Floor Statements

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

Mr. Chairman, I was over in my office signing letters, and I heard the discussion on the floor about Ramos and Compean, and I heard what the great gentleman from West Virginia had to say. He talked about procedures and how, really, this would be better off left to the courts in some other avenue.

But this is not about procedure. It's not about some rules and regulations that we must adhere to over what is just. What is just in this case is to set Ramos and Compean free.

This is an issue of what's right for the United States of America. The morale of our Border Patrol has had a truck driven through it by those who have prosecuted and persecuted Ramos and Compean. They deserve no more prosecution. They deserve no more persecution. They need to be set free and enhance the morale of our Border Patrol and enhance the security and integrity of the United States of America.

This is an issue about our borders. If you believe that our borders should be secure, and if you believe that those who enforce our borders should be stood up for, you need to vote ``yes'' for this amendment.

I ask you to vote for our country. Vote for our sovereignty, vote for our borders and vote ``yes'' for the Poe-Hunter-Tancredo amendment.

Offered By: Mr. Goode

Amendment No. 36: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

I want to thank and salute the gentleman from Mississippi for focusing on this issue.

Since the 1800s, In God We Trust has appeared on much of our money. It was even on the two-cent piece that was popular only for a few years in the 1860s.

I've had citizens come up to me and show me the penny, the nickel, the dime, the half dollar and they pull out the new dollar coin and say, ``In God We Trust is not in a prominent place.'' It is on the edge of a coin. And I fully support the effort to take it off the edge and put it on the front.

I would point out having it on the edge or side of the coin has led to numerous mint errors. I have read some accounts that as many as 30,000 dollars do not have the etching on the side of In God We Trust or E Pluribus Unum. And then there have been instances where only the side was punched and that, of course, makes for a highly collectible item. But we need to focus on keeping In God We Trust in a prominent place. I hope it would be the pleasure of this body to support the amendment of the gentleman from Mississippi and put In God We Trust back where it belongs.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, under Federal law, and the law of most States, legal marriage is the union between a man and a woman. The U.S. House of Representatives should be on record supporting traditional marriage between a man and a woman and opposing alternative definitions of marriage.

Federal tax dollars are not used to extend employment benefits to domestic partners of Federal employees, and D.C. should not enjoy an exception to the rule.

Since 1992, Congress has prohibited the use of Federal funds from being used to implement the D.C. Domestic Partners Law. And I hope it will be the privilege of this body to adopt this amendment and keep a 15-year tradition in place.

I yield 2 minutes of my time to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Pitts).

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

Mr. Chairman, based on what the gentleman from New York said, I hope it would be the privilege of this body to vote ``yes'' for this amendment to uphold traditional marriage.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Goode

Amendment No. 32: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Goode

Amendment No. 33: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

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

Mr. Chairman, in talking today about the Homeland Security Appropriations measure, I would like to echo what the gentleman from Texas was referring to. In the 2006 and 2005 calendar

years, we did finish the appropriations measures, all 13 of them, or 10 of them, by July 4. We worked diligently. The House got through with its work on these appropriations bills.

There is probably no more important bill for the security of our homeland than this appropriations measure. There are some positive aspects in it, but the spending in it is mighty high.

It is my understanding that the gentlelady from Tennessee will be offering an amendment that focuses on one area that I feel needs additional expenditures of money, and that is with our secure border, the need for fencing, the need for technology there that will prevent the flood of illegals from coming into this country.

The focus of this legislation as a primary topic should be keeping illegal aliens out of this country. During the past several weeks, I have had more calls on that topic than any other measure. And I know a number of the calls, letters, e-mails and faxes were due to the other body's consideration of something called Comprehensive Immigration Reform, which was certainly a misnomer. It was nothing but amnesty, pure and simple, and the overwhelming majority of communications with my office are in opposition to any type of amnesty. They want a fence erected to keep illegal immigrants out.

You know, when we talk about earmarks, in my view there are some good earmarks and there are some bad earmarks. I'm sure that I have a perspective of my district. I like congressionally directed funding for items that benefit the 5th District of Virginia. And I'm sure if you went around the country, others would take a similar approach.

Some would have a policy of no earmarks at all. And let me say, if I get to define earmarks, it would be fine with me if we cut out earmarks right across the board. But some broad, general spending programs, in my view, could also be designated as earmarks. And if we were to follow the approach of the Representative from Texas and Arizona of eliminating all earmarks totally, there would be, in my view, less Federal spending.

There has been a lot of talk about transparency and the need for that with regard to earmarks. One of the things that would get more media attention, more newspaper focus, more television looking at the individual, congressionally directed spending requests would be if they were talked about, debated and voted on in committee. And then, when they came to the floor, those individuals, whether they are on the Democratic side of the aisle or the Republican side of the aisle, they could stand up and focus on these individual items and say whether they wanted them or whether they wanted to introduce amendments to strike them and remove them from the bill.

Those who advocate transparency, in my view would do well to follow a policy of putting in earmarks at the committee level, and then having them debated here on the floor.

I hope that as the appropriations process goes forward with other items of legislation beside homeland security, that we can follow that rule so that we would get much greater attention and focus and, in my view, transparency on earmarks.

In closing, I want to reiterate my support for the Blackburn amendment that will increase funding for the fence and for border security, and take it from certain other administrative areas in the Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Roanoke for arranging this special order. I rise tonight to pay homage to Dr. Jerry Falwell, whose funeral and visitation drew tens of thousands to Lynchburg, Virginia, this past weekend and today.

Jerry Falwell was a native of Lynchburg, which is next to the Fifth District, which I have the honor of representing. A devout Christian, Dr. Falwell began his first church 51 years ago, with 35 parishioners. In 3 years the congregation had grown to 800. During part of this period, Dr. Falwell ran buses throughout this region and south to the North Carolina line to bring persons to services.

Today, Thomas Road Baptist Church welcomes thousands to its sanctuary and all related services. The services and activities offered by Thomas Road are important to citizens of Lynchburg and to many nearby counties, including Campbell and Bedford and Appomattox, which are in the Fifth District. His broadcast ministry has touched millions all around the globe.

Dr. Falwell remarked in an interview 2 years ago that his mission remained the same, to train young champions for Christ. That training has extended well beyond the church.

Having an equally important impact on this area of Central Virginia is Liberty University. It is the product of Dr. Falwell's decision to launch Liberty Baptist College in 1971. This school has grown into a major university with an enrollment in excess of 10,000.

And projections are its distance-learning programs may reach 25,000 students in a few years. It offers 71 majors and specializations and boasts a growing law school. Liberty University is a significant contributor to the economy of Lynchburg and the surrounding area.

And while Thomas Road Baptist Church and Liberty University may be considered the pillars of a legacy that will endure for generations, an equally important contribution was Dr. Falwell's determined spirit and unrelenting belief that Christians should stand forth proudly and be integral parts of all of American life.

To that end he urged all to be involved politically and to press those who would seek elective office to subscribe to strong moral principles as the guiding light of this Nation. Today we hear the candidates for national office professing their faith and its importance in their lives. This is due, in no small measure, to the trail blazed by Dr. Jerry Falwell.

To thousands in central Virginia, he was simply known as Jerry, and those individuals will sadly miss their friend, pastor, and mentor.

To his wife, Macel; and his children, Jerry Jr., Jonathan, and Jeanie; and to all in the Falwell family, my heartfelt sympathies are extended, and may God bless them during this time of sorrow.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. I was surprised and chagrined when I looked over the long list of 50 amendments and saw missing from that list the Troops on the Border amendment which had been made in order for the 10 past years.

As you may recall, Troops on the Border would authorize our Armed Forces to combat illegal immigration, drug smugglers and potential terrorists. It would be optional for the troops to be used, but it would be a message to illegal aliens, those involved in the illegal drug trade, and those who would wreak harm on our country that we would use those troops where necessary to defend our borders.

Let me tell you just a minute about the history of this amendment. Between 1997 and 2001, it was offered five times by a Democrat and adopted by this body. I have had the honor for the past 5 years to offer the amendment, and it was adopted by the body each of those 5 years.

This bill would be much stronger and would send a message that we are serious about border security if this amendment had been made in order. I hope we will reject the rule for its failure to stand up for the integrity of our border.

Mr. Speaker, on April 16, 2007, the news from Virginia Tech and Blacksburg grew worse as the day progressed, and as evening fell the number of students and faculty killed reached 33. Included in that number was the apparent assassin, a fellow student who came to this country from South Korea at an early age. The death toll of 33 makes the tragedy at Virginia Tech one of the deadliest at educational institutions in the history of the United States.

Words cannot express the sorrow and hurt that the families of the victims are experiencing. We cannot bring these mostly young men and women back to the classroom, to the sidewalks of Blacksburg or to their families and loved ones. But we can always remember and know that their spirit, energy and enthusiasm in making Virginia Tech one of the finest institutions of higher education in the world will never die and will live in our memories forever.

At yesterday's convocation at Cassell Auditorium in the heart of the Virginia Tech campus, those gathered heard President Bush, heard the Governor of Virginia, heard ministers of various religions around the globe, and heard leaders of the Tech community. In a spontaneous happening towards the end of the program, one gentleman stood forth and led in the Lord's Prayer as it was prayed in unison by thousands of students, families, government leaders and others in the Virginia Tech community.

May God bless the families of the deceased, the students at the institution, Virginia Tech, and our country in this time of sorrow.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

I rise in opposition to the supplemental as it stands now. There are multiple reasons for opposing this measure. The first reason is that in my view we overly tie the hands of our Commander in Chief and those in the field who are leading our troops.

We cannot have a situation where this body micromanages what our Armed Forces are doing. It is a bad precedent, and I hope that we do not set it with a vote on this tomorrow.

A second reason for opposing this measure is some of the additional added spending. I fully support spending for our Armed Forces and for our veterans, and I am pleased with the work of the committee in plussing up funds for our troops and for our veterans for things that they need. But in some other areas, such as $25 million for spinach, which has been mentioned before, it may be needed but that should be done through the regular appropriations process.

We have an appropriations subcommittee that deals with foreign aid. That subcommittee can deal with the issue of whether Liberia should get additional funding. We have added too much to this bill when you add almost $25 million to an emergency military supplemental.

Thank you, Mr. Bilbray.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say thanks, first, to you, as the Chair of the Immigration Reform Caucus, and to your predecessor, Tom Tancredo of Colorado, for your relentless efforts to secure our Nation and make our country safer by enhancing border security and by reducing magnets that are attractions to illegals. One magnet has been discussed just by the previous speakers. Mrs. Blackburn of Tennessee and Mr. Poe of Texas have discussed the legislation that will, hopefully, block companies like Bank of America from issuing credit cards to illegal aliens. That is a magnet for them to come here and get an American credit card.

There are many other magnets that attract millions to come across our borders to avoid the law and to enter this country illegally. Amnesty is a huge magnet. Amnesty means that if you get here and stay here a little while, we are going to let you stay. We are going to give you a blue card, a red card or a green card, and we are going to give you a glidepath to citizenship. Amnesty is probably the worst magnet of all. It is estimated that between 12 and 20 million persons are here illegally already. And they are placing a financial burden on the educational and social services of localities and states.

Also, many illegals are criminals, and they are filling local jails, State prisons, and placing a burden on our law enforcement system. Even in a State like Virginia, which is not adjacent to our southern border, you can talk with local law enforcement officials and they can tell you about the number of persons that they believe to be illegal going through the criminal justice system is costing the taxpayers of the localities of the Fifth District and the citizens of the State of Virginia millions of dollars.

I listened to the President's State of the Union message. I was happy when he said that we needed to have our borders more secure, but I was not happy, very much so, about his proposal that would grant amnesty to illegals. Paying a fine for breaking immigration laws of the United States and after a few years being given an opportunity to become a citizen is amnesty any way you slice it. And I don't care what others say about legalization or regularization, they are euphemisms for amnesty.

Once the illegals become citizens, they have the right to petition to bring family members into the United States. And that is not just son, daughter, father, mother, it extends beyond that, it is called chain migration. If you give amnesty to 12 million illegals, that is going to be 60 million in less than half a decade. A huge burden on the United States. And it is a reward for those who broke the law.

Giving a glidepath to citizenship in the mid-1980s was tried. It was an amnesty then. It failed. It didn't stop the flow, we had more. It served as a lure for more to come across our borders. And there is reason to believe that if we do it again, millions upon millions will follow suit because they will say in the 1980s, if we worked our way across, just walked across one night, maybe with a guide, maybe without a guide, and we stayed there a few years, they gave us amnesty. And you know what? In the nineties more just came across the border, that border that has very little fencing along it. They just came in, and they got them amnesty then. And they are counting on another one in this decade.

If we want to stop a big magnet for illegal immigration, we will have a firm and signed policy of no amnesty, no matter how euphemistic you may make the words ``amnesty'' sound.

And Mr. Bilbray is from San Diego. The fence between San Diego and Mexico is working. It is not a simple barbed-wire fence, it is not a simple woven-wire fence, it is a three-layer fence with two rows, and it is a stopper. I hear those on the other side and many in this body say, you know, we really don't need a fence, we can do some other things; a fence won't work. Let me tell you, the opponents of the fence don't like it because it will do the job. I don't think anyone yet has made it across the fence in San Diego by climbing the first fence, going across the road, climbing the huge barrier fence in the middle, going across the next road and then crossing the third fence. And very few, if any, tunnelists have been able to make it so far.

So the magnet of amnesty is one that needs to be rejected. And if this body and the body on the other side on our executive branch were to come out four-square, forthrightly against amnesty in any shape or form, many of those illegally in the country now would walk back just like they walked in because they would know that there was no hope of getting that special colored card or getting citizenship. They would know that the only way you get to the United States is to play by the rules. You go back to your home country, and you don't jump in front of those that are going through the process, that are having background checks, that are having their criminal records evaluated so they wouldn't have any. Their health records and their health checks would be undertaken, interviews would be given, they would be playing by the rules.

Another magnet that we must fix is the anchor baby. The United States, unlike most countries of the western world, provides for the children born of persons illegally in this country with citizenship. The mother and father can come here illegally, can be expecting and have a baby across the border in the United States, that baby is an automatic citizen. And if they go to one of the hospitals, and most likely because they are without assets, will be getting free treatment at the expense of the taxpaying citizens of the United States of America. Anchor babies are a huge magnet.

If we want to stop the invasion of illegal aliens into this country, we must do away with the magnets. And we have talked about three of the magnets here tonight. If we want to make America sound financially, reduce the deficit, save money, make our country safer and make our borders secure, we need to say no amnesty, no credit card and no anchor babies. Let's do the right thing, let's save America.

Madam Speaker, it is an honor to be here with Mr. King; I appreciate the time he has allotted to me.

I want to thank him for his hard work in combating illegal immigration and the many problems that such brings to our country. I know today he had a forum over at the Woodrow Wilson Institute and had to slug it out with others who did not concur with his views.

Judge Carter was here. I also want to thank him for his hard work on this issue, and for recognizing the need to secure our borders.

First, I wish to commend the Mayor and Council of Hazelton, Pennsylvania for their courageous stand in defending the sanctity of Hazelton, the well-being of its citizens, and the integrity of the rule of law. The courage of this community should spur this Congress to be resolute in standing for the security of our Nation.

By setting forth the city's determination to impose penalties of those who rent to illegal aliens and requiring employers to verify the legal work status of potential workers, the leadership of Hazelton is speaking for a majority of Americans who know and believe that strict measures must be employed if we are to secure jobs for workers who are here legally, if we are to preserve the traditional culture of our Nation, and if we are to be protected from criminal illegal aliens.

Further, Hazelton's action to stipulate English as their official language is a step that this Congress should also take in order to prevent our Nation from becoming divided into splinter groups that hunker down in the assertion of their individuality rather than becoming a part of a great melting pot that Americans have cherished for over two centuries.

Hazelton is now defending itself against the legal challenges of the ACLU and others. Hazelton should know that it is supported by millions of Americans who know that its cause is just.

I would also like to mention, Madam Speaker, the movie ``Borders,'' which was showing in the Cannon Office Building last week. It is produced by Chris and Lisa Burgard. Lisa hails from Pittsylvania County, which is in the Fifth District of Virginia. We were honored to have in attendance Mr. and Mrs. Robert Duvall and Mr. Ron Maxwell, who starred and directed ``Gods and Generals.'' We also had some Members of Congress to witness this film. Hopefully this film will be showing in theaters across the country in the near future. It illustrates the need for a secure fence along our southern borders.

Madam Speaker, it is an honor to receive time from someone who served our Nation in the finest way and who knows firsthand how hurtful a resolution such as this can be to those in theater.

We are in the middle of a 4-day marathon here. While I cannot say that I agree with all of the actions of the President in dealing with Iraq, I will not be supporting H. Con. Res. 63. The eyes of the world are upon this House, and there will be commentary from the Middle East to the streets of small-town America about what we do here over this 4- day period, even though this resolution does not carry the weight of law.

When the commentary begins in the Middle East, in no way do I want to comfort and encourage the radical Muslims who want to destroy our country and who want to wipe the so-called infidels like myself and many of you from the face of the Earth. In no way do I want to aid and assist the Islamic jihadists who want the green flag of the crescent and star to wave over the Capitol of the United States and over the White House of this country. I fear that radical Muslims who want to control the Middle East and ultimately the world would love to see ``In God We Trust'' stricken from our money and replaced with ``In Mohammed We Trust.''

I am not sure that reinforcing the existing troops by 20,000 will save us from the jihadists, and I am not sure it will prevent chaos in Iraq. I do hope that these additional forces will stabilize Baghdad and will lead to democracy and a tolerance of divergent views and religions in Iraq. Unfortunately, the history of that region does not bode well for such conclusions.

In my view, the United States by removing Saddam Hussein has provided a great opportunity for Iraq to be a showcase for tolerance and understanding. Perhaps one day Iraq may want to adopt something like the first amendment of our country. That may only be an optimistic hope.

I hope my fears and the fears of others about chaos and calamity prove false. If the Shiite and Sunni controversy escalates and the situation worsens, we could be faced with a clamor to admit thousands and perhaps millions into this country. I call on the President and our Secretary of State to not allow a mass immigration into this country with the dangers and pitfalls that it could bring to our safety and security. The terrorists would surely enter into this country in such a way as the 9/11 terrorists swam around in a sea of illegal immigration before we were struck on September 11.

Let us vote ``no'' and let us forestall, if not prevent, calamity.

Mr. Speaker, on June 29, 2004, the United States Social Security Commissioner and the Director General of the Mexican Social Security Institute entered into a Social Security totalization agreement between Mexico and the United States.

The U.S. has totalization agreements with 20 other countries. However, all of these, except Canada, are with countries a substantial distance away. As a result, they involve relatively few workers and have little or no impact on illegal immigration. Unfortunately, the Mexican totalization agreement will be a huge incentive for increased illegal immigration.

Under this agreement, if there is amnesty and a glide path to citizenship, illegal aliens will be able to qualify their work in the United States for Social Security funds. This would result in a huge increase in Social Security costs for the United States at a time when we are wrestling with reforming that system.

We need to stop the totalization agreement and preserve Social Security.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4846, which authorizes a grant for contributions toward the establishment of the Woodrow Wilson Presidential Library in Staunton, Virginia.

Thomas Woodrow Wilson was born in Staunton, Virginia on December 28, 1856. He later lived in Charlottesville, Virginia while studying law at the University of Virginia. When elected President of the United States in 1912, Wilson became the eighth person born in Virginia to ascend to the Presidency, more than any other state in the nation.

As President, Wilson promoted numerous social and economic reforms including the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

H.R. 4846 authorizes a matching grant program to establish the Wilson Library at the President's birthplace in Staunton. I have had the pleasure of visiting the museum there on many occasions and my nephew, Brett, especially enjoyed seeing the fully restored Pierce-Arrow limousine that was used to transport President Wilson from New York to Washington upon his return from France in 1919 after negotiating the Treaty of Versailles.

I commend the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Goodlatte, for this legislation and urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4846.