Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, earlier this week Chinese Major General Zhu Chenghu told a group of reporters that China should consider nuclear first strikes against the United States. Zhu made these comments in the course of threatening a Chinese invasion of the democratic nation of Taiwan. General Zhu Chenghu's comments are one of many examples that reveal China's hostile intentions toward both Taiwan and the United States.

In 1995, another Chinese general, who is now the Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the People's Liberation Army, told a former Pentagon official that China would consider using nuclear weapons in a Taiwan conflict, then warned that Americans should worry more about Los Angeles than Taipei.

Mr. Chairman, the U.S. decision to recognize Communist China in 1979 was predicated on China's commitment to resolve its differences with Taiwan peacefully. But General Zhu Chenghu's statements, coupled with the ``anti-secession law'' passed by China's rubber stamp congress a short time ago, made it increasingly clear that China has no interest in adhering to this commitment.

These developments have caused damage to an already tense U.S.-China relationship. My amendment would call on the Chinese government to deal with General Zhu Chenghu the same way President Truman dealt with General MacArthur when he made similar statements during the Korean War that did not reflect official U.S. policy.

The amendment expresses the sense of Congress that the Communist government in Beijing disavow General Zhu Chenghu's statements and remove him from his position. It also asks the Chinese authorities to reiterate their commitment to resolving differences with Taiwan peacefully, and to unequivocally renounce the use of force against the island nation. I ask for an aye vote on the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

We have had a number of debates already on this issue, on the issue of how much money is in this bill and whether it is enough money to fund all of the worthy programs that are out there. I suggest to my colleagues there is a place we can easily go and get at least $1 billion out of this bill and use it for the other programs that have been so eloquently advocated on this floor.

My amendment is simple and straightforward. It essentially prevents the implementation of section 1011 of the prescription drug bill passed by the Congress last year. As my colleagues may recall, this is the controversial provision of the law that provided $1 billion to cover the health care costs of illegal aliens.

It is also important to note that many of these States that are incurring these heavy costs and hospitals inside these States that are incurring these costs for treating illegal aliens, some of these States and some of these localities have helped create their own problems. In many cases, they have taken steps to make themselves magnets for illegal immigration. These health care costs are now burdened by permitting them to obtain driver's license, enroll in institutions, and luckily we stopped the driver's license part, enroll in institutions of higher education at in-State rates, and obtain public services through the use of consular ID cards. So a lot of the burden, as I say, they have brought upon themselves.

But nonetheless, we have gone the next step, then, and we have written regulations. We promulgated regulations and rules designed to implement section 1011, and they certainly fall short of establishing any meaningful accountability for the money, and more importantly, they do not require information sharing with homeland security.

As a matter of fact, on the final page of the payment determination form, it says patients should be aware that the Department of Homeland Security will not access or use information related to medical care to initiate enforcement of United States immigration laws unrelated to an ongoing terrorism or criminal investigation.

There is another part of these regulations that, frankly, I do not recall us debating it when the original amendment was proposed to the Medicare and prescription drug bill. That is one that now allows for not only people who are here illegally to be given services under this act, but people who are here with the 72-hour border crossing card.

In 2002, as I recall, as I have been told, there were already 5 million of these border crossing cards that had been issued. Five million people, mostly, in fact I think entirely, Mexican nationals, are now also eligible for reimbursement under this act, under this section, if they come across the border and choose to access the hospitals in those border States. Again, I do not recall that was part of the original debate, but that is part of the regulations that have been promulgated.

It is a sad irony that many of the Americans who are being asked to cough up to this $1 billion to fund health care costs for illegal aliens and for nationals of another country do not oftentimes have enough money to buy health insurance themselves.

This is a bad giveaway for taxpayers. It sends the wrong message to illegal aliens and Americans alike. It comes at far too high a price. It was wrong when it was passed. It is wrong today.

I hope my colleagues will support the amendment and help save the American taxpayers $1 billion.

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

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

To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in the EMTALA Act that requires States and localities to actually pass laws and regulations creating sanctuary States, creating sanctuary cities, becoming magnets for illegal aliens themselves. There is nothing that requires them to do that; yet they do that. Then they come here and say, We are having a problem. It is undeniably true that the problem exists. It is undeniably true that they are being overwhelmed by illegal immigration. It is also undeniably true that much of this is the fault of the Federal Government. I do not deny that for a moment. Nor do I deny that there may be some responsibility here for us to help pay for it.

But what I am saying is you pass a law like this and then you pass regulations that make it completely and totally irrelevant in a way to determine. They say, We don't want to ask. We cannot ask. We will not even ask you if you are here illegally. By the way, even if you aren't here illegally, if you are one of the 5 million people who live in Mexico, Mexican nationals who have a border crossing card, we'll treat you also.

Does that not encourage even more people to come to the United States and obtain these services, putting even more of a burden on these hospitals? Of course it does. These regulations are the problem. They are a significant problem that only exacerbates the underlying problem of massive costs being incurred by these hospitals in these States.

My hope is that if in fact we have to put money into a program like this, we do so only after we have passed meaningful and purposeful regulations, regulations that at least make these hospitals accountable.

Offered By: Mr. Tancredo

Amendment No. 2: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Sec. . None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made

available by this Act may be used to pay the salaries and

expenses of personnel to carry out the provisions of section

1011 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and

Modernization Act of 2003 (Public Law 108-173).

Offered By: Mr. Tancredo

Amendment No. 3: Page 108, after line 21, insert the

following section:

Sec. 5__. The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall

conduct a study to determine whether or not there is a link

between thimerosal in vaccines and autism.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to Congress's attention the following letter from COL David Phillips ``Griffin-6'' of the 89th Military Police Brigade, sent on May 27, 2005, to Mr. Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, regarding Human Rights Watch's recent report on human rights abuses within the Mujahedin e- Khalq (MEK).

``I am the commander of the 89th Military Police Brigade

and in that role was responsible for the safety and security

of Camp Ashraf from January-December 2004. Over the year long

period I was apprized of numerous reports of torture,

concealed weapons and people being held against their will by

the leadership of the Mujahedin e-Khalq. I directed my

subordinate units to investigate each allegation. In many

cases I personally led inspection teams on unannounced visits

to the MeK/PMOI facilities where the alleged abuses were

reported to occur. At no time over the 12 month period did we

ever discover any credible evidence supporting the

allegations raised in your recent report. I would not have

tolerated the abuses outlined in your report, nor would I

have sanctioned any acts on the part of the MeK/PMOI to hold

people against their will. Each report of torture, kidnapping

and psychological depravation turned out to be

unsubstantiated. The MeK/PMOI in fact notified us on a

routine basis of people who desired to leave the organization

and then transported them to our gate. At your request, I can

explain in detail specific allegations and the subsequent

investigation by my units. To my knowledge, as the senior

officer responsible for safeguarding and securing Camp Ashraf

throughout 2004, there was never a single substantiated

incident as outlined in your report.

I am very familiar with the leadership of the MeK/PMOI and

personally know many of the 3000+ protected people. I've

visited male and female units on a routine basis. Sometimes

these visits were announced, but most frequently they were

unannounced inspections. My subordinate units would randomly

select billets, headquarters, warehouses and bunkers for no-

notice inspections. Not one time did they discover any

improper conduct on the part of the MeK/PMOI. Also, the MeK/

PMOI never denied entry to any of their facilities.

I believe that your recent report was based on

unsubstantiated information from individuals without

firsthand knowledge or for reasons of person gain. I

personally spent a year of my life in Iraq with the

responsibility for Camp Ashraf. I have very extensive first

hand knowledge of the MeK/PMOI and the operations at Camp

Ashraf. My comments are based on a full year of on location

experience. I look back with satisfaction knowing that my

unit did an exemplary job and maintained the safety and

security of not only the coalition forces at Ashraf, but also

the 3000+ protected people.

I have spoken to large groups of MeK/PMOI members and have

also had one on one private conversations with individual

members. At no time did any member, ranging from young male

and females to the very senior leadership, ever report any of

the type conduct outlined in your recent report.

Iraq was very dangerous throughout 2004. In my opinion,

Camp Ashraf was the safest place within my area of

responsibility. There was not one incident or combat injury

to my forces at Camp Ashraf. I personally felt safe even when

surrounded in a room by hundreds of Mujahedin. We always had

open dialog and debated difficult subjects. I was

exceptionally impressed with the dedication of the female

units. These units were professional and displayed strong

support for freedom, democracy and equality for women. The

dedication of these female members was inspirational. In the

entire year only four female members asked to depart the MeK/

PMOI. In one case a young woman requested to leave the MeK/

PMOI, but first wanted to complete her responsibility as a

singer in one of the holiday festivities. One of my

subordinate commanders encouraged her to depart immediately

as opposed to returning to her unit. She emphasized that she

wanted to participate as a singer in the festival and would

then depart from the organization in order to return home to

her mother. Several days after the festival we were notified

by the MeK/PMOI that the young woman was ready to leave and

we picked her up at a hotel type facility. The other three

females also voluntarily departed the MeK/PMOI. I never

discovered a single incident where a female or male was held

in the organization against their will. I observed a total

freedom of choice on the part of the members to either remain

or depart from the MeK/PMOI.

As I previously mentioned, I was very impressed

specifically by the all female units. I would like my own

daughters to someday visit these units for the cultural

exchange. Were it not for the ongoing insurgency throughout

Iraq, I would sanction my daughter to travel to Camp Ashraf

and meet these very dedicated and professional female members

of the Mujahedin e-Khalq.

Thank you for taking the time to read my comments as your

report was a direct affront to the professionalism of my

units. We maintained the safety and security of Camp Ashraf

and can look back in years to come knowing that we made a

difference.

Respectfully,

Col. David Phillips,

``Griffin-6'', 89th Military Police Brigade.''

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Dozens of American cities, major cities, have policies that tie the hands of police officers to cooperate with immigration enforcement agents. The cities include Houston, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, Denver, Boston, Portland and Seattle.

Cities that have such policies extend to their jails as well. Often jails do not identify or report illegal aliens to ICE, these illegal aliens that have been incarcerated, so they are released back into the community after serving a sentence for a minor crime. These policies, I have pointed out in the past, violate Federal law.

It is especially galling, however, that local governments who have these illegal policies and practices do not hesitate then to seek and receive Federal reimbursement for the costs of incarcerating illegal aliens, aliens they refuse to turn over to ICE for deportation. They take the money and then turn the folks loose.

In 2004, the Federal State Criminal Alien Assistance program, or SCAAP, gave awards totaling $300 million to States and counties in reimbursements for housing illegal aliens. Yesterday, or the day before, we added another $50 million to the amount that was being appropriated for that purpose, and I voted for the amendment.

In Los Angeles in 2003, over 30,000 criminal aliens were released from the county jail and not deported.

In Denver in 2004, the city-county jail asked for reimbursement for over 1,900 illegal aliens, but only turned over the names of 175 to Immigration Customs Enforcement.

It is amazing that Denver alone sent the Federal Government a bill for over 1,900 people they have incarcerated for committing other kinds of crimes, besides the fact they are here illegally; yet, when it came to turning those names over to ICE, they refused to do so, or turned over only 175, again as a result, I think, to a large extent, of these things we call sanctuary policy.

Why should Denver or Los Angeles be asking for Federal taxpayer dollars to reimburse their costs of housing illegal aliens but then refuse to turn those names over to ICE for deportation?

There are real human consequences to these ``don't ask, don't tell'' policies. From 1995 to 1999, the INS released over 35,000 criminals who were not deported. Over 11,000 of them, almost 30 percent, went on to commit other crimes, and 2,000 committed violent crimes.

In Denver last month, on Mother's Day, a police officer was shot and killed and a second officer critically wounded by an illegal alien who has now been arrested in Mexico. He had been stopped twice by the Denver police for driving without a license and had appeared in municipal court twice. In April, less than 1 month before the shooting, this man was in court with a Mexican driver's license; yet no one asked him about his immigration status because of Denver's sanctuary policy.

In July of 2004, a young man was riding his motorcycle in north Denver. He was struck and killed by a hit-and-run driver. The driver has been arrested. He has been arrested and is in jail awaiting trial. He is an illegal alien. He had six prior arrests, but was released every time because the offenses were ``minor.'' Never, of course, was he reported to the Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. So they are free to commit other crimes.

This policy is insane, responsible for thousands of major crimes that could have been prevented.

One ICE agent told me recently that when he was doing routine checks in jail bookings in a major city, routine checks that are no longer done, by the way, 25 percent of all the files he looked at were of illegal aliens eligible for deportation. That means we could possibly reduce crime rates significantly by detaining and deporting illegal alien criminals who are already in local jails, but instead, the revolving-door sanctuary policies allow them to go free over and over again.

Today, over 1 year and several meetings with these agencies later, the answer appears to be that nothing will happen. The chairman of the committee graciously allowed for us to meet with several of the agencies involved with Justice and Homeland Security. We were to have heard from them as to exactly how they were going to enforce the law that is already on the books, but their answer is, of course, silence, and it is deafening.

Mr. Chairman, we as a Nation need to get serious about deporting criminal aliens, and we as a Congress need to get serious about requiring the agencies to comply with the law.

My amendment does not make any new laws or create any new penalty or change any laws on the books. It merely requires the Federal administration to comply with the Federal law, and I hope my colleagues will support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, as a result of a peculiar event arising out of the inclusion of immigration provisions in the Singapore and Chile fast track trade bills of last year, I have decided to offer this amendment that would restrict the use of funds in the bill to include in any provision in any bilateral or multilateral trade agreements that would increase the number of aliens authorized to enter the United States as an immigrant or nonimmigrant.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Of course, this amendment was printed in the Congressional Record 4 days ago. I assume that was an indication of our intent to offer it. I am pleased also to hear, as the chairman has indicated, that arrangements have been discussed about this, and there have been promises made that none of this kind of thing will come forward. Of course, if that is the case, this amendment should not provide a problem for anyone. We should simply make sure that we put in place the rule that Congress determines our immigration policy. We did not give that up with TPA.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman mentions the need to debate. I absolutely believe in the need to debate these issues, especially immigration issues. But when they get wrapped up into trade agreements, we cannot. That is the purpose of my amendment, to ensure that debate stays in this Congress where it belongs, not in the negotiations between trading partners.

It is the unique responsibility of the Congress of the United States to establish immigration procedures. It is not something that we should cede over to our trade negotiators.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.

Mr. Chairman, the fact is if there is an agreement made, and Members feel secure in the fact that there are never going to be any immigration provisions in a trade agreement, then no Member should be concerned about my amendment. We should allow it to pass in order to establish that as the will of Congress.

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

If it would have significant effect, then I am even more sure we need to pass it, because, of course, we have to make sure that this is something that the Congress deals with, not trade representatives.

It happened last year when the trade agreements with Chile and Singapore came to the floor. A number of Democrats joined with me in expressing their concern about that. I remember particularly the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) who came down and was furious about the fact that these trade agreements included immigration provisions.

Well, I would respectfully request, just remember your words because they are true. It is an example of the fact that we do have something to fear that this amendment is being opposed to the extent it is by the chairman and others. The fact is if they are fearful of what this amendment might do, then we have to pass it.

I supported fast track authority for the President when it passed the House and have supported a number of trade agreements that have come before this body. It is not the issue of trade that we are debating here. It is also not the issue of whether or not service agreements should be dealt with, because service agreements, that is just a euphemism for immigration provisions that are identified mostly by certain categories that mean essentially guest worker provisions. We have that. It is in the law. Congress establishes the number of people that will be allowed into this country for the purpose of providing services. That should be

something we decide. It should not be a part of these agreements.

They come to us after the discussions. Even in committees, they come to the floor, and Members know what happens; it is either we take it or leave it. We cannot amend it. That is the concern that we have.

Whether or not we agree with immigration caps, issues that should be debated openly and talked about openly are immigration, who has the responsibility for establishing immigration law? As I say, it is the Congress of the United States. It has nothing to do with people who are negotiating our trade arrangements. That is something that is important for us to understand. It is a peculiar aspect of these trade arrangements that, as I say, has only happened in the last few years. But I fear that the past is prologue, and that is exactly where we are going with these things. They will attempt to obfuscate, and it will not be all that clear that they are in there, but they will be in there. They will be in there as service agreements, as the chairman has indicated.

Does that even raise a red flag with regard to immigration policy? But it most certainly is immigration policy.

It is imperative, therefore, that we simply establish our control over immigration policy. Enough authority has been handed over to our trade negotiators already. When we enter into bilateral and multilateral trade policies, we also, then, of course, enter into jurisdictional issues with regard to the WTO. I am not willing to turn over my responsibility as a Congressman to the WTO for trade or for immigration issues.

I ask for an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Tancredo

Amendment No. 18: Page 108, after line 7, insert the

following:

Offered By: Mr. Tancredo

Amendment No. 19: At the end of the bill, insert after the

last section (preceding the short title), the following:

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to recognize Emily Haskins, a student at Powell Middle School in Littleton, Colorado. Emily created a museum-style exhibit entitled ``Nazi Communication: Pompous Propaganda or Subtle Manipulation?'' and qualified to compete at the National History Day competition by placing third in her category at the Colorado History Day State Contest, where she was one of 638 competitors.

Colorado History Day is the National History Day program affiliate for the state of Colorado. National History Day is a year-long education program that engages students in grades 6-12 in the process of discovery and interpretation of historical topics. Students produce dramatic performances, museum-style exhibits, multimedia documentaries, and research papers based on their own research related to a broad annual theme. Their projects are then evaluated in a series of local and state competitions, culminating in an annual national competition. Nationwide, more than 800,000 students are involved in the National History Day program. More than 4,000 Colorado students participate in History Day activities at the local level each year, and they represent every type of Colorado community, from the cities and suburbs of the Front Range, to rural plains towns and mountain communities. At the Colorado History Day State Competition on April 23, 2005, held at the University of Colorado at Boulder, 54 students qualified to represent Colorado at the National History Day competition June 12-16 at the University of Maryland, College Park.

This year's National History Day theme, ``Communication in History: The Key to Understanding,'' encompasses endless possibilities for exploration. Students embark on journeys of discovery that teach them about various facets of world, national, regional, and local history as they produce their original research projects. By encouraging young Coloradoans to take advantage of the wealth of primary historical resources available to them, students gain a richer understanding of historical issues, ideas, people, and events. Students in this program learn how to analyze a variety of primary sources such as photographs, letters, diaries, magazines, maps, artifacts, sound recordings, and motion pictures. This significant academic exercise encourages intellectual growth while helping students to develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills that will help them manage and use information, now and in the future. For more than twenty-five years the National History Day program has promoted systemic educational reform related to the teaching and learning of history in America's schools. The combination of creativity and scholarship built into the National History Day program anticipated current educational reforms, making National History Day a leading model of performance-based learning.

These impressive students represent educational excellence in America. Every student in Colorado should have the opportunity to participate in this enriching program.

These students' teachers also deserve our respect. They are fine examples of the best in the teaching profession. Their encouragement and dedication has encouraged these students to strive for excellence and be successful in their endeavors. For this reason, I would also like to recognize Emily's teacher, Denise Shaw-Paswaters.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of my constituents, Donald ``Donnie'' Young, a Denver policeman who tragically lost his life in a senseless act of violence earlier this month.

Detective Young was 43 years old, a devoted husband and a father. He was a 12-year veteran of the Denver Police Department and a recipient of the police Medal of Honor. Fellow officers remembered Donnie as a well-liked, friendly man with a care-free attitude who adore his family. He was a running back on the police football team and an avid Harley motorcycle rider.

His tragic death has saddened and will continue to be felt by the entire Denver community. He will no doubt be sorely missed by all, and most of all those who knew and loved him.

On behalf of the House of Representatives, I want to take this time to express my deepest sympathy and heartfelt condolences to Mr. Young's family and friends.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to convey my best wishes to Republic of China President Chen Shui-Bian as he begins the sixth year of his presidency. I would also like to Congratulate President Chen on the re-establishment of diplomatic relations between Taiwan and the nation of Nauru. It is my sincere hope that the United States and Taiwan will soon re-establish formal ties as well.

The election of President Chen to his first term in 2000 was a watershed moment for Taiwan, signifying the first election of an opposition party candidate to that post since the establishment of the ROC nearly a century ago. He was re-elected last year.

Since President Chen came to office, he has maintained his commitment to the advance of democracy. Successful legislative elections, a referendum, a presidential election, and most recently a poll to elect members of a National Assembly that will undertake the monumental task of rewriting Taiwan's decades old constitution, have all been held.

Under President Chen's leadership, Taiwan has continued its progress by improving its status as the Western Pacific's flagship democracy and as one of its premier economic powerhouses. What is perhaps most astonishing, however, is that this has been accomplished in spite of the tense and ominous environment created by China.

Mr. Speaker, Taiwan's robust democratic institutions shine particularly brightly precisely because of their close proximity to the People's Republic of China. The PRC, after all, is a nation where open political discourse and the free exchange of ideas remain largely non- existent. It is this glaring contrast between Taiwan and the People's Republic of China that will continue to be a source of tension-- regardless of how many Panda bears China's leaders might send to Taiwanese zoos, or how many Wax Apples they might purchase from Taiwanese farmers.

I think President Chen summed up the situation rather eloquently when he recently said, ``The greatest obstacle between the two sides of the Strait lies in our democratic disparity--not in our political separation.''

So, Mr. Speaker, I extend my congratulations to President Chen on the last five years of his presidency, and I wish him the best of luck in the future as he works to strengthen the historic and decades-long friendship between our two nations.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor Captain Benjamin T. Lyng for his eight years of military service and leadership to our country. After graduating from American University in Washington, D.C. and completing Georgetown University's ROTC program, Captain Lyng was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the United States Army with the 518th Maintenance Company at Fort Bliss, Texas. He served as a platoon leader and executive officer before he was promoted to First Lieutenant. With the 518th, he led a 35-soldier platoon during a six month deployment to Saudi Arabia during Operation Southern Watch. Later, he served as a Battalion Staff Officer with the First Battalion, First Air Defense Artillery Regiment (1-1 ADA) also at Ft. Bliss. Captain Lyng was promoted to Captain while deployed in Kuwait with the 1-1 ADA.

After graduating first in his class at the U.S. Navy Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) School and fourth in his Officer Advanced Course, Lyng was commissioned to command the 764th EOD Unit based at Fort Carson in Colorado Springs, CO. During his command, his company conducted 165 EOD incidents and over 50 U.S. Secret Service details in support of the President, Vice President, First Lady, Vice First Lady and foreign heads of state without injury.

He also commanded the 764th EOD Unit in Kandahar, Afghanistan during Operation Enduring Freedom, where he and his company conducted over 300 combat EOD incidents, rendered safe over 20 improvised explosive devices (lED's) and improvised rocket attacks, assisted with forensic evidence collection for War Crimes Tribunals and provided technical advisory and security services for Afghanistan's first direct presidential election. In addition to serving his country, Captain Lyng also served the people of Afghanistan by collecting over 2000 pounds of clothing through the charity he founded, ``Children Helping Children.''

During his command in Afghanistan, Captain Lyng earned the Bronze Star Medal for his exceptionally meritorious service while serving as a member of the combined/joint task force-76 in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. Captain Lyng's tactical proficiency and selfless commitment to mission accomplishment in a combat zone greatly contributed to the success of Operation Enduring Freedom.

In addition to his Bronze Star Medal, he has also received an Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal, the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal and the National Defense Service Medal. Captain Lyng received the Explosive Ordnance Disposal Badge and the Air Assault Badge.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to honor Captain Benjamin Lyng for his distinguished career and his contribution to our country. Captain Lyng has left a legacy of leadership and service to his community. Today, I congratulate him on his outstanding performance and meritorious service to the Armed Forces of the United States and wish him well in his future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, last month, leaders and representatives of 65 Iraqi political parties and groups unveiled a petition signed by 2.8 million Iraqis, sharply criticizing neighboring Iran's interference in Iraq and warning of the specter of ``Islamic fundamentalism's stealthy domination'' of their country. Iraqi signatories included ethnic Arabs, Kurds, and Turkmen, from different religious backgrounds, including Sunni Muslims, Shiite Muslims, Christians, and people of other faiths.

The petition offered strong support to the main Iranian opposition group, the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI). The Iraqi statement said that the PMOI was fighting a ``legitimate struggle against an unjust dictatorship'', adding Iran's meddling was the biggest cause of instability in present-day Iraq. They also said the PMOI should be recognized in Iraq as ``a legitimate political movement'' and the rights of its members, under Iraqi and international law, fully respected. A Congressional Briefing was convened by Iran Human Rights and Democracy Caucus on May 10, 2005 to discuss these developments. I ask that the following excerpts of the witnesses' speeches, as follows, be entered into the Record. Furthermore, I ask that it be noted that the remarks of those witnesses connected to the US military are not to be attributed to the U.S. Department of Defense, but taken as personal observations offered by each witness.

Dr. Abdullah Rasheed Al-Jabouri, Former Governor of the Iraqi Province of Diyala: ``I must emphasize that among the 2.8 million Iraqis who signed the petition of support, there are many Kurds, Turkomans, Shiites and Christians. Last June, 50,000 Iraqis attended a major gathering at Ashraf, which I addressed, and in May, 500,000 Iraqis signed a petition calling for the continued presence of the group in Iraq as a legitimate political force. The fact is that by virtue of espousing an anti-fundamentalist Islam, the Mojahedin has emerged as a major bulwark against the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Iraq, and especially the Iranian meddling. They have developed strong ties with the local people and the many tribes in the province. The sheer presence of the Mojahedin (MEK) was providing security to the region because the people in the province have complete trust in them. It is my hope that as we and the U.S. grapple with the problem of insurgency in Iraq, the United States would realize that the Mojahedin are friend of the Iraqi people and a source stability and calm in Iraq and move to remove them from the terrorist list, which would in turn lead to the removal of the restrictions placed on them.''

Lt. Colonel Thomas Cantwell: ``When I moved up into northern Diyala province [in Iraq], the relationship with the Mojahedin with the local community helped me in that regard, I think because most of the local sheiks, understanding as part of the Sunni triangle, weren't exactly trusting of coalition forces but they seemed to have some level of trust with the Mojahedin, and so what I sought to get them to come in to get to speak to them and to understand what their issues were, was their security issues, their infrastructure repair issues, they lack of support issues, and to try and help them understand what our operations were doing and to ensure that they understood why we were under taking our operations. It certainly helped to have that friendly relationship that they had with the Mojahedin because it helped me to break the ice with the local sheiks which I think was important. My mission had several different aspects to it. On the one hand, we had a Geneva Convention responsibility to safeguard the Mojahedin, and this was a real possibility since there was evidence at the camp that the camp had been previously attacked by the Iranian government.''

Captain Vivian Gembara: ``As a soldier and a lawyer I believe it's time to change their (MEK) classification as a terrorist organization. Two years ago we could say clearly or argue that it was in all of our best interest to maintain this label, even despite Special Forces recommendations out of natural weariness. Now two years have passed and I think it's crucial that we acknowledge that the situation has changed, and we need to reassess. The potential benefits of working together definitely overshadow previous concerns or hesitations that we had. Next of course is identifying your allies, and over two years have passed now since I met with the MEK but my question is still the same and hasn't changed at all. It's basically why we can't take maximum use of the assets and potentials of this ally here? ''

Dr. Kenneth Katzman: ``The broader regional effects of the pro- Iranian tilt of the new Iraqi government are hard to discern. It is likely that the new Iraqi government might support Iran against international criticism of Iran's growing nuclear program. Iraq might move closer to Iranian positions on the Arab-Israeli peace process. It is also likely that the Shiite-dominated new government of Iraq will support other Shiite movements in the region, such as in Bahrain, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. Some commentators say Iraq's new leaders are likely to remain wary of Iran exercising substantial influence in Iraq. They note that most Iraqi Shiites generally stayed loyal to the Sunni- dominated Iraqi regime during the Iran-Iraq war. Most Iraqi Shiites appear not to want a cleric-run Islamic regime.''

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would prevent State and local governments who refuse to share information with Federal immigration authorities from being able to obtain Federal funds under this act. These so-called ``sanctuary'' policies are not only misguided and dangerous; they are also illegal.

Section 642(a) of the illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 already makes it illegal for State and local governments to prevent their police from interrupting the free exchange of information between State and local police and Federal immigration enforcement authorities. Nonetheless, many local governments adopt policies that explicitly prevent their police officers from cooperating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

When local governments refuse to share information with Federal immigration authorities, police departments often stop and/or arrest criminal aliens time and again, only to release them without ever having checked their immigration status. As a result, instead of being deported, these aliens move on to commit other crimes oftentimes.

Earlier this month in Colorado, for example, one Denver policeman was killed and another severely wounded by an illegal alien who had come into contact with police in Denver at least three times prior to the incident. He remains at large today.

Another illegal alien in the Denver area who is now awaiting trial for a hit-and-run killing of a man, and he had been arrested, by the way, six times since 1996 and even spent time in jail in Boulder, Colorado, a sanctuary city, by the way; yet, because cooperation between police departments and Immigration and Customs Enforcement was restricted, he was never reported. He goes on trial in July.

The city of Denver, like many other cities, has a sanctuary policy that violates Federal law. Their police manual explicitly prohibits officers from initiating actions whose objective is to ``discover the immigration status of a person.'' The manual also prohibits police from detaining or taking any enforcement action against a person ``solely because he or she is suspected of being an undocumented immigrant.''

These two components of city policy not only prohibit local police from communicating with immigration authorities as required by Federal law, the policy prohibits them from obtaining basic information that might be central to their investigation. The policy sends a clear message to local police when they encounter illegal aliens: don't ask, don't tell. That kind of policy violates both the letter and intent of the 1996 law.

My amendment would put an end to this practice by withholding Federal funds from States and localities that have made an affirmative choice to violate Federal law. In essence, the amendment simply says that if you make a choice to violate Federal law, then you are making a choice to forego Federal funds. It is a choice I think that few cities are willing to make.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, at the Federal level a determination would be made as to whether or not a city has the policies that we have just identified; and if so, then that city would be prohibited from obtaining Federal funds under this act.

The Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security. It is really not up to me to make that decision.

Many of these policies are on record; in fact, all of them are on record throughout the country. They are easily obtainable and observable.

Mr. Chairman, if they can read, they can make the judgment.

Well, they are certainly, again, available to every single person in the Department of Justice and Homeland Security because they are printed. These are all laws and/or executive orders. This requires no new determination.

Absolutely.

Yes, sir.

Well, as I have just explained, in city after city, and, in fact, not too long ago if memory serves me right, the State of Maine actually declared itself to be a sanctuary State. These are not things that are hidden from anybody. These are, in fact, on the books in States in their localities to which we refer. The stuff I used here came right out of the Denver police manual. These are not hidden from anybody.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, perhaps the gentleman's concern goes back to the law.

What I am talking about is adding a penalty to the law. The law is on the books; I am not creating law here. The law is a Federal law; it was passed in 1996. The only thing we are doing is adding some sort of penalty to the violation of the law. So the fact that we have had it now for almost 10 years, it seems to me that we are not creating any new problem for any of these departments, and if the gentleman is concerned about the law itself, then that is where he should perhaps address his concerns.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, once again, we are not expanding the law in any way, shape, or form. We are simply applying a penalty. That does not expand the law.

Offered By: Mr. Tancredo

Amendment No. 1: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Sec. 536. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made

available in this Act may be used in contravention of section

642(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant

Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1373(a)).