that is a huge investment, but it also says a lot about an industry that is being developed and an industry that is growing, and it is making us less dependent on Middle Eastern oil.

And as we move forward into cellulosic, and we are very confident that we can develop the technology to produce cellulosic ethanol, that opens up vast acres for the production of cellulose that has not been used in that kind of an efficient fashion before. And, again, that will produce a significantly larger portion of our ethanol that will go then to reduce our dependency on Middle Eastern gas.

But that is the energy side of this. And I talk about the energy side a lot, and I would like to maybe stretch our minds a little bit on what can happen with the biotech side, what is happening with the biotech side.

For example, there is biotech research that recognizes that there are 25 million little babies in the world each year that die unnecessarily due to the dehydration that is associated with diarrhea. And if the lactopheron, the component of mother's milk, can get into that little baby, that little baby that is on its last gasp and if we can put lactopheron in that baby, within 3 to 4 days that baby has its health back, its vigor back, and the baby is ready to go home with its mother. Well, we can't find enough and produce enough lactopheron by going to the mothers to extract it from their milk. But what we have done with biotech is spliced that lactopheron genetic chain into rice; and so then when we harvest the rice, we bring the rice back in and we extract the lactopheron, that genetic chain of lactopheron from the rice, and turn it into a little powder lactopheron that is a little piece of powder in a packet like maybe the sugar you put in your coffee. You tear that, drop that into a little vial of water, stir it up, warm it a little, give it to that baby that would be dead in a few hours, and that baby springs back to life and in 3 to 4 days that baby is ready to go home. That is science and technology.

And today we can save the lives of 6 million babies on 60 acres of rice. And we are extracting that lactopheron up there in our neighborhood, not very far from the Missouri River, I would add, Mr. Smith. It is on my side. That is one of the great things that we can do and are doing with science.

Another one is trypsin, and that is a component that you find in your tears. And as those tears wash across the eyeball, they are an antiseptic that keeps your eyes from getting infection in them, and one of the things from that would be pink eye. So we have also learned how to synthesize trypsin. And you see the pictures, especially Africa and in poor countries, of flies walking across little children's eyeballs. Well, the trypsin cures the blindness that comes from that kind of an affliction. That is another piece of biotech science that we have going on.

Another one, and I would say, Mr. Speaker, this is the most impressive and fantastic development and I am going to call it also agriculture. Of all the presentations that I have heard, of all the briefings that I have had the privilege to receive, this one is I believe the most impressive and has tremendous implications for all of humanity, and that is that today we have spliced through transgenics, and we can clone and use transgenics in the same operation, and it goes on thousands of times a day in America, at least the attempts to do, but splice through transgenics the human immune system into that of a hog. Now, we raise a few hogs in our neighborhood, too, so we are paying attention to those things. But it happens that not very far from where I live there is only one person in the country that is, at least for profit, bringing pigs by cesarean in a sterile environment. And this is Dr. Rexanne Struve, Manning, Iowa. She is working with a doctor from Pennsylvania who is working out of Blacksburg, Virginia, Virginia Tech University. And there they have spliced the immune genetics from a baboon into that of a hog, and raised that hog up until the hog was of adequate size that they could go in and harvest the heart from that hog and transplant it into a baboon.

Now this being an experiment, the baboon lived for 6 months. Now, that is a little better than the first human heart transplant; I think significantly better.

But what they have proven now is that they are confident that they can transplant through transgenics this human immune system into a hog. And in doing so, and we are only 3 years, maybe 4 years away from being able to do this effectively, they can also custom build the organ rejection genetics. There are 12 major indicators, and they can put together the configuration of those 12 major indicators so they have the highest possibility of organ acceptance on a transplant and the lowest possibility of rejection for an organ transplant. So we will be able to very soon custom raise human organs in hogs. And today we are transplanting out of hogs anterior cruciate ligaments, knee ligaments, Mr. Speaker, and also heart valves. And we have done that for years. And the reason we can do that is that cartilage, and so there is not a rejection factor for cartilage.

But organs themselves; so I brought up we can raise in hogs 28 different organs. Not just hearts, but lungs, esophagus, stomach, bladder. One of the important ones, kidneys, pancreas, liver. Name your organ. Except for the brain;

we really don't plan to transplant that hog's brain in there. I think there are some folks in this Congress that might have had that already happen, Mr. Smith. At any rate, we would limit that organ. But there are 28 organs that we believe we can utilize in transplanting those organs from a hog into a human being. We had success doing that with anterior cruciate ligaments and with heart valves. We can surely do that with all the other organs.

And one of the most important is skin transplants. The burn victims that we have, the burn victims coming back from Iraq, to be able to give them a new skin that is custom raised in the feed lot in a sterile, sterile environment. And then the next step after that is to match your identical DNA, Mr. Speaker, so you can have your own customized hog there that has got customized organs that are identical as if they happened to have been your twin brother.

We will get there with this science, and it won't be there very long from now, 2 to 3 years on the first part of this matching the DNA chains exactly to take a sample. And raising those organs will happen within about, I am going to say, 12 to 15 years. But those are some of the things that we can do with biotechs in both the plant and animal science. And couple that with the renewable fuels, couple that with the tremendous production that we have provided. At the same time, we have more soil conservation, better water conservation, more fertilizer conservation, better land management, better processing and handling of our manure, for example.

There is no better steward for the environment than the American farmer. No one cares more about their water quality. No one cares more about their air quality. They live right in the middle of that every day, and they care about their land. They want to hand that along to the next generation and the next generation. The best stewards are the ones in charge, and they are in Iowa, they are in Nebraska, they are all across the Corn Belt, all across the soybean area, and they go from coast to coast with the specialty crop farmers.

This is a tremendous production system that we have in the United States, with outstanding and impressive people that commit their lives to feeding the world. And we need to honor them today on Ag Week here on the floor of Congress. And I certainly appreciate and respect the gentleman from Nebraska for raising this issue and being here tonight and for the opportunity to say a few words.

I appreciate the gentleman from Nebraska yielding. And as you discussed, the future of agriculture, and especially the young families, the families that are going to be raising their families on the farm and working in agribusiness in the towns, and it occurs to me that we often don't discuss about entrepreneurial agriculture. And it used to be that that was all we had was entrepreneurial agriculture. The traditional agriculture that I grew up with and in the middle of was purely, almost purely, entrepreneurial.

And yet we went through the farm crisis in the 1980s, and I recall those days. I lived for 3\1/2\ years with a knot in my gut, Mr. Speaker, wondering if I was going to make it through from week to week. And sometimes your identity of your life's work is what you do. And I was in an ag-related business.

But the point that I want to make is that I saw this happen. And I saw producers, our bank closed April 26, 1985, Friday afternoon, 3 o'clock, not too far from where this clock sits right now. And the red tag went on the door of the bank, and the Highway Patrol guarded the doors. And everybody's account was frozen; my account, the accounts of my customers. And I had a payroll to meet, and I literally had two pennies in my pocket was all I had to work with. I could rub them together and, in fact, I did rub them together and think about the symbolism of what had happened.

Also, we had pretty good balanced ag operations going on at that time, with a significant commitment to the livestock industry. And so we had row croppers there raising soybeans and corn, and also cattle, hogs and some turkey feeders.

And as the new owner in the bank, which was identified over the weekend, began to take up the loan applications and the financial applications, now this is right in the middle of prime corn-planting time, April 26 in 1985. To have your account shut down, have your credit line shut down, and if you didn't have your inputs all purchased and delivered, no one knew if you had any credit or if they would ever be paid or not or how it would unfold.

So what happened was loan applicant after applicant that had been financed the day before began to line up to get applications, get their application reconsidered by the new owners. And the new owners, being prudent financiers, took a look at those balance sheets and the list of assets, and they asked the question, where are we the most vulnerable? Where are we most likely to lose our money? Well, that would be the livestock because it can die. And what is the most liquid commodity you have that you can turn it into cash the most quickly? That would also be the livestock.

And so the livestock was loaded up, hauled to the sale barn, ordered to slaughter, and farmer after farmer, neighbor after neighbor was taken out of the livestock business. And then they could set up so that these same producers could stay in the row crop business, and, because of the programs we had and the risk management tools that were in place then, and we have better ones in place today, because of that, they could lock them into the point where if they had a reasonable yield and not too much bad luck, they could stay in business another year and maybe another year.

So these balanced risk-spread operations, diversified ag operations, became row-crop operations. Livestock went on the truck and was shipped. And then so went the equipment that was necessary to support the livestock. Often the best combine was lined up and sold, and maybe even the best tractor, or even the best pickup, also sold, shrunk the operation down to where they could stay in business.

Now, that was a good thing to keep them in business, but we lost the livestock tradition. And we are rebuilding that now, and the industry has changed so much. But the entrepreneurialism that came with that, much of that disappeared at the same time, Mr. Speaker. And so what we need to have is people that can make a good living by taking risks and by investing in new ideas and new approaches.

Now, livestock has been a traditional approach, and it has been the mortgage lifter for years. Especially the hog production has been the mortgage lifter. But then to broaden that out and to raise specialty crops today with some of the biotech industry we had that I mentioned a little bit earlier.

Or I happened to come across, about 4 years ago, during a political campaign, a family in my district that had 1,300 acres. Presumably they were crop acres. I would suspect they were not all crop acres. But one of those 1,300 acres, it was all to corn that year except 1 acre, and that 1 acre was set aside to what I would call a glorified garden. And they had six kids, and these six kids must have turned out a lot of good, healthy development child labor. But that single acre, that acre of corn that that year that it went in was only penciled out at $300 an acre. This single acre of this glorified garden, high labor-intensive, highly managed type of an operation produced $27,000 worth of crop on that single acre. Now, they might have put $40,000 worth of child labor into that, but they learned a work ethic, and they learned marketing, and they learned rotation, and they learned irrigation, and they learned weed management. But $27,000 per acre.

So when I found out about this, and I am sure there are other similar stories out there. It occurs to me that someplace between that, it is more than $300 an acre now, of course, but on that day, about $300 an acre for that field of corn versus $27,000 for that single acre of garden.

Between those two are all kinds of alternatives that are there for the entrepreneurs. So if they want to go the route of a lot of hard stoop labor and a lot of intense management and take on that labor to do that and try to pull that $27,000 out of that acre, or if they want to add some other things like organic, or if they want to raise specialty crops, all of these things need to be open for the young producers, and that is where they will find their extra margin profit. Not raising so much program crops; that is a baseline income that maintains the value of the land. But to up the ante, take a little more risk, put more management skill in, more labor in, and raise these specialty crops that, some of which I have talked about, and the organics on top of that, we will see young producers take that on because it is more labor-intensive, and young people are usually short of capital, and so what can they do? Well, they have got more labor that they can provide. They can do the work.

So I am looking forward to watching and hoping to provide the tools for the young agricultural entrepreneurs in both the crop and in the animal sciences for them to develop high-value commodities. And as they begin to feed the world, species after species, crop after crop, and we haven't gone anywheres near touching the surface of the things that we can do with biotech.

One of the other points, this is another scientific mind-stretcher, and that is that about, let's see, the years now come, about 32 years ago there was a rather dangerous species of an Asian animal, a bovine- related animal called a gaur, spelled G-A-U-R. And that animal had been in the San Diego Zoo for years. This poor gaur was getting old and had gone down, and it looked like it was going to die. Well, the zookeepers there or the scientists took a punch out of the ear of that gaur, froze it in liquid nitrogen at about, I think, 421 degrees below zero Fahrenheit, and kept that little piece of that ear of that endangered species animal that had died frozen for 28 years. And they picked that up and they sent it, then, about, oh, I am going to say 6 years ago on up to a town, a lab in Sioux Center, Iowa, called Trans Ova. There Dr. Jan Schietemann took that frozen piece of tissue, and he cloned that gaur animal by implanting the nucleus of that that he could take from that cell and cloning that into the egg of a cow, and implanted that embryo that was created, the cloned embryo of the gaur, into the uterus of the cow, where this gaur, this rare animal, kind of looks like a yak if you look him up on the Google image page.

This animal then was cloned and raised up, and the cow had this calf, a genetic copy of the animal that had died more than 28 years earlier. And about a year later, they shipped that young juvenile gaur back to the San Diego Zoo, where I presume he is still walking around and living happily ever after.

Now, that is a space age, Star Wars kind of a thing. But when you think about what we can do with that kind of science and how we can improve our herds, how we can improve productivity, how we can improve the meat quality and the feed conversion factors, how we can reduce and eradicate and in some cases eliminate disease, how we can work with all of that, at the same time opening up the field so that the ag producers across this country can continue to make a living and feed America is a very, very optimistic story. And I think we are in the best position right now in agriculture that we have ever been in the history of the United States and, in fact, the history of the world, and I am just sorry I am not going to be around long enough to see where it is going to take the next generation of humanity.

But I wanted to express those things. And I appreciate it. And I yield back to the gentleman from Nebraska and thank him.

I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding and to have an opportunity to address this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill. The first premise is that we all stand here on the floor of this Congress and take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Even the strongest advocates for this bill before the hearing in the Judiciary Committee testified that if we believe that a bill is unconstitutional before us, we are obligated to uphold our oath and vote ``no'' regardless of how much we might support the underlying policy. That is the stand that I take on this issue, Mr. Speaker.

I would declare this to be the first round, one step along the way in the D.C. statehood bill. But the discussion that has been here on the floor and the exchange and the colloquy with Mr. Dreier on Article I, section 2, article I, section 3 and then the reference was brought up also of article I, section 8, to address those, it works just like this: Article I, section 2 reads: ``The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the several States.''

Now, if D.C. is not a State, we can't have Members that come from places that are not States. It's a pretty simple analysis here. Read the Constitution. It also says in the bill that this doesn't include Senators. That was an amendment that was offered by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland). Statutory provisions aren't constitutional restraints. By the same rationale, and I mean exactly the same rationale that you can come to a conclusion that there could be a Member in this Congress that votes in full representation for D.C., you have to also conclude that there is a constitutional provision for two Senators as well, because I will argue that Article I, section 3, after the 17th amendment is applied to it reads this way: ``The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State elected by the people thereof.'' So the only

distinction between a District Representative, a Member in the House, and two Senators is the phrase ``by the people of the several States'' as applied to the Member and ``elected by the people thereof'' as applied to the Senators.

This is imperative and compelling. So if you accept a Member here constitutionally, you also accept two Senators here by the same constitutional rationale.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and ranking member, Mr. Smith, for yielding and for his leadership on this issue.

I come to the floor here to stand up for this Constitution. That is my oath as it is all of our oaths here. We all stand here on the floor of Congress and take an oath to this Constitution, Madam Speaker. And the language in this Constitution has been many times stated. It is utterly clear. But I want to draw a distinction here that has not been emphasized very much and that is that if you can rationalize that the District of Columbia can constitutionally be conferred a Member by this Congress, then you also have to rationalize that same rationale that two Senators can be conferred upon the District of Columbia as well.

And I point your attention to, Madam Speaker, Article I, section 2 and the operative language: ``The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by,'' and this is the distinct language, ``by the people of the several States.''

In Article I, section 3, when you incorporate the 17th amendment into it, reads: ``The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State,'' just like a Member chosen by the State, but elected by the people thereof; elected by the people thereof in section 3; chosen by the people of the several States in section 2. They each reference ``States.'' There is not a distinction. If you can constitutionally confer a Member of Congress, you can do the same thing for Senators.

And I would point out also that a couple of bright legal minds that have weighed in on this, Ken Starr and Viet Dinh, people whom I do respect, also I believe they made an argument that is taught in law school: How do you analyze both sides of the argument so you can make both sides or defend either side?

And I think it is just an utterly weak argument that they made. And the simple principle was that between 1791 and 1801, that 10-year period of time, Virginia and Maryland, those residents that existed and lived in this District that was contemplated by the Framers of the Constitution were granted temporarily the right to vote in their respective States until such time as this Federal jurisdiction was established.

Just because there is consensus agreement among the House, the Senate, and the President does not constitute a constitutional principle.

I come to the floor here, Mr. Speaker, to stand up for this Constitution, for our United States military, for our Commander in Chief and for the future and the destiny of America, because we need to take another level up along on our destiny.

But this Constitution gives this Congress only three things we can do with regard to war. One of them is to declare war, which we have not done since World War II, one of them is to raise an Army and a Navy, and by implication, an Air Force, and the next one is to fund it. There are no provisions in there for micromanaging the war, and that has been clear, and it is

a historical precedent, and there is no precedent throughout the last century, at least, that allows this Congress to assign 435 generals to this task.

And so, Mr. Speaker, I would submit that this is an unconstitutional appropriations bill. And if it should go to the President's desk, he should veto it in its entirety and bring it back here. Force this Congress to do the right thing that is constitutional and not be micromanaging in this war.

This is not a General Pelosi war to fight. This is a Commander in Chief, George W. Bush, fight.

Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a privilege and an honor to be recognized to speak on the floor of the United States House of Representatives. I bit my tongue over the last hour and listened attentively to some of the dialogue that was taking place. It is important, I believe, to correct the record at least on the portion I was paying attention.

The issue that was being discussed by the six or seven on the other side of the aisle was about the eight U.S. Attorneys who were fired by the President. There are great, huge, yawning gaps in the description that came out. For the benefit of the people listening to that portion of it, I will attempt to fill in the gaps.

One is the President dismissed eight U.S. Attorneys. That runs about 85 short that were fired summarily by President Clinton. Talk about a chilling effect on your ability to prosecute if you happened to have been looking into Whitewater or if you happened to have been the prosecutor of Dan Rostenkowski and you found yourself immediately fired, and then subsequent to that, your successor achieving a conviction in the case of Rostenkowski, and then watching President Clinton pardon the very subject of your investigation, I would think that would be a chilling effect on a prosecutor.

But the allegation was made that ``the independence of our U.S. Attorneys is the hallmark of justice.'' Well, yes, I think that is true, but they serve at the pleasure of the President, and the President has the authority and he has the responsibility, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that those U.S. Attorneys are conducting their job, that they are actually prosecuting cases, locking people up in prison and not only taking them out of the crime job market, but also providing an example that keeps other people from committing crimes. When those prosecutions are not taking place at the pace they need to, if they are failing to distinguish themselves, then it is the responsibility and the duty of the President and subsequently the Attorney General to direct that they be removed.

The allegation that the firing of U.S. Attorneys for political purposes was a statement made by the gentleman from New Hampshire. Political purposes. There is no evidence that has been submitted on either side of the aisle that says they were fired for political purposes. There has been speculation, but that is an allegation that I think is a heavy allegation and it is an unjust allegation, and the people who make those kinds of allegations have a responsibility to come forward with some shred of evidence that they base their opinion on rather than wishful thinking.

This is no scandal, Mr. Speaker. It is not a scandal because it is eight U.S. attorneys. Eight U.S. attorneys, and there is not a partisan divide here that can be seen. It is not like there were eight Democrat U.S. attorneys that were investigating Republicans in office. There is no evidence of that. It is more like there were Republicans and Democrats who have been admonished in the past and challenged by Members of this Congress, at least in one particular case, for not being aggressive enough, for not providing the kind of prosecutions necessary to enforce our borders.

Now, that is something that is essential to our national security, and if the allegations that are made here on the floor of this Congress and the statements that are made in committee and the witch hunt that is going on by submitting and requesting, subpoenaing the White House's closest advisers whom the President relies upon to be able to give him unfettered counsel, and they cannot be intimidated. Talk about intimidation, a subpoena to come before Congress and be questioned on the record about your most private advice to the Commander in Chief of the United States of America is what is going on here.

This is an unjust, unbalanced overreach, and it is my advice to the new majority to start acting like the majority because you are going to have to take responsibility for governing. You have not shifted gears from demagoguery of the past into the responsibility to provide policy that is going to direct this country into the future. It is high time that that happened. Break the mold. Let us go forward with good policy, and remember, if you have the gavels, you have the responsibility to make statements that are precisely correct, accurate all the way, truthful in every way possible, and move this country forward in the right direction and provide solutions, not just criticism.

I expect that subject will come up a little bit more, Mr. Speaker, within the next 53 minutes or so. Hopefully that will dispatch that subject for tonight.

But I would raise also there are two more issues before us tonight, Mr. Speaker, and one of them is hanging in the balance here in an unprecedented move, and that is the effort to provide a voting Delegate for the District of Columbia here in the United States Congress. It is an astonishing thing for me. It is an astonishing thing for me to be one of 435 Members of this House of Representatives who comes down to this floor every 2 years, and I bring my own Bible down here to make sure I am not short a Bible because I want my oath to go before God and country, for God and country, and take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, so help me God. I add those words to my oath, and I have done so every time that I have been here to take that oath.

I believe that if there is a bill before this Congress, and as we analyze it constitutionally, if any of us come to the

conclusion that it is an unconstitutional piece of legislation, it is our responsibility or our duty, our obligation, our oath to uphold such unconstitutional legislation. We have taken an oath to do so. Vote ``no'' and clearly articulate the reasons why that bill is unconstitutional.

So Mr. Speaker, I have clearly articulated that before the Rules Committee, before the Rules debate here on the floor, and with the case of the bill on the floor, and I will seek to do that again for the edification of those that were not paying attention and still think that they can come around here tomorrow or next week or whenever it is that the majority gets the votes lined up and vote for an unconstitutional bill because they think it fits their politics. That is not what this oath is about, and so this D.C. district sets this way.

The first unconstitutional provision is this. Article I, section 2 of the Constitution says that the Representatives shall be Representatives of the States chosen by the people of the States. So if D.C., the District of Columbia, is not a State, it is a clear constitutional provision that prohibits this Congress from bestowing a Member, a voting Member representing the District of Columbia into this Congress because the District of Columbia simply is not a State.

Now, there are a couple of ways to resolve this issue. One would be to adopt the District of Columbia as a State, in which case they would get a Representative for the House of Representatives and two Senators. If that could be done and this Congress could pass it and we adopt District of Columbia as a State, that would be a constitutional solution.

Another constitutional solution would be to simply to take the populated areas outside our Federal buildings, just a little bit outside the Mall, from the Potomac River all the way up here around to the east side of the Capitol, set that aside as the District, and the balance of the District then could be ceded back to Maryland. That then could be incorporated into the redistricting process, and the people that lived in the District would be able to vote for a Representative in Congress.

But the arguments made on the other side go something like this, Mr. Speaker, and that is, well, we think that it is a violation of the 14th amendment, a violation of the equal protection clause, for people to live in the District of Columbia and not have a vote, be able to elect a Member of Congress.

I would submit, if that is so compelling that one can ignore the Constitution's clear language, then, Mr. Speaker, it is equally compelling to demand two Senators for the same region, and some will acknowledge that that is the goal, and some will deny it.

But this Constitution has always been kind of an inconvenient thing, Mr. Speaker. What is inconvenient about it is it provides constraints, constraints for both sides, Democrats and Republicans, constraints for all of us who have a political reason or a policy need that does not consider the long-term best interests of the people of the United States.

This Constitution is the law of the land, Mr. Speaker, and I will submit that our Founding Fathers considered this when they established this constitutional Republic that we are in, and as they considered this, they looked at the democracies, the relatively pure democracies that they had in the Greek city-states 2,000 and 3,000 years ago, and they concluded that in the case of the pure democracy, the result was the same effect as if you had two wolves and a sheep taking a vote on what is for dinner. The majority rules, and the sheep is dinner.

So are we going to get let those kind of whims wave back and forth across the floor of this Congress, Mr. Speaker, or are we going to adhere to a Constitution that we have sworn an oath to uphold? I will submit that what I am seeing is the two wolves are taking a vote on what is for dinner, and the sheep is the Constitution here, and the minority in the United States House of Representatives, and I have pledged to uphold this Constitution, I will stand in the way to the last breath of an unconstitutional provision, no matter what it is.

But the arguments that were made here on the other side of the aisle primarily, Mr. Speaker, came down to this: That there are two very well-respected attorneys that have written opinions that will take the position that it is not unconstitutional for this Congress to ignore the Constitution and confer a voting right on a Member from the District of Columbia. Yet, as I look at those two names, they are high and stellar names, Mr. Ken Starr and Mr. Viet Dinh. I have worked to some degree with both of them and read their opinions, and I recognize that when one goes off to law school, one of the first things they teach you, Mr. Speaker, is argue this side of the case, now argue this side of the case, take the position on the right side, take the position on the left side.

There are two reasons for being able to argue both sides of every issue, Mr. Speaker, and one of them is so if you are hired to argue one side, you are prepared to do so; you are not stuck in an individual ideology. The other one is, if you want to survive in the attorney business, you can provide for billable hours because you are a lot more flexible to be able to go on either side of an issue.

Well, I do not allege that these legal opinions that have been produced by Mr. Starr and Mr. Viet Dinh do not have a basis. They do. I just submit that it is a weak basis, Mr. Speaker, and as I read through that, there is the foundation of the Tidewater case. Their argument there is that because a court found in favor of allowing the people in the District to have the Federal court protection and conferred that kind of utilization of the court on the residents here in the District of Columbia, that that implies that they are citizens of a State. Well, that is an utterly weak analysis, Mr. Speaker.

Then the second argument, and that seemed to be even an argument that they hung their hat on even more, was the argument that, and believe me, the Framers understood there was going to be a District of Columbia. When this Constitution was ratified, they knew that. They defined it within the Constitution itself in Article I, but what they provided for was for the 10-mile-by-10-mile section that was laid out to become the District of Columbia for a period of time, that was from 1791 until 1801, that roughly 10-year period of time, until the Federal jurisdiction was applied here in this District, they allowed the people that before that time had been residents of Virginia to vote as residents of Virginia, and they allowed the people that had been residents of Maryland to continue voting as residents of Maryland.

So nothing changed for the people that were residents of the District for 10 years until the Federal jurisdiction was established, at which time then they did not have a Representative here in this Congress, and have not had all this time for this 200-plus years.

Well, the argument that was made by the two stellar legal scholars was because Congress allowed the people that lived here in this District to vote as residents of Maryland or Virginia, as the case may be, for 10 years, somehow that established a precedent or a constitutional right to have a Representative in the United States Congress, an utterly weak argument, and a precedent it was not.

Mr. Dinh admitted what the analysis comes down to, because there was an agreement between the House and the Senate, and the President signed the bill and let them vote conditionally for a 10-year period of time, that it was no precedent like you would get if the Supreme Court had made a decision. The only decision was no one disagreed with, so there was no constitutional argument to be resolved. In fact, no constitutional precedent was established either.

We go forward, and now equal protection under the law, Utah, to give a resident or a Member at-large so that if you are a resident of Utah, you can go and vote for your Representative in your district and the Representative that would be the Representative at-large in Utah. In fact, if you are a Member or a candidate, you could vote for yourself and somebody else to come here and do the same job. That is not equal protection under the law.

There was a case in 1961 called Baker v. Carr that tied this down to as close to an individual population balance as you could possibly get. That was the beginning of one man, one vote. There was a subsequent case in 1964 that speaks to it as well, but Utah also blows this Constitution sideways.

There are many reasons to vote ``no'' on this, and the difficulty that the majority has, and now unprecedentedly pulling a bill down as it was to go up for final passage and refused to allow a vote after days of building up to this with no explanation is unprecedented in this Congress, and that violates, I believe, the right of the people to be heard and the right of their judgment to be recorded here in a recorded vote on whether the District of Columbia will have an unconstitutional Member in this Congress or whether they will not, Mr. Speaker.

So that kind of cleans up the air here and gets us to this point where we are at the subject matter we came here to talk about, and what I would like to do to kick that subject matter off would be to yield to the gentlewoman from Tennessee, the tenacious Marsha Blackburn.

I thank the gentlelady from Tennessee. Certainly I wish to associate myself with all of her remarks, and I appreciate the consistency and the persistence with which Mrs. Blackburn comes here to the floor and participates in committee in every way possible to move the right agenda here in America.

I reflect upon a thought that crossed my mine a week or so ago or maybe 2

weeks ago in committee, as I was listening to the kind of argument and debate that was coming from the other side of the aisle, and the discussion was about people who have food anxiety. We established food stamps for people who were suffering from malnutrition, and then we extended those benefits to those that were hungry, and now the effort is to extend those benefits, not to just those that, we can't make the argument that people don't know where their next meal is coming from any longer, so now the argument is made that people wonder where their second, third, fourth and fifth meal is coming from, and that is called food anxiety. Food insecurity is the more appropriate term they likely use, food insecurity.

It occurred to me, this Constitution, I waved it around a little earlier, provides some constitutional rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But as I read back through my history and recognize that FDR back in the 1930s made another speech, and it's called the Four Freedoms speech. Those four freedoms, as he defined them, are etched into stone down in FDR's monument. First is freedom of speech, the second is freedom of religion. Those are constitutional rights. Speech and religion are one and two, third and fourth are freedom from want and freedom from fear.

Now, those aren't constitutional rights. They are extra- constitutional rights, as articulated by FDR. But they were used to advance an agenda that grew government more dramatically than ever before, and it eclipsed the vision of most Americans. But they are really not rights. They are not constitutional rights. It's a vision or an image to have freedom from want and freedom from fear. Now, I don't know how you ever get to that point where you are free from fear. I don't think that can be guaranteed.

But we have gone another step now with the food anxiety or the food insecurity part. Now we have gone from our real freedoms, freedom of speech and religion, all of our Bill of Rights, to freedom from want and freedom from fear as articulated by FDR. Now, because of food insecurity language, now the argument is we need to make sure that people are free from the fear of want, freedom from fear of want.

So you should never have to wonder about whether you could pay your rent. You should never have to wonder about where your next meal is coming from. You should never have to wonder if you are going to have a job or if you are going to get fired, because government can be all things to all people. Government can take this safety net and turn it into a hammock, and no one has any anxiety. Perhaps we could cure ulcers if we could just have enough Federal money to do that.

If we are free from fear of want, we will also be free of the ambition to provide for our future wants and needs. If that's the case, the productivity in America will go down dramatically, and we will watch this work ethic in our culture collapse. One of the things that drove me to work my entire life was fear of want and not knowing, necessarily, even where my next meal was coming from, not knowing if I was going to be in business the next week or next month, but knowing I was the one in charge, I was the one in control. I had to not only work hard; I had to work smart.

That has given millions of Americans to succeed, freedom from fear of want, a new right in this new Pelosi administration. I offer that thought for edification and consideration.

But I also recognize that the gentleman who represents the vast majority of the State of Nebraska and some of those spaces out there are, indeed, vast, Mr. Smith. I appreciate your arrival in this Congress, the values that you bring here, and the principled stand that you take. Often there are many things that tie western Iowa to all of Nebraska, and particularly western Nebraska. I appreciate you being here on the floor.

If the gentleman would yield, and just inquire as you were working through that budget last night, what kind of message did you get from the majority party on how much support there was for the Department of Defense budget and how much support for military spending? We are having this debate here on the floor today and starting again tomorrow morning. Did you sense that there was a commitment to support our military financially, our troops, and their mission?

I thank the gentleman from Nebraska, a Mr. Smith who has come to Washington to stand up for middle-American values, and to hold the line on the spending in the Budget Committee, hold the line on the constitutional issues with the micromanagement that is coming out of here with this supplemental spending bill, this emergency supplemental spending bill.

And I will make no such pledge that it isn't my job to challenge the people with whom I disagree with. In fact, I believe it is my job to do that, and I intend to step up every time and draw those bright lines when I think it is imperative that those bright lines be drawn.

So here we are with this bill on the floor being debated several hours today, with 1 or 2 hours left in the debate for tomorrow. And maybe it will go to final passage, maybe the votes won't be there, maybe the vote will get pulled down just like D.C. voting was pulled down today. They take it all the way through the process, and, at the time it is supposed to go up on the board, realize, we lost the debate, so now we can't allow a vote. That is exactly what happened here in the House of Representatives today. The people's voice wasn't heard.

We have got a little debate to go tomorrow. People are going to sleep on this tonight, and they are going to think about the President asking for $99 billion to provide for Afghanistan and Iraq, the surge in Iraq, the strategy that was part of the Iraq Study Group's recommendation, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group's recommendation, and the effort to succeed in Iraq.

And it is interesting that the President has retooled our approach here. We have a new Secretary of Defense, Secretary Gates; we have a new Secretary, at least an Acting Secretary of the Army, Mr. Geren; and we have a new Commander at Walter Reed Hospital, we have a new Commander of CENTCOM. And this is a new plan, a new plan put together by the individual who wrote the book on counterterrorism and the most successful general that I believe that we have seen come out of the Iraq theater, and that is General David Petraeus, I believe the most impressive military individual I have met in my time here, in fact in my life. And his strategy is part of the same strategy that the Iraq Study Group put out. And having written the book on counterterrorism and being endorsed without opposition for his confirmation for a fourth star by the United States Senate, and within a week the United States Senate is back trying to jerk the rug out from underneath his plan, trying to oppose the surge in Iraq and trying to oppose the 21,500 extra troops that go in there. And now we are seeing a little wavering, a little quavering, and some people going a little wobbly because they are starting to see the positive signs in the effort in Baghdad.

Now, the situation there is kind of interesting, Mr. Speaker. Baghdad and 30 miles around outside of Baghdad is where 80 percent of the violence in Iraq is taking place. And it occurred to me, it was actually back in December, I was reflecting back upon the 101st Airborne 62 years earlier had been surrounded at Bastogne during the Battle of the Bulge in World War II. Bastogne, a city that had seven roads leading to it and through it, was the centerpiece of the transportation link. It was the key to success or failure in the Battle of the Bulge, and maybe it was the key to victory or defeat for either side in World War II, at least in the European theater.

And so, as the 101st Airborne was surrounded at Bastogne, mercilessly being shelled by the Germans, and the Germans demanded the surrender of the 101st, General McCollum's response is famous, and it should echo throughout all of American history when he said in his response to the Germans, ``Nuts.'' We understood what that meant, being Americans. The Germans didn't. They had to go get their linguists to try to understand what it meant, and they still, I don't think, have figured out to this day. Well, that was in one word, four letters, the American spirit of defiance, the American spirit of perseverance.

And there they were surrounded at Bastogne, hopelessly surrounded, and their response was, ``Nuts.'' We are hanging on and we are going to defend Bastogne. And shortly thereafter we had General Patton and the 3rd Army that came and relieved the 101st Airborne. They argue to this day that they didn't need the help of the 3rd Army, that they had the Germans right where they wanted them.

That was the American spirit 62 years ago, Mr. Speaker, and today 80 percent of the violence is within Baghdad or 30 miles from Baghdad. Baghdad is essentially surrounded; it is not a stronghold. We have always gone wherever we wanted to go in Baghdad, or any other city in Iraq for that matter, even though the press calls it a stronghold. We went wherever we wanted to go, and we go more now than we did before. Baghdad is significantly pacified, but Baghdad was surrounded by peace, a relative peace at least, and the violence was in there.

Now, if we had pulled out, or if sometime in the future this side of the aisle is successful in shutting off the resources so that our military can't succeed in their mission, and we pull out of there, I believe history will judge us nuts if we do such a thing, Mr. Speaker.

There is too much at stake. There is no discussion on this side of the aisle here about the consequences for pulling out. No one has a plan for victory. No one over there will utter the ``V'' word, the victory word. No one will define it. They are just a group of ``defeatocrats'' that can't get it out of their head that America's destiny is worth more than marking political points against your opposition.

So we sit here with more than 3,000 lives sacrificed for the freedom of the Iraqi people and the destiny of the world, because if we don't defeat this enemy here in Iraq, as Prime Minister Maliki said right here behind where I am standing right now, he said, ``If the terrorists can't be defeated in Iraq, they can't be defeated anywhere.''

Now, if Mr. Murtha gets his way and troops are deployed out of Iraq, the bill doesn't say where, but he has said where: Okinawa. Okinawa. Over the horizon is Okinawa, and we can put our troops over there, and then we can fly them wherever we need them whenever we need them. I would say we might as well take them right to Afghanistan. And I am going to explain the reason for that, Mr. Speaker.

First, this is a poster of Muqtada al-Sadr. He is quite an interesting character. He started out in this conflict as a militia general, and he wasn't doing very well down south of Baghdad a couple of years ago when he suffered huge, huge casualties in the Madhi militia. In fact, the casualties were so heavy that he decided to become a politician instead of a general, and so he entered into and built a little coalition and picked up 30 seats in the Iraqi Parliament. He also took over the security on the civilian side of Baghdad International Airport, along with one portion of the Shia region of Baghdad and some of the area to the south. Muqtada al-Sadr, not a friend of the United States, an individual who has empowered himself by attacking the United States and denigrating the United States and inspiring his followers the same way, and this is how he did it.

And I was sitting in Kuwait City, the date is right here, June 11, 2004, waiting to go into Iraq the next day, and I was watching al- Jazeera TV, Mr. Speaker. Now, Muqtada al-Sadr came on, this burly face, and he was speaking in Arabic, so I was looking at the crawler underneath in English, and it read just like this: ``If we keep attacking Americans, they will leave Iraq the same way they left Vietnam, the same way they left Lebanon, the same way they left Mogadishu.'' That was Muqtada al-Sadr, June 11, 2004. Al-Jazeera TV. I attest to that; I was there, I wrote it down; I saw it; I heard it. And that is the statement that he made.

Now, I went back and picked up the book written by General Vo Nguen Giap, and it is, ``How We Won the War.'' And he is writing about the Vietnam war, how they won the war. And very early in the book he takes the position that because the United States did not win a clear victory in Korea, they understood that we would maybe not have the will to win a clear victory in Vietnam. So their strategy from the beginning was to fight the war in such a way that it would break down and defeat American public opinion and encourage the antiwar activists all across this country and around the world. That was a part of their calculated strategy that is in the book, ``How We Won the War'' by General Giap.

Now, it hadn't occurred to me that because we settled for a truce at the 38th parallel in Korea at the place, the same line as the beginning of the war was the end of the war. But because we didn't push the Communists all the way out of North Korea and draw a new line, they believe that we could be defeated because we didn't demonstrate the will to succeed.

Carl Von Clausewitz wrote the treatise on war, and the name of the book is, ``On War.'' And he states in there, ``The object of war is to destroy the enemy's will and ability to conduct war.'' To destroy the enemy's will and ability, Mr. Speaker. And I believe Clausewitz lists will ahead of ability because it is more important here. Your will to succeed, your will to prevail is more important than your ability to conduct war.

In other words, if you are fighting an enemy, and you destroy their airplanes and their navy and their tanks and their guns and their ammunition, and they still have the will to fight you, they will come at you with IEDs or rocks or fists or boots or clubs, because they still have the will to take you on.

But here in this Congress, there have been dozens, there are scores, there, in fact, may be more than 100, there may be more than 200 that don't understand that when they stand here on this floor and they speak against our military's mission, they are encouraging people like Muqtada al-Sadr when he is inspiring his people by saying, ``All we have to do is keep attacking Americans, and they will pull out of Iraq the same way they did Vietnam, Lebanon and Mogadishu.''

And if we should do that, Mr. Speaker, I can show you the next poster you will see on this floor, the next quote that will show up in the news media.

This is another notorious individual: Osama bin Laden. Where is he? We are looking diligently for him. One day we will find him.

But the lesson from Muktadr al-Sadr, the lesson that needs to be understood by the Defeatocrats is that if we pull out of Iraq, we don't win there. You have al Qaeda taking over. You have Iran coming in and taking over 70 to 80 percent of the Iraqi oil. You have Iran with their hand on the valve that could shut off at the Straits of Hormuz, 42.6 percent of the world's export oil. Doing so let's them control the world economy, including that of the United States, including that of China, empowering Russia, empowering Iran, intimidating and controlling the entire Middle Eastern oil supply by Ahmadinejad. That is what is in store for us if we don't prevail.

And so Maktadr al-Sadr has laid it out, and he has got a clear vision. His vision isn't hard to figure out. General Giap has figured it out, just from seeing that we would settle for a truce at the 38th Parallel, and we have got Maktadr al-Sadr seeing that and Vietnam and Lebanon and Mogadishu, and several others, by the way.

But if we pull out of Iraq, our troops aren't going to be deployed to over the horizon, Mr. Murtha, or over to Okinawa, Mr. Murtha. They may get to go home for a little while and polish their boots, but they are going to Afghanistan, because that is the next stop for these terrorists that are going to keep coming at us until we defeat them or capitulate.

And so this will be the next quote you will see if we pull out of Iraq. It will be Osama bin Laden this time, and he will be saying, if we keep attacking Americans they will leave Afghanistan the same way they left Vietnam, the same way they left Lebanon, the same way they left Mogadishu, the same way they left Iraq. That is what is in front of us if we don't have the will to prevail, Mr. Speaker.

And these kinds of unconstitutional supplemental or emergency spending bills that tie so many strings on to the hands of the Commander in Chief, that if he adheres to the language that is in here, ties his hands so he can't win.

Now, why would you not be for victory? Why would you send money over there and not provide a way for the troops to win?

This bill pulls us out of Iraq. That is the goal and they have said so. Their goal is not victory. Their goal has been defeat for a long time so they can say I told you so. To put a stain on this administration perhaps. To try to gain political favor, perhaps. But whatever is their motivation, I will submit that this appropriations bill is unconstitutional because it is micromanagement of the duties of the Commander in Chief.

And so I will submit that this Constitution gives this Congress three responsibilities when it comes to war. The first one is to declare war. We haven't done that since World War II. The second one is constitutionally to raise and equip an Army and a Navy, and by implication an Air Force. The third one is to fund the war. That is it. No other constitutional responsibilities. Declare a war, raise a military, fund military. But the President is Commander in Chief because our founders lived through the mistakes of trying to run a war with a whole series of micromanagers and trying to do so by consensus or majority rule within the Continental Congress.

The Continental Congress tried to micromanage the war that was fought by the Continental Army. And they were so stung by that painful effort, and the only thing that preserved them was they had the will for victory. They carried themselves through the hardest of times, barefoot at Valley Forge, because they were determined that they were going to defeat the British and establish a new nation. And that is the legacy that the founders have passed along to us. And they drew bright lines in this Constitution because they understood you couldn't fight a war by committee. You couldn't fight a war if a Congress was going to micromanage the Commander in Chief. So they drew the line clearly, and there is no equivocation, and there is no historical record about the founders wondering about who had what responsibility when it came to fighting a war. No. It was the Commander in Chief. And they gave Congress the authority, declare a war, raise the Army and the Navy, and then, I said by implication, the Air Force, and fund it.

So if you don't want to support our military, and if you don't want to support their mission, then you ought to have enough intestinal fortitude to

come down here with a bill that unfunds our military and face the wrath of the American people and the wrath of the United States military, who, by the way, are 100 percent volunteers, not just to join the military and put on the uniform, but for the mission that they are on.

Everyone there has had an opportunity to retire from the military in such time since the beginning of this conflict. Yet, Mr. Speaker, they step forward and they re-up and they volunteer in greater numbers than one ever anticipated. These are brave souls that are on a mission. And to say to them, after they have volunteered for one or two or three or more deployments, well, thanks a lot for the effort, but we are not going to let you finish the job, we are going to drag you home.

Well, I would say to that that I could quote a colonel that I went to Iraq with not that long ago, and he said, and I don't know if I will find it so I will speak from off the cuff and this will be close. It won't be probably an exact quote. He said, don't save me. I volunteered for this mission. Don't save me. I am here because I volunteered for my children. I am here to fight this war so my children don't have to fight this war. You are not doing me any favors if you try to pull me out of this mission that I am committed to. And I have children at home that I am here to defend.

Now, I would say, also, that probably the most profound statement that I heard from a military person over there was a major from Kentucky. And he is a farmer, a father, loved his cows, worried about his bull, wanted to see the digital picture of his new bull, and loves God. And he said to me, he said, we have everything we need. So when you pray for us, meaning the military, pray for the American people. Pray they understand the threat, and pray they do not lose their resolve. We will not lose ours.

That is the kind of personnel we have that put their lives on the line for the future of freedom in the world, for the safety of the American people so that we can ultimately prevail in this long, long war against these global terrorists who believe that their path to salvation is in killing us.

It is not going to be easy. It is not going to be over quickly. And, in fact, every time we step back and show weakness, it empowers the enemy and we are more likely to hear this statement sooner.

But this is not over if we pull out of Iraq, as General Pelosi and Mr. Murtha would like to do. It is not over. They will follow us here. And they will be more empowered. They will have a base that is protected that they can operate from out of Iraq. And you hand over that oil money to the Iranians, they will be spending it to buy missiles to deliver nuclear weapons, not just to Tel Aviv, not just to Western Europe, but within a few short years to the United States. And we will face an enemy that is a lot tougher than the one we are facing right now.

We need to resolve this issue in the Middle East now. This is the time to do so. Put the cross hairs on Iran's nuclear and tell them cease fighting this proxy war against the United States within Iraq. Resolve and pacify Iraq, and turn our focus over to Afghanistan. Because if we don't do so, this man and his allies turn Iraq into a terrorist base camp, and they turn their effort to Afghanistan to try to drive us out of there and destroy the freedom that has been established there, where people voted for the first time on that soil in all of history.

That is what we are faced with. This is a long war. We need to step up to it. We need to understand that. We need to let our voluntary military perform their mission and stand with them, because not only do we stand with our military, but we stand with them in their mission. I do so on this side of the aisle. I challenge everyone on that side of the aisle to do the same.

It is intellectually inconsistent to take a position that you can support the troops and not their mission. And it is constitutionally inconsistent, in fact unconstitutional, to micromanage a war from the floor of Congress and tie so many strings in there that they can't be met, so that it is certain that if this language passes and the President adheres to it that there will be an end to this sort of victory.

And I ask the President, Mr. Speaker, to stand on this constitutionally. He has the authority to do intra-departmental transfers. If the money goes to DOD and it is directed to an aircraft carrier and we need armored Humvees and Strykers and bulletproof vests, he can mothball that aircraft carrier and put the money where it is needed. That is why he is Commander in Chief. That is constitutional. This bill is not. And I urge that all Members stand up and vote ``no'' on this when it comes to the floor tomorrow.

I thank my friend, the gentleman from Georgia, for stepping up here tonight and organizing this Special Order and bringing this subject matter before you, Mr. Speaker, and before the American people.

This immigration issue that is before America is I believe the most complicated and least understood piece of policy that I have seen debated in this country in my lifetime.

I have been involved in the immigration issue since well before I came to Congress 5 years ago. Today as ranking member of the Immigration Subcommittee, I sit through immigration hearings two times a week, sometimes three times a week, sometimes more than that. Witnesses bring a lot of information before the committee, and

we are required to read a lot of information. And then one has to read the press clippings to try to understand what the American people are trying to divine out of the things that we are wrestling with here in this Congress.

As I state how complicated this issue is, and I look at the chart that Mr. Gingrey had up, the one that I believe demonstrates the 273 people that could be brought into the United States under the chain migration program, the family reunification plan, the plan that presumes that all family reunions, however minor or major, are reunions that all must take place in the United States as long as there is any one person of one of those families that is here. That is quite a presumption, that you can't have a happy family reunion except in America.

And the 273 that can generate from one individual that is lawfully present in the United States and starts this process, this is a calculation that isn't something that we happen to know in this Congress, because Mr. Gingrey has presented that here tonight; this is a calculation that is done by illegal immigrants and legal immigrants across the world, not just across our southern border into Mexico and points down south towards the Panama Canal, but China as an example. So the going rate, if you are a pregnant Chinese lady, is $30,000 for a roundtrip ticket to come illegally into the United States, have the baby, get his little footprints put on a U.S. birth certificate and go on back to China. Then after the 18th birthday, that child can start the family reunification plan, and you start down the path of this chart that shows 273.

Mr. Speaker, that 273, that is the calculated number that one individual can bring in, and they might come in illegally and find the path to a legal lawful presence and then start the 273. When that chart was done, it was not really limited to 273 except space on the spreadsheet confined it to 273. The number could be 100 or more above that. And the size of the sibling unit, it might be 6 or 12. And if I remember right, the size of the unit for the chart was 3.1 siblings per family. A very conservative estimate.

So we have the automatic citizenship plan, the anchor baby plan, and that will yield 350,000 babies born a year to illegal mothers but on U.S. soil. Some argue their constitutional right to citizenship. I will argue that they also have to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when they are born. Therefore, it is a practice, not a constitutional right. But we have 350,000 new citizens that would not be citizens if we enforced our law on that. That is Nathan Deal's bill, another leader on immigration from Georgia. I certainly support that bill.

But the family reunification, the chain migration, 273, and this usurps the kind of policy that the United States of America ought to have. Every nation, and we are the most generous Nation in the world when it comes to immigration, by raw numbers, by percentage of the population, by having a standard there that isn't a very strict standard at all, but we need an immigration policy designed to enhance the economic, the social and the cultural well-being of the United States of America.

As the gentleman from Georgia alluded, we are not measuring in this chain migration plan the relative merits of the individual immigrants that would come in. We are simply letting that be set by genetics of the family, maybe that and marriage and whatever kind of familial relationship they want to have. I would submit that we need to establish in this Congress, first we need to get control of the illegal flow over our borders. That is about 11,000 at night.

I have sat on the border and I have heard the fence squeak at night, and I have watched the shadows go by me. It is twice the size of Santa Ana's army pouring across the border. And then we have the 350,000 automatic citizenship anchor babies that are born, and the family reunification plan. All of those things are out of the control of the Federal Government right now.

Because we have those elements and we have the overstayers of the visa that are not being enforced, because of that, the immigration issue has become so chaotic that we cannot engage in a rational immigration debate that can be designed to do the things I say and enhance the social, economic, and cultural well-being of America.

If we can get enforcement back under the control of the American people, then I believe we need to put together a matrix, a score system, a score sheet that rewards potential immigrants for their education level, for the capital that they bring into the country with them, for the business acumen that they might have, for the likelihood that they can assimilate into this broader, overall American culture that we have, so we can have some cultural continuity in the United States of America and assimilate and tie together and maintain this vision of one people, one people under God. As we sit today, it is out of our control.

Another thing that we are going to see, a White House initiative, a Senate initiative, and I believe a House initiative coming together trying to get a critical mass of voters between the Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate to work with the White House on this bill that I believe clearly the American people understand, and that is amnesty. That is the bill which has been dropped in the House within the last day.

But the thing we must insist upon, however the issue of amnesty is resolved, however the issue of the national ID card is resolved, we must insist on an overall national cap. The aggregate of all of immigration components that are there, and I think there are 30-some different categories that people can come into the United States legally under, that needs to be capped.

So if a family reunification plan takes up to a million a year, fine, we hit the cap, we stop. No H-1Bs, no work permits. It is simply we hit the cap.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia.

The thought that goes through my mind as I listen to that discussion about the cumulative total of legal immigrants in the United States, it occurs to me that the Senate bill that passed last year that they said was not amnesty, that the American people rejected because clearly it was amnesty, according to Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, would have legalized over the next 20 years, and that is the calculation period of time that we have for immigration, 66.1 million people.

It also occurs to me that back in 1986 when President Reagan signed the amnesty bill, that was supposed to legalize 1 million people, and that went over 3 million people.

Reclaiming my time, I am happy to yield to the gentleman to make any clarification he likes, but I have a flow in my thought process here that I want to make sure I can stay with here.

The published numbers, though, was supposed to be amnesty for 1 million and ended up being 3.1 million the numbers I have. Then if you go up to 1996 in California, when President Clinton accelerated the naturalization of a group of citizens in the number of 1 million in 1996.

So I am pointing this out that 1 million people was an outrageously high number in 1986, was an outrageously high number in 1996, and last year, the Senate passed a bill that legalized 66.1 million people, and we swallowed that and talked about it not in terms of the magnitude of it but just simply is it amnesty or is it not amnesty.

But put this into the scope, that the point I want to make here is that my numbers show, my census numbers, from 1820 until the year 2000, and those would be the years when our census was keeping track of the naturalization, that period of time, 1820 to 2000, the sum total, the cumulative total of all naturalized citizens come into the United States was 66 million.

So the Senate would have legalized a number in one of the stroke of the pen equal to the sum total of all legal immigrants that have come into America in all of its history and still leave these kind of programs here. That is the essence of the point I wanted to make.

I thank the gentleman from California.

So, picking up on this point, I want to broaden this discussion, if I could, a little bit, too, and that is, the labor supply in the United States of America. We hear continually from the other side the specious argument that we do not have a labor supply in the United States, and so since there is a demand for more cheap labor, therefore, you ought to bring in more cheap labor, as if the United States of America was just a giant ATM and there was nothing more to our Nationhood than a giant ATM.

We are more than a giant ATM. In fact, we are a sovereign Nation based upon a constitutional foundation, and we have a whole series of foundations that have created and established American exceptionalism, and without going down into the components of American exceptionalism, I would point out that we do have a labor supply, Mr. Speaker. That labor supply is not something where you just go looking at an unemployment rate and say, well, traditionally, it is kind of low, it is 4.6 percent. How many does that make? A few million out there you could hire. You could add up a few that are on the welfare rolls.

It is more than that. Look at the whole United States of America as if we were one huge company. If you were going to establish a company in a locale, you would not just go into that locale to measure how many were on the unemployment rolls and count them and say that is the only available labor supply. You would hire a consulting company to go in and survey that region and find out how many people were underemployed, how many people were not in the workforce, and how many people were unemployed so that you could look at the universe that could be hired from.

I did that for the United States of America. It was not hard to do. I am kind of astonished those big business interests did not do that. So I went to the U.S. Department of Labor's Web site, and I started to add up what about the people that are not in the workforce.

Well, between the ages of 16 and 19, there are 9.3 million that are not even

doing part-time work, and then you go into the ages of 20 to 24, and there is a number there that I believe is 5.1 million. 9.3 million for the teenagers, 5.1 million for the 20- to 24-year-old, and you go on up the line. So I began adding up these available workforce, and I went on up to 65, and then I thought but you know Wal-Mart is hiring up to 74. They get greeters there to hand you your cart at 74. So they are available workforce, too, not a lot of them, but they are there. You add this up, there are 6.9 million working illegals in America, and there are 69 million nonworking Americans of working age.

So any company that is worth their salt would look at that and say all we have to do is go hire 1 in 10 of those that are not in the workforce. One in 10 is all it takes to replace the illegal labor that is in America.

If you want to look at it from another perspective, Mr. Speaker, I would submit this, that 4.7 percent of the workforce is illegal labor, and they represent 6.9 million workers but they are not as productive as more educated, more efficient and more effective workers that are the American workers. So they are really only doing 2.2 percent of the work. Well, if you wanted to replace 2.2 percent of the work, if this great huge megafactory of the United States of America got up in the morning and realized that 2.2 percent of your labor force was not going to show up for work, it could happen all at once but it will not, then you could make an adjustment on your production line and you would just say to the people, well, you know that 15-minute coffee break that you have in the morning and the afternoon, for the sake of this emergency that we are in, we are going to shorten that down to 9.5 minutes in the morning and 9.5 minutes in the afternoon, and you have picked up 2.2 percent of your productivity. Eleven minutes a day will more than recover all the illegal labor in America in the size of the economy that we have.

We are not in a labor crisis. We just simply always will have more demand for cheap labor as long as we have more labor that makes it cheaper.

I wanted to make the point that we tried mightily in this House last year to bring immigration reform, we passed H.R. 4437. It had a lot of the things in it that would clean up the problems that we have with an enforcement here, internally, domestically, with employment enforcement, as well as border enforcement. That bill, of course, didn't make it through the Senate. The Senate passed their amnesty bill, and we passed our enforcement bill.

We came back and we did the one thing that we could agree to, and that was provide the online border security at the fence. That was something the American people wanted and demanded, and it was right, and it was appropriate, and it was just.

But the reason that that was the one thing we could agree on, because there is a tug of war going on in this country, a tug of war would be going on between big business that wants to have a supply of cheap labor, and people that want to have a supply, a long supply of voters, or at least people in the

United States they can count for the census purpose. There is a lot of political power, most of that is on the left, and there is a lot of business power, most of that is on the right.

We have this, it's an unusual, odd and some would say an unholy alliance. I think of it as a set of barbells where you have the weight on the right of the business interests, where you have the weight on the left is the political power, and the barbell in the middle, that handle that you pick it up with, the bar, that's the middle class. The middle class is being squeezed ever more narrow because of the overload on the upside and the overload on the downside our economy.

We got to this point last year, and we did all we could do. But the American people became cynical because they weren't seeing legislation get to the President's desk that fixed the problem. Now we are faced again this year with trying to arrive at a consensus, trying to arrive at something that preserves the rule of law, does not provide amnesty, satisfies the interests on both ends of that barbell that I described, and doing it quickly. Because once we get past the summer, once we get past the August break, we are into the fast slide into the next Presidential race, as well as the elections here and a third of the Senate.

But the Presidential race, if it's done and if it's done right, we will take this issue up in Congress, and if we don't solve it first, it will be become the issue du jour of the Presidential debates. And I am looking forward to a Presidential candidate that will step forward with clarity on this issue and start that inertia towards the White House. That is the one thing that can solve this issue. That is my best hope.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor tonight to read into the Record an editorial that was published in the O'Brien County Newsletter, O'Brien County, Iowa. It is from Sean P. O'Brien, First Lieutenant, Field Artillery, United States Army and Purple Heart recipient.

It reads like this: ``There are few things that a professional military officer can attribute to editorial statements. However, I would like to share some of the ideas that more than represent what our tour of duty in Afghanistan meant to me. This ethos is to help put these personal feelings, which all soldiers have, into a tangible rallying point.

``I am an American soldier. I am a warrior and a member of a team. I serve the people of the United States and live the Army values. I will always place the mission first, I will never accept defeat, I will never quit, I will never leave a fallen comrade.

``I am a disciplined, physically and mentally tough trained and proficient warrior in my tasks and drills. I always maintain my arms, my equipment, and myself. I am an expert and I am a professional. I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy the enemies of the United States of America in close combat. I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life. I am an American soldier.

``This is called the Warrior Ethos. Every soldier can recite it. It means everything. I cringe when I say this aloud. These words have such weight. As far as service, I understand now. When I shake hands with a veteran, there is a silent conversation that takes place that transcends all words. You can never understand this without experiencing it.

``I cannot deny the power of facing the enemies of truth with truth. The population was the center of gravity, and we systemically engaged in separating these bullies from the population, usually by simply not leaving. The stability created by our presence allowed civil leadership to stop focusing on being brutalized and start focusing on fostering a better way of life for the people, education, medical aid, and commerce. When the population realized that these ideas were worth having, they would generally take on the responsibility of denying safe havens for the bad guys.

``These people, the Afghans, are just like you and me. They want their children to have a safe place to grow. They

are extremely thankful that we are making the sacrifice we are for their nation. It is very humbling to be told that by a common villager. These people have known war as a way of life for 2,000 years. That being said, it is important to know that in every town there is an elder that stated, `The U.S. was just different. You are respectful and you want to help us.'

``If you have ever held the ideal of compassion for your neighbor, then it is easy to understand that Afghanistan and her people are well worth the sacrifice. I am thankful to have been a part of a stronger future for Afghanistan.''

And here he says some complimentary things about me which I will leave from my presentation but leave in the printed Record and conclude with:

``As I said before, our efforts in this region are worth it. I encourage all to take a longer view. The compassion and the patience of the American servicemember make up a large part of their sense of duty. This is a fight between good and evil.'' Sean P. O'Brien, First Lieutenant, Field Artillery, United States Army, Purple Heart Recipient.

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully enter this into the Record.

For: O'Brien County Republican Newsletter, Iowa

There are few things that a professional military officer

can attribute to editorial statements; however, I would like

to share some of the ideas that more than represent what my

tour of duty in Afghanistan meant to me. This ``ethos'' is to

help put these personal feelings--which all soldiers have--

into a tangible rallying point.

I am an American Soldier.

I am a Warrior and a member of a team. I serve the people

of the United States and live the Army Values.

I will always place the mission first.

I will never accept defeat.

I will never quit.

I will never leave a fallen comrade.

I am disciplined, physically and mentally tough, trained

and proficient in my warrior tasks and drills. I always

maintain my arms, my equipment and myself.

I am an expert and I am a professional.

I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy the enemies of

the United States of America in close combat.

I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life.

I am an American Soldier.

This is called the Warrior Ethos. Every soldier can recite

it. It means everything.

I cringe when I say this aloud. Those words have such

weight. As far as service, I understand now. When I shake

hands with a veteran, there is a silent conversation that

takes place that transcends all words. You can never

understand this without experiencing it.

I cannot deny the power of facing the enemies of truth with

truth. The population was the center of gravity, and we

systematically engaged in separating these bullies from the

population; usually by simply not leaving.

The stability created by our presence allowed civil

leadership to stop focusing on being brutalized and start

focusing on fostering a better way of life for the people;

education, medical aid, commerce. When the population

realized that these ideas were worth having, they would

generally take on the responsibility of denying safe-havens

for the bad guys.

Those people (the Afghans) are just like you and me. They

want their children to have a safe place to grow. They are

extremely thankful that we are making the sacrifice we are

for their nation. It is very humbling to be told that by a

common villager.

These people have known war as a way of life for 2,000

years. That being said, it is important to know that in every

town, there was an elder that stated:

``The U.S. was just different, you are respectful and you

want to help us''. If you have ever held the ideal of

compassion for your neighbor, then it is easy to understand

that Afghanistan and her people are well worth the sacrifice.

I am thankful to have been a part of a stronger future for

Afghanistan.

I was honored by the personal efforts of 5th District

Congressman Steve King. He actively followed our efforts and

through personal correspondence offered his support. I enjoy

the fact that there is adequate moral ``top cover'' that

actively engages in seeking the truth. Thank you Steve, you

are as much a patriot as I ever hope to be.

As I said before, our efforts in this region are worth it.

I encourage all to take a longer view. The compassion and the

patience of the American Service Member make up a large part

of their sense of Duty. This is a fight between good and

evil.

Sean P. O'Brien, 1st Lieutenant, Field Artillery, U.S.

Army, Purple Heart Recipient.

I thank the gentlelady from Tennessee and especially all the work that you do and the way that you helped direct this communications together so that it is a consistent message. And it is a privilege to serve with you. And there is a certain bond that comes in. When you come into this Congress together, you go through these wars together, and you fight the battles together and stand up for Americans and for the Constitution together. And those are bonds that make us stronger and make us better and more unified. And when we see things happen that are breaking down the opportunity for a better American destiny, that is when we rally and come together for the things that are right.

And so with the discussion that has been going on here, that has to do with the responsibility of funding and being able to put together a real fundamental tax reform and the reference to the fair tax, I need to stand and say that that is something that I came to a conclusion that I was supportive of that concept some time in about 1980. In fact, I know it was 1980 because it was the IRS that audited me one too many times in a row and the audit was for 1979. And as I sat there and my business was immobilized for 4 days while I pulled pieces

out of the filing cabinet, finally we got that resolved. And then I went back out and climbed in the seat of a bulldozer and I began to think, why are those people in my kitchen? Why are they looking through everything, all my records that I have had for the last several years? Who do they think they are making Monday morning quarterback decisions on decisions I had to make on the fly while I was trying to make a living? And wouldn't it be wonderful if we could live without the Internal Revenue Service.

And so I started with that principle, quickly got to the principle of, as Ronald Reagan said, what we tax we get less of. What you subsidize, you get more of. What we tax we get less of.

And so the Federal Government, in its ``infinite wisdom,'' and I do put that in quotes, has the first lien and taxation on all productivity in America. Well, I want to take that first lien off of all productivity. I want to untax all productivity. I want to untax the poor. I want to put the tax on consumption, not production. And if we do that, we will see this Nation's economy blossom and grow dramatically. People will get back their freedom. Little Johnny, that puts up his baseball cards, or Sally, that buys her Barbie doll clothes, will have to dig a couple of dimes out for Uncle Sam. And when they see that, transaction after transaction, that generation of Americans will understand how expensive the Federal Government really is, and some of those little Johnnys and Sallys will come to this Congress and stand here on this floor like we are tonight, and they are going to say, boy, you know, I kind of like my freedom, and I am really not that happy with more government security, and we will have a Nation of responsible people that will be singing their voices here on the floor of Congress and shrinking the responsibilities that Congress has taken on, and expanding personal responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to address this issue of this bill that we expect is coming to the floor next week, and the bill that would have in it the supplemental appropriations for our armed services, and all the bells and whistles and the Christmas tree that the people on the inside of the door could possibly hang on there to the tune of, we are at least hearing $20 billion in other wants that some people want to have that they want to bring to this floor when we need to make sure that we fund our military in a responsible fashion.

And we haven't seen a lot of those details. They aren't going to come to us in time to actually debate them and analyze them very well, but they have been leaked to the press.

So I would like to make a point here, a point, Mr. Speaker, for the American people to understand. We all come down here on this floor every new Congress, this 110th Congress. And I bring my Bible to the floor and I swear on my Bible, not the Koran, but the Bible, and I swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

Well, I happen to have one here, I carry it in my jacket pocket every day. And the people who are behind the scenes that are drafting the supplemental bill that needs to take care of our military and adding the billions of dollars onto that need to go back and check this Constitution in a couple of places. They swore the same oath. And here are our constitutional responsibilities as a Congress. This comes from article I, section 8.

We have the responsibility and the constitutional authority to declare war; to raise and support armies, to provide and maintain a navy, by implication, and an air force; and to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.

And we also have to recognize that in the Constitution the President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States when called into actual service of the United States. That is our constitutional obligation, Mr. Speaker. And we have all taken the same oath.

And we will have another profound constitutional debate here on the floor of this Congress. And I will submit that there has not been a court test or a court challenge to the standards that I am going to ask this Congress to be held to, and that is, this constitutional standard, this standard of we declare war, we fund the military and we hand the authority of commanding this military over to the commander in chief because it is a constitutional right that he has and a constitutional obligation that we have to support and trust him as he makes those decisions, those life and death decisions; and I mean life-and-death decisions for armed services personnel, also life-and-death decisions for American civilians, for civilians around the world.

The life-and-death decisions for the life of this Nation hang in the balance. And we think that we have 435 generals here in the House of Representatives, and 100 generals over there in the Senate, and somehow that committee of 535 can come to a consensus and we can figure out how to fight a war which requires intelligence, secrecy, knowledge, decisionmaking, the element of surprise, the list could go on and on and on, all the things we could give up if we think we can micromanage a debate from here.

It is a political debate on this floor, Mr. Speaker; it is not an analytical debate. It needs to become a constitutional debate. I am going to stand with the Constitution. I am going to stand with my Oval Office. I am going to stand with the commander in chief, whether he is a Democrat or Republican, and maintain my constitutional responsibility here and keep my oath, which I swore on my family Bible here on the floor of the United States Congress.

I would be happy to yield back to the lady from Tennessee, and I thank you.

I thank the gentleman from Texas for organizing this Special Order hour and for gathering together a lot of patriotic Americans and shedding some objective light on the health care situation with our men and women; and like many of the Members who have spoken earlier in this hour, I am one who has also made consistent trips over to Iraq, Afghanistan, the hospital, Landstuhl in Germany, and, also, I make it a point to be one place or another to visit our wounded, at either Walter Reed or Bethesda or Landstuhl. So I have been to Walter Reed a number of times, and saw nothing like I saw described here on the floor of the House of Representatives, and make no excuses for that. In fact, like everyone else, I believe we needed to fix it and we did fix it as quickly as possible.

The people that come down here to the floor night after night after night with the same poster that had the words cockroach, mold and mice on it have been repeating the same mantra, but they have not seen anything like we are describing here night after night after night. This was, as I understand it, two rooms out of 300 and some altogether in a place where no one goes. The people that were there were ambulatory patients that liked it there because they were a little off campus, they had a little more freedom. So those were the circumstances. They have been fixed.

But I will say what this needs to be: this needs to be a message to us, a kind of reminder, a wake-up call, because what I saw here demonstrated by Mr. Burgess, which is that there are patients there whose care is too bureaucratic, we can use this as a launching pad to bring software into place and to put into place a patient tracking system that will compare the tracking of these patients and the timeliness of their care with that in the private sector and have red flags come up on those files if there is a time they are not being dealt with in a fashion they should be. We can get this set up. It needs to be managed in that fashion.

I will also say that the VA hospitals have taken a fair amount of criticism on this. The ones that I go visit have modern health care and a modern tracking system and a bar code that goes on the wrist of the patient. When they go in there, they read that bar code and within seconds their full medical record is there; any pharmaceuticals that have been prescribed by them are all right there. It reduces and almost eliminates mistakes for prescriptions, for example.

There are a lot of modern pieces that have been put together. Most of our VA hospitals, and the ones I know, do a good job. They shouldn't be dragged into this, and the Walter Reed piece of this, we can do a better job. More of it has to do with patient management and timeliness of care and modernizing the recordkeeping system. Little of it has to do with putting plaster up on the wall and putting carpet into place. Let's use the need to do this to get this place, put Walter Reed back into the 21st century and give these men and women the very best top- notch care that is possible.

We can do that. The people doing the work, we need to applaud them, not criticize them. They give their hearts and their minds and their energy to our brave men and women who have given their life and limb for our freedom and for our liberty.

The only thing that they are short of is they suffer from compassion fatigue, and they get burned out on these jobs. But what I see, selfless Americans are doing the best job they can. We can give them some better tools to work with, which has to do with tracking the patients and being more timely in the service we provide.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the privilege and the honor to be recognized here on the floor of the United States Congress this evening and the chance to pick up where some of my colleagues left off here. But I pretty much had my say about Walter Reed, and I support and endorse the remarks that were made over the last 60 minutes, and I intend to move on to another subject matter here.

I do just simply want to restate that the care that they are provided is good and it is solid. And as I talked to patients at Walter Reed, Bethesda, Landstuhl, continually, they are very, very grateful for the quality of the care. We have some of the best experts in the world treating some of these kinds of injuries; and to look them in the eye and see the level of their commitment, you just know that they are giving it everything that they have.

I am not hearing patient complaints about the care, but about sometimes the timeliness of the recordkeeping and the timeliness of the treatment that is there.

There will be always be things that fall through the bureaucratic cracks, and it is our job to try to seal those cracks up and do the best job that we can. I think we are going to get that done. Certainly, though, I want to make sure that America, Madam Speaker, understands the commitment that is made on the part of the medical care providers for our military men and women, and that is what we must do in order to support their effort and support their sacrifice.

Madam Speaker, I came to the floor tonight to talk about an issue that I have been here before to raise, and hopefully I will be back again to raise, and that is this broad, overall immigration issue that has captured the debate field in the United States for the last 3 years or more. And what brings me to the floor tonight is a sense that there is a growing effort on the part of the White House, on the part of the Senate and on the part of some here in the House, to build a kind of a critical mass coalition that would bring what they would call a comprehensive immigration reform bill through the Senate and then quickly over here to the House, which I would consider to be a steamrolled or a stampeded bill, something that we don't know what is going on behind the scenes, or there has been hardly anything leaked. And I believe it is their effort to try to get enough Members, a majority, and that would be something or a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and a significant majority here in the House to buy on to a policy that they have never seen, one that is not in print yet, or at least not filed, not dropped, in the fundamental sense, but only get people, people, and I mean Members and Senators, to sign off conceptually, and say I conceptually endorse a comprehensive immigration reform bill.

Well, first, Madam Speaker, the American people need to understand that when the word ``comprehensive immigration reform,'' when that phrase is used, that means we don't like to admit amnesty. But comprehensive is a substitution for the word ``amnesty.'' It has been that way for 3 years. It will be that way until this debate is maybe over for this cycle.

But I recall when the President gave his first immigration reform speech was January 6 of 2004, 3 years and a couple of months ago. There he brought out a lot of the same things that he is standing for now. And the President says that he is opposed to amnesty. But I will say that Ronald Reagan signed a bill that Ronald Reagan called amnesty that is very much the kind of policy that is being advocated by the White House.

I am greatly concerned about this moving so quickly with so little information that the American people would not have an opportunity to weigh in, would not have an opportunity to call and write and e-mail and fax their Senators and their House Members to be able to try to move the center, I guess, of the Republican and Democrat House of Representatives and the Senate.

And so it is important that I call upon Members, don't sign off on something till you read the fine print. The devil is in the details. The devils were in the details last year when the Senate moved their immigration reform bill and the details turned out to be tens of millions of people. Just a small detail, Madam Speaker, of tens of millions of people that would be legalized and granted amnesty in about a couple of decades period of time. That is the backdrop. That is the foundation of this.

I have a lot to say about this, but I also recognize the gentleman from Texas who has been on this floor for a while has some things he would like to say about it, and I would be very happy to yield to Judge Carter as much time as he may consume.

I thank the gentleman from Texas.

As I listen to you talk about this, Judge, and you live down in that territory where it has been part of your life and the flow of our life, from my background in the work that I have done, there have been some times in my life when there was something that was so complicated, so convoluted and so unpredictable in its elements and so many hypotheticals that came out of each of those elements that no matter how hard I tried to chart a course through that and lay out contingency plans on, I call them if-then formulas which you can put on a spreadsheet, if then, we will do that; if that happens, then we will do this. And it threads through the whole equation.

This immigration issue is so complicated, so unpredictable and has so many hypotheticals that I contend that it is impossible for a body of 100 Senators or 435 House Members or a President to chart a course through that and be able to put law in place that deals with all of the contingencies and ends up with the kind of product that if we can even agree on what that is, we could not get there. It is beyond human ability to put that into a law

and make that work; too many hypotheticals.

So what I will submit is that we need to take this, as you suggested, one step at a time. I am for let's go ahead and get things under control at the border. Stop the bleeding. As Dr. Gingrey has often said from Georgia, we have got to stop the bleeding before we can decide how we are going to stabilize the patient and give him rehab. That is step one. And we started on that, as you said. I have been down to look at that. In fact, a couple weeks ago I went down there and helped build some wall with Secretary Chertoff down south of Yuma on the border. It occurred to me that probably the only person in America that actually has gone down on the southern border and put border fence up with Chris Simcox or the Minute Men, and then turned around and welded steel wall on the border was Secretary Chertoff. I don't think those two guys are going to get together and do this together. I had the privilege of doing it on different occasions with each of them. But we can control this at the border; in fact, we must. And if we can't do that, then all the rest of the policy we talk about goes for naught.

And another fundamental principle that I stand on is that of all the discussions that come out of the House and the Senate and the ideas about guest worker, or temporary worker, how we will give them a card, how that all might work; how you do background checks on people and then legalize them here, I don't hear anyone address what you do with those that don't come forward. Because those that come forward with a clean background record, they would then get their pass to either guest worker card or a path to citizenship, depending, they might feel pretty comfortable if all they did is come into the country illegally and that this government should write up a law, which I would oppose, that would be amnesty, too. But those that have a criminal record beyond that, those that have run afoul of the law for whatever reason, they are not coming out of the shadows because they don't want the hook of the law in them, they don't want to go off to prison and they don't want to be deported.

So we will not be uncovering the bad elements of society by trying to do background checks on people. And those elements of society, those slackers that don't want to come forward for whatever reason, those that have reasons not to come forward, they still remain in the shadows an illegal core in this civilization, and the only way you get them out is to actually send people back home again.

So I submit that we should use all of our local law enforcement. We should end all sanctuary policies. The local police force, county sheriffs, the highway patrol, the Texas Rangers, all those folks that are involved in law enforcement at all levels, and have them cooperating at all levels.

I grew up in a law enforcement family. And it was not something that we could have conceived of, but there would be a city police officer that would be prohibited from cooperating with a Federal officer on a law in this Nation because it happened to be Federal law as opposed to a city ordinance. So by that rationale, city police would only enforce city ordinances and State highway patrol and State officers, DCI or whatever, could only enforce State laws and then Federal officers could only enforce Federal laws. And I don't know what the county sheriffs are going to do except maybe they are just going to serve warrants and papers.

So we need to cooperate on all levels and we need to reestablish the rule of law.

I thank the gentleman from Texas. And I know that there are some people in this Congress and across the country that will say, well, what about two sticks and no carrots. We may hear about that from the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goode, who I would be happy to yield as much time as he may consume.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for a clear message.

The American people appreciate straight-talking, clear messages. There have been far too many of these messages that are muddled and confusing, and those muddled and confusing messages cause more problems with more people coming across the border. And I am not hearing people stand up and say it would be wonderful if everybody could wake up in their own country one day in a legal fashion and not have to look over their shoulder and rebuild their own nation, rebuild their own society, rebuild their own economy.

I had this conversation with the ambassador to the United States from Mexico. And I say, If you encourage your people, the vitality of your nation, to come here to the United States, who is going to be there to reform Mexico? Who is going to be there to rebuild Mexico? And he had to concede that is no way to run a country.

At this point, Madam Speaker, I would be very happy to yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan).

I did appreciate the privilege to travel with you. And there is some extra value in that, and that is you see what it is that people notice and you understand what their priorities are and you begin to understand how people rearrange their priorities and the basic values that come together. And you have heard some of these basic values flow out from Mr. Jordan here this evening, Madam Speaker. And I look forward to a lot more of these kinds of events in helping to shape policy for the American people.

I look at this overall immigration policy that we have, and I think there are some great big blanks out there and questions that are asked and not answered, seldom asked and never answered. The first question that one should ask is, Is there such a thing as too much illegal immigration? Or let me put it this way: Is there such a thing as too much immigration? And if the answer to that is ``yes,'' then you need to divide that between legal and illegal. And for me illegal immigration, any of it, is too much. All immigration should be legal. We shouldn't tolerate illegal immigration, and we surely should not reward it with an amnesty plan, which I believe is being worked on right now in the offices over in the Senate and perhaps on the House side, preparing to reach that kind of an agreement between the House and the Senate and the White House to quickly bring a bill that we don't have time to scrutinize and time to debate thoroughly.

If you look at what happened last year, there was mistake after mistake after mistake made in the Senate's version of the bill. And first they had a bill on the floor that would have legalized between 100 and 200 million people. And then there was, I believe, a Bingaman amendment that reduced it and put a cap on one or two of those categories that took that number down under 100 million. Different numbers came back and forth. The Senators voting on that didn't know how many numbers they were talking about. You could ask them point blank, and they would not answer. But the best numbers, the most reliable numbers came from Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, and the numbers that I saw there near the end of that debate were 66 million people that would be brought into the United States under the policies that exist and the ones that the Senate would have added in their reform bill that they passed last year. A lot of that same sentiment; 66 million people, Madam Speaker.

And so I went back and looked, and I wondered how many people were naturalized into the United States legally in all of our history. And it turns out that we began keeping records in 1820. Not at the beginning, but in the 1820s. The numbers were small prior to that. They were small in 1820. And we tracked this thing up until the census of the year 2000. So between 1820 and the year 2000, the complete totals that we have, the number is 66.1 million people have been naturalized into the United States in all of our history. And this Senate version of the bill last year would have matched the pot all in one fell swoop. And they did this all with a straight face, Madam Speaker.

I recall the amnesty in 1986 that Reagan signed, and it was supposed to be 1 million people. I was appalled that 1 million people would get a pass on the rule of law. Well, I was triplely appalled when I realized how bad it was because that 1 million turned into more than 3 million by most accounts because, first of all, they underestimated how many people would apply. Secondly, they underestimated how persuasive the fraud would be with people that raced across the border and jumped in line so they could get their amnesty.

I have met some of the people that received amnesty in 1986, and they are almost universally in favor of amnesty in 2007. And the reason is because they were a beneficiary of amnesty. When they had amnesty, it was good for them; so, of course, they advocate that for anyone else. Certainly their children were taught: amnesty was the best thing that ever happened to you, sons and daughters of mine, and we need to make sure that everyone else can take advantage of this same thing.

But amnesty comes with a price, and the price is you sacrifice the rule of law if you grant amnesty.

So the 3 million that received amnesty in 1986 became great advocates for more amnesty. And then each generation after that, more people have come into the country, that 3 million, and today the most conservative number of illegal immigrants in the United States is about 12 million. Many of us believe that number exceeds 20 million. Some believe it exceeds 30 million. I am in that above-20 million category, and it is anybody's guess up in that territory. But if there is an amnesty bill that comes out of the Senate and through the House and to the White House, then you are going to see tens of millions of people that take advantage of this, and we will be sacrificing, Madam Speaker, the rule of law.

And I have talked about why would we do this, what would be the purpose for this kind of a policy. Well, first of all, the Federal Government has failed to enforce adequately our immigration laws. And as we got more and more illegal immigrants into the United States, it became a magnet for more and more to follow. They began to recruit in their communities. We had companies that put up billboards in Mexico encouraging people there to illegally come to the United States and apply for a job. Some of them recruited them down there and brought them across the border to go to work in their factories and in their plants. And this is commonly known in the communities that utilize this kind of labor. So what kind of a Nation would do that and why would we? First of all, the Federal Government didn't enforce the law.

Secondly, employers took advantage of that because they could hire illegal labor cheaper than they could local labor. And capital is always rational. Capital is going to do the smart thing. Capital is going to follow the path of least resistance like electricity. So there wasn't a resistance on the law enforcement side; so capital then hired illegal labor, brought them into the United States or hired them when they came here. Regardless, that was the magnet.

They understood that they could pay illegal labor less and there were far fewer contingent liabilities that went along with the illegal labor.

So if you have to pay $15 an hour as a going rate for an American citizen or someone who is lawfully present in the

United States to do a job, but you can hire someone who is here illegally because they are in the shadows and have to scurry around and hide away from the law, if you can hire them for, let's say, $8 an hour, and then if you have to provide health insurance, retirement benefits and take on the contingent liabilities of legal employees, the $15 an hour, plus the health insurance package, plus the retirement package, plus the worker's comp piece, which is going to be higher because they are more likely to file the claims, plus the litigation risk of filing a suit against an employer, and then the unemployment claims that would come if you lay people off, none of that exists in any significant quantity when you are hiring someone who is illegal.

So you hire them cheaper, maybe at $8 an hour, compared to a $15 an hour legal person, but then that is all you are really ending up with, was 8 bucks an hour. But if you hire somebody at $15 an hour and they are legal, then you have to add on to that so much for health insurance, so much for retirement benefits, so much for worker's comp, so much for unemployment, so much for contingent liabilities. What if this employee turns around and sues me for something? You add that all up, it is far cheaper to hire the illegal laborer than the legal. Then that magnetized and brought more and more into this country.

Americans have allowed it to happen under their nose. The administration hasn't sounded the alarm. They could seal the border more quickly than they are, and they are accelerating their efforts here, and I want to compliment them for that effort. But I am also watching closely to see if this effort is a real, sincere committed effort, or if it is an effort that is designed to help clear the political groundwork so that Members of Congress will be lulled to sleep, so-to-speak, and adopt a comprehensive plan, which again the word ``comprehensive'' is the substitute word for amnesty plan.

So do we do this because we need the labor, is one of those questions. The statement is made over and over again, well, we have to have the labor. After all, we have willing employers and willing employees. That should be the standard.

Madam Speaker, if you can give me cheap enough labor, I want to hire them all. If you can get me reliable workers, I want the first 100 at a buck an hour I can get. I probably want the first hundred at $2 or $3 an hour, or in fact $5 an hour. We will find a way to make some money. I want them legal. They have to be for me.

My point is though the cheaper labor gets, the more demand there is. Kind of like if gas goes down to 50 cents, people are going to drive more, or if porterhouse steaks go down to 50 cents a pound, a lot more people are going to eat the fancy steak instead of eating the hamburger. Cheap labor, the same thing; the lower the price, the more consumption there is.

So it isn't an equation of willing employer-willing employee, because the employer is always going to be willing if he can make money off of a willing employee who will work cheaper than the going rate. It is an advantage for the employer to do that.

I hear from Member after Member, think tank head after think tank head, they get on the media airwaves every day, Madam Speaker, and they say a willing employer, a willing employee. We have people that need this labor. There is a demand for it. Therefore, we have to find a way to provide it. Otherwise, what happens in America if we don't flood the cheap labor market?

Well, one thing that has happened from flooding it is we have seen the unskilled purchasing power drop by 12 percent over the last 10 years, that is because there is a flood of cheap labor on the market. And it should go the other way. We want a broad middle-class. We want an ever more prosperous middle-class. Instead, the pressure that is coming here is those that are making money off of the cheap labor are becoming an aristocracy. They are part of nouveau rich in the United States of America. And our upper-middle class, or upper class, for that matter, is growing, and so is our lower class growing, because we are importing it, and that is putting a squeeze on middle America.

One of the principles of a free society is you need to have a broad and prosperous middle-class. We have been growing and broadening that middle-class for generations and becoming a stronger Nation because of it. But this last generation it is going the other way, Madam Speaker. This last generation, we are growing the aristocracy and we are growing the lower class, importing a lower class, all at the expense of the middle class, which is being squeezed in between the two.

But in the middle is the real America. In the middle is the real America that understands truth, justice, the American way, the merits of hard work, the American dream. They have a tremendous work ethic, a sense of family and community. They are being squeezed, Madam Speaker, by the interests on the upper levels of our society and by the thunderous herds that are coming across particularly our southern border, on the lower end of our society, at the expense of our middle- class.

I would point out that if you envision this society like a barbell, and the middle-class would be the bar, and the weights on each end would be the bells, on one side you have the weight on the right side of that barbell, that is the business interests in America. A lot of them are Republican interests, but certainly not all of them. There are a lot of liberal elitists that sit in that category too. And they are clamoring for more cheap labor because they make money doing it, and they are not threatened, nor do they believe their children will ever be threatened by the competition in the labor market that takes place down in the lower end of the spectrum.

The people on the right side of that, the business side of that barbell, that interest, they will send their children to Ivy League schools, upper crust universities, they will get an education. They won't ever have to compete, probably, with the lower income people that don't have that kind of education, that kind of culture, that gives them a path to professionalism.

So they will end up living in their ivory towers and end up living in their gated communities and getting rich off the cheaper labor, and their children will be wired into that same kind of thing. And that is how you grow an aristocracy. That is how you grow a ruling class. That is how you grow an arrogance, that they have a birthright to a servant class, which they are creating.

That servant class that they are creating is the other end of this barbell, and that is this massive number of people who give especially the left a lot of political power. Even those who are in this country illegally give political power to many Members here in this Congress because we count people rather than citizens when he with redistrict in America.

As we count people, that means we count illegal immigrant in these districts. So illegal immigrants give political power to the Members of Congress who are here because they don't have to get their vote. They only have to compete.

There will be a couple of seats here in the House of Representatives, where it will take about 110,000 votes for me to get reelected to my seat, there are a couple of seats that take around 30,000, 35,000 votes for the same thing, and the reason is because the illegal population is counted in the census, and the larger that number is, the fewer citizens are left to actually cast a ballot. And that is the circumstance.

So think of this barbell. On the one side is the ruling class, on the other side of the barbell, the political power of the lower class, the new servant class that is being created, and in the middle, the bar itself is the middle-class that holds it altogether that is being squeezed by the two. That is what we are up against, Madam Speaker.

So, do we need this labor? I would point out that if it is 12 million in the United States illegally, according to I believe it was a Pew Foundation study, that the illegal labor amounted out of that 12 million, 6.9 million workers are actually working. They don't all work, of course. Some are homemakers, some are too young. But 6.9 million working illegals in America.

Of that 6.9 million, that represents 4.7 percent of the overall workforce, and 2.2 percent of the actual production, because they are unskilled, they don't produce like a more highly trained worker does. So they are only doing 2.2 percent of the work.

Well, if you opened up your factory doors in the morning and you found out that 2.2 percent of your production, your work force, wasn't going to show up that day, in order to make up for the difference, I would send a memo out to my staff that said, you know, your 15-minute coffee break this morning and your 15-minute coffee break this afternoon, I am going to shorten that to 10 minutes.

If you do that, if you cut your two coffee breaks, morning and afternoon, by 5 minutes each, you will have picked up 2.1 percent of the production, almost the same thing that the illegal labor represents. Ten minutes a day out of an 8 hour shift of America, that is how much we would be missing. Yet I hear Chicken Little, oh, we can't get along without this labor. We must have it. If we don't have it, the economy will collapse.

It will not collapse, Madam Speaker. We can adapt to it easily. We have taken years to get here, at least 20 years to evolve into this circumstance that we are today, and we can evolve away from that, away from the dependency, away from this addiction, away from this methadone of illegal labor that we have in America, and it will not be that hard to do.

Also there are 6.9 million working illegals in America, but then the argument is, well, but we have unemployment at essentially record low rates of 4.6 percent. Well, that is nice. That is effectively a very low unemployment rate. It is not the lowest. It is not record low unemployment. In World War II, we had a 1.3 percent unemployment rate then.

But it is about 4.6, and they will say you can't get enough workers out of the unemployment rolls to fill the gap we need for this labor. Well, maybe you can't, and probably in fact I will say certainly you can't.

I will say also going into the welfare rolls, we couldn't hire all of them. Many of them would not be employable. If we could hire half of them and if we could hire half of those on unemployment, we still wouldn't put a very significant dent in that 6.9 million labor force.

But I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that going to look at the Department of Labor statistics, it shows an entirely different story. If you were going to place a factory in a location, you wouldn't simply look at the unemployment rate in that location and determine how many people there were to hire. You would hire a consulting company, and that company would go in and survey the area and determine the available labor force that was in the area. This is a standard known practice in all business and industry. The consulting firm would identify the available labor.

I went into the Department of Labor Statistics to determine the available labor supply in America, and I began to add up the different categories of age groups. 16 to 19 year olds, we have 9.3 million non- working 16 to 19 year olds in America. Now, not even part-time. Some of these are part-time jobs. And so I start there, because that is where young people learn their work ethic.

As I add up these age categories from 16 on up to 19, and then from 20 to 24 and the list goes on up the line, and I got to 65 and I had to make a decision, and I looked around and concluded that Wal-Mart hires up to 74 years old, so I added them all up to that. One of the reasons I am going to confess, Madam Speaker, is because it was a convenient number I could memorize. It is not substantially changed if you lower the number down to 65.

But it works like this: 6.9 million working illegal laborers in America could be replaced by hiring one out of ten of the 69 million workers in America who are simply not in the workforce.

What Nation would ignore 69 million people not in the workforce and go and bring people in from another country? That would be like having a lifeboat with that percentage of people on it, and deciding you needed some more people to pull on the oars, and having all of those people up there in steerage riding along, and no, it wouldn't occur to us to go up and say come on down here and grab ahold of that oar. Why don't we pull off on an island and see if we can't recruit some more people, load them in the lifeboat, and maybe 7 out of 12 of them will row. That is what it amounts to, Madam Speaker.

So we have not been very objective in this. There is also a tremendous amount of crime, and the victims of that crime, it has been a tremendous price paid here in the United States. We talk about it very little, but every day there are American citizens that die violently at the hands of criminal aliens who are in this country and who, if we had enforced the laws, with not be here.

I had a gentleman say to me today, there isn't a shred of evidence that illegal immigrants commit crimes at any greater rate than average Americans do. But the truth is, Madam Speaker, there is a tremendous amount of evidence that they do.

In fact, the numbers work out to be that in the United States, the violent death rate is 4.28 per 100,000 annually. In Mexico, it is 13.2 per 100,000. That is a solid three-plus times greater violent death rate in Mexico. And Mexico is the most peaceful nation south of our border that I can identify. Honduras has nine times the violent death rate. El Salvador's is not published, but we know it is very high. If you go to Colombia, their violent death rate compared to the United States is 15.4 times higher.

So if you bring people from that society, of course they are going to commit more crimes. They are committed in their home country. They bring that culture with them. Also, $65 billion worth of illegal drugs pour across that southern border every year, brought in by these elements.

I am not here to say that they are all bad people. No, the vast majority of them are very good people looking for a better life for their families. But they have a higher percentage of violence among them, even as good people, than the average American that is here, and we are paying a price of about 12 Americans a day who lose their life as victims of murder to criminal aliens, about 13 a day who die at the hands of negligent homicide, mostly the victims of drunk drivers, not the drunks themselves.

That is the magnitude of this, Madam Speaker. And I recognize by the clock I am in a position where I need to say thank you for the privilege of addressing you on the floor of the House of Representatives

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 30 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, March 13, 2007, at 10:30 a.m., for morning hour debate.