Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to announce that the National Register of Big Trees from the conservation group American Forests has formally given the crown of the Nation's largest white oak tree, a quercus alba, to the oak tree in front of Bothwick Hall in Brunswick County, Virginia. The national champion oak is 86 feet high, with a circumference of 26 feet, and a crown spread of 116 feet.

The great white oak belongs to George and Mary Robinson from Brunswick County, which I am proud to represent. Beautiful and historic Brunswick County is the birthplace of the world-famous Brunswick stew and is now home to the Nation's largest white oak tree.

I am also proud to support H.R. 1775, legislation sponsored by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), my friend and fellow Virginian, which would designate the oak tree as the national tree of the United States.

The meaningful history of the oak and magnificent trees such as that of Mr. and Mrs. Robinson make the oak the logical choice for the national tree. Long may the great Brunswick County white oak stand.

Mr. Speaker, as we approach Memorial Day, I rise today to salute two members of the military from the Fifth District of Virginia, who gave their lives in service to the United States in the war on terrorism.

LTC William R. Watkins III, lived in Halifax County, and SGT Michael Dooley lived in Bedford County. Both of these men loved this Nation and served bravely in Iraq in the war against terrorism. Their untimely deaths in the spring of 2003 came as they defended the freedoms that we cherish.

Because Lieutenant Colonel Watkins and Sergeant Dooley joined their fellow soldiers in removing the Taliban and Saddam Hussein from power, the terrorists no longer have Afghanistan and Iraq from which they can operate with impunity and with statesponsored support to plot, plan, and mastermind another event like September 11 in our country.

Because of the bravery of Lieutenant Colonel Watkins and Sergeant Dooley and the other hundreds of men and women who have given their lives, the United States and much of the World is safer, and we thank all of those who are in uniform this Memorial Day.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. This amendment is a very simple amendment that would authorize the Secretary of Defense to assign members of our Armed Forces to assist the Department of Homeland Security in controlling and patrolling our borders. If troops were needed, they could be of significant assistance to prevent the infiltration of terrorists, drug traffickers, and illegal aliens, and could prevent the entry of weapons of mass destruction into our country.

I emphasize that this is optional, but it would be available with this amendment and would put to rest any case law or any arguments to the contrary about the ability of the executive branch to utilize troops on our border.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones), a fighter for veterans and soldiers.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton), the chairman of the Committee on Armed Services Subcommittee on Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to announce the appointment of Cadet Carter Lane Berry to Chief Petty Officer of the United States Naval Sea Cadet Corps. This appointment follows much work and dedication to this youth program, including the completion of regulation Navy courses from basic military regulations through Chief Petty Officer and the accrual of many months of training activity throughout this country and the world throughout his 3 years of service. The level of CPO with the United States Navy Sea Cadet Corps is equivalent to reaching the level of Eagle Scout with the Boy Scouts of America.

CPO Berry resides in Palmyra, Virginia, and I commend and salute him on this significant achievement.

Mr. Speaker, Prince Edward County is marking the 250th anniversary of its founding on January 1, 1754, by act of the Virginia General Assembly. Prince Edward County played a vital role in the early days of the history of this Nation as an agricultural and major shipping distribution center.

Prince Edward County is the home to two premier institutions of higher learning, Hampden-Sydney College and Longwood University. Prince Edward County counts among its most honored natives two men who held governorships of other States, Henry Watkins Allen in Louisiana and Sterling Price in Missouri. Also, General Joseph E. Johnston of the Confederate Army is a native son as well as civil rights leader Dr. Vernon Johns; J. B. Fuqua, philanthropist; and the first African American United States Senator, Blanche K. Bruce; as well as Lieutenant General Sam V. Wilson, former president of Hampden-Sydney College.

Prince Edward County has also been called home by such noted persons as Virginia Governor Phillip McKinney; civil rights leader Reverend L. Francis Griffin; president of Tuskegee Institute, Robert Russa Moton; and medical researcher D. Walter Reed.

Prince Edward County also played a pivotal role in the civil rights movement of the 1950s as part of the Brown v. Board of Education suit.

In closing, I salute the citizens of Prince Edward County in recognition of their 250th anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, first, I want to salute coach the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) and express my appreciation to him on his leadership on the Rural Veterans Access to Health Care legislation.

A concern that I have with veterans health care is the lack of access rural veterans experience in seeking treatment at a VA facility. I represent a largely rural area of Virginia in which over 60,000 veterans reside. In the Commonwealth of Virginia, over 96,000 veterans were treated last year at a VA facility. There are only three VA medical centers located in Virginia to serve these deserving and eligible veterans. The VA has worked hard to expand their services, and they have opened three community-based outpatient clinics, four vet centers, and six mental health satellite clinics throughout the State. Unfortunately, more is needed.

The Salem, Virginia VA Medical Center, serving southwest Virginia has identified the lack of access to care for rural veterans as a big challenge that it faces. They provide services for at least 11,000 enrollees in my district alone each year. It is essential that more community-based outpatient clinics be established to accommodate our Nation's veterans living in rural and outlying communities.

I am very concerned that the proposed increase for veterans health care in the fiscal year 2005 budget is only $1.2 billion over the amount enacted in 2004. It is proposed that we allow $29.7 billion to meet the medical care needs of the over 4.2 million people treated in VA health care facilities each year across the country.

I believe that we need to take care of our veterans' needs first before we send our money overseas to help foreign countries. Veterans deserve the benefit of full funding of their health care system. I believe, along with a number of my colleagues, that we need to reduce the amount for international affairs in the concurrent budget resolution and increase the funding for veterans benefits and services by at least $3 billion so that we can improve veterans' health care. I repeat, decrease foreign aid by at least $3 billion and increase veterans health care by at least $3 billion.

In fact, I would gladly support increasing VA health care by $4 billion or $5 billion. I have had a great deal of contact with many of our veterans over the last few months, and the sentiment among them is that their health care is being shortchanged. Over the years, we have supplied billions in foreign aid to countries like Peru and Iraq. We gave them millions upon millions of dollars. Also Ethiopia, South Africa, Mexico, Indonesia, to name only a few.

In fiscal year 2005, the proposed budget for international affairs will increase discretionary spending to $31.5 billion, a 7.5 percent increase from fiscal year 2004, and approximately two-thirds of that goes to foreign aid.

I believe that we must carefully evaluate and prioritize our funds. We have a responsibility to support our veterans and to provide them with the best possible health care and to ensure that veterans have access to that care. We need to start prioritizing our needs as a Nation above those of foreign countries which have not always stood by us. The veterans have stood by us. They have carried the fight for us. They have made America great. We need to fund them.

Mr. Speaker, we do not need to fund the foreign countries that have not stood by us. I will not read the whole list, but there is a long list of recipients of foreign aid, and they have not been at our side recently, and have often not been at our side in the past. Let us fund veterans and not fund foreign countries who have not helped us.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my gratitude to U.S. Border Control and the thousands of Americans from coast to coast who have taken the time and the trouble to send e-mails, letters, postcards and petitions to Congress urging their Representatives and Senators to support my legislation to authorize the Secretary of Defense to assign members of our Armed Forces to assist the Department of Homeland Security in the performance of border protection duties.

Clearly, the need for such assistance has never been greater. Every year our border crisis worsens. First it was drugs, then disease, then it was illegal aliens crossing by the hundreds, and now by the millions. And now terrorists could be crossing our borders, determined to rain death and destruction upon us.

If there were ever a time for the United States to put troops on the border, this is it. We are fighting enemies who have already brought the battle to our shores and are threatening to do it again. It makes no sense to have thousands of troops guarding borders throughout the world while our own borders are wide open and undefended in a time of war.

According to U.S. Border Control, every recent survey conducted shows the vast majority of Americans support allowing troops on the border. Constituents are beginning to question how we can claim to be serious about combating issues like drug smuggling, people smuggling and terrorism when it was unable to take such a simple and non-intrusive step as putting troops on the border. Last year the House adopted the amendment that would authorize the troops on our borders. Unfortunately, it did not survive conference. I hope this year we will be able to see it survive the entire legislative process.

I urge my colleagues to join in giving the executive branch the authority it needs to assign members of our Armed Forces to assist Homeland Security in securing our borders from these threats to our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of tobacco buyout legislation. The consensus measure is H.R. 3160. We need to eliminate the Federal quota program. If we do such, American tobacco will be more competitive with foreign tobacco. A buyout would end the tobacco quota system; and a number of tobacco farmers, particularly the older ones, will cease to grow tobacco.

Many quota holders and growers have invested a considerable amount of money in the current tobacco program over the years. They deserve compensation for their loss, and that compensation can come from tobacco.

If we adopt legislation for a tobacco buyout, it will greatly benefit south Virginia, southwest Virginia, much of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, Kentucky, and several other States.

I hope we can see positive action on tobacco buyout legislation soon.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

My amendment would eliminate funding for reimbursement to the United Nations for peacekeeping in Liberia and the United States foreign assistance to Liberia and Sudan. Neither account was included in the President's original request; nor, would I submit, are they relevant to Iraq and Afghanistan.

Let me be clear. The main purpose of this supplemental is Iraq, not Liberia; $245 million for U.N. peacekeeping in Liberia is an item on the State Department's wish list. It should be considered in the course of normal appropriations in fiscal year 2005. It should not be considered here as part of an emergency to the Iraq supplemental.

I also fear that the $100 million for Sudan and Liberia will not be utilized in a way that will be to the best interest of the United States. I am fearful that in the end that will not bring the peace and the hope for a good Liberia and good Sudan. So I hope it would be the pleasure of this body to adopt my amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, if I thought $345 million would bring peace for some time to Liberia and Sudan, I would be for it. We poured millions into Iran when the Shah was there, and we said we would have peace forever in Iran. Such did not work out. In Afghanistan we poured in tens of millions of dollars for a number of years, and what resulted? The Taliban. Then back in the 1950s and the 1960s, we poured multimillions of dollars into South Vietnam, propping up Diem, and we said that would bring peace inside Vietnam. All of that money went down the drain. If the Members want to pour more money down the drain, vote against my amendment; and they can pour $345 million down the drain.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) for his persistence on the illegal immigration issue. He has brought his message to this body and to outside this body. Without his leadership, I do not think as many in this country would be aware of the huge cost that illegal immigration places on the taxpayers of the United States.

I have heard people in this body and in this Chamber and in the halls of the committee rooms talk about the deficit. Well, one way we can deal with the deficit is clamp down on illegal immigration. If we put a halt to that, there would be less hospital charges to Medicaid that our States and that the Federal Government would have to match; there would be fewer demands on our social service system; fewer demands on our food stamp system; fewer demands on an array of other services.

Also, we would not have to deal with the situations that occurred a few weeks ago with the tragedy of 18 or 19 persons dying in an overheated, piled-up trailer. We could save money in this country and have less of a deficit if we could halt illegal immigration.

But my reason for being here tonight, and I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado for yielding to me, I wanted to relate an example of how our policies with the United States Treasury Department, coupled with the views of the Mexican Government, cost us the United States taxpayers' funds.

There was a gentleman from Mexico named Mr. Gamez. He came to my office four times trying to find out where the Mexican identification cards were for his sister, for his mother, and for his father. He had a green card and he was legally in the country, a very nice person.

I had the opportunity to talk with him about why he so critically needed these Mexican identification cards right away. This was in April, at the time that taxes were due. He was filling out his income tax returns. He needed these cards so that he could send them to the United States Treasury in an application process for an individual taxpayer identification number. They have a little form you fill out, a blank for the type of identification. This says country/State of the issuing ID, the ID number, the expiration date.

He wanted the Mexican ID cards to get him a U.S. taxpayer identification number. He lived in the United States; but his father lived in Mexico, his mother lived in Mexico, and his sister lived in Mexico.

He said, I do not have any children, but I am helping my mother, I am helping my father, and I am helping my sister. He wanted to get the taxpayer, the U.S. taxpayer identification number using the Mexican ID number so he could claim them as dependents.

I said, well the way I look at that is what you are doing, you are taking money out of the United States at the expense of the taxpayers, because I have heard a number of workers in my area complain that those with green cards have a much bigger check than those who are natives of the United States of America and have dependents that live in their homes, if they have them, and we can readily ascertain how many dependents they have.

I noticed on the forms with the sister's name on it, with the mother's name on it, with the father's name on it, they were listed as a Rocky Mount, Virginia, address. I said, are they living here in Rocky Mount with you? Oh,

no, they are living in Mexico. But I can apply for these numbers and then I can count them as a dependent, and then there will not be any taxes withheld out of my check, and I will not have to pay any income taxes.

I said, How did you learn about all of this? He said, well, the Mexican officials were schooling me on it. He did not use the word ``schooling.'' ``Schooling'' is a parochial term used in Franklin County. It is how one gets an education on how to get yourself more money.

That is what he was doing. He wanted to get those Mexican IDs to get his U.S. taxpayer identification number so he could put their names on his 1040 form and get back a refund. I do not know how much he was making, certainly it would depend on those factors, but he would be able to claim three additional dependents in addition to himself.

He said the Mexican officials were helping him. They told him to come and see me. Maybe they just said that blanket, not me personally, but go see your Member of Congress if you need to get your ID cards. So he came to the office four times before I had the opportunity to personally meet with him.

But I questioned whether this was valid under the United States Tax Code, so I had a meeting in my office with the persons from the IRS. As I understood what they said, what he was doing is valid under the U.S. Tax Code and valid under our IRS rules and regulations. This is an example of how our money is being shifted to another country. I really wonder whether we should be encouraging situations like this. I think not.

I have heard tonight before the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and the other gentleman from Colorado had their chance to speak how bad the tax cut bill was that passed.

I got to thinking, you know, what if there were not an adult sister, an adult mother, and an adult father, but it was three children. If the bill like the complaints were made had passed, even though this gentleman would have owed no U.S. income tax, did not owe any, did not pay any, we would be sending him a check in the mail if their position prevailed; a further drain on the United States Treasury, a further drain on the United States economy.

I think we need to take a close look before we buy into this argument of let us make the child tax credit refundable, because George Bush and those of us who voted for the previous tax cuts did such a good job with the current child tax credit that many of those earning between $10,000 and $26,000 are not paying any Federal income taxes. They do not owe any; they do not pay any. Therefore, they do not get a check back. It is for those who have paid Federal income taxes. If someone is making $10,000 a year and paid some Federal income tax, they can get it back under the plan we passed.

But I am just wondering how much schooling the Mexican officials are giving that talked with Mr. Gamez, and are going around the country educating, and I use that word in quotes, those with green cards to suck more money out of the United States.

I think we need to be wary of that. And that causes me much concern when the advocates say how the tax bill was not fair to those that are not getting a refund, which means a check in the mail. You did not pay any income tax, you did not owe any income tax, but we are going to send you a check anyway.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for allowing me to tell you about this specific situation in the town of Rocky Mount, Virginia.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 55 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, June 4, 2003, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

This amendment is called the troops on the border amendment. This amendment would authorize the use of troops on the borders of the United States if the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security, after consultation, felt it was needed for our national security, if it was needed to curtail illegal immigration, if it was needed to curtail the flow of illegal drugs into our country.

We saw just a few weeks ago the tragedy that occurred when 19 illegal immigrants died from suffocation. If we had had troops on the border or this legislation if it had been passed and they were worried about troops being on our border, it would have been a message not to attempt something so dangerous. Having troops on our borders would save lives and would be an enhancement to our security and our safety.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Saxton).

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Colorado for his focus on this issue, for bringing it to the attention of this Congress, for bringing it to the attention of America. He has made many trips and seen firsthand the huge problem that exists on our border, the huge danger that it poses for all of us in the United States. He has been the head of the Immigration Reform Caucus; and he is awakening, I believe, in many of us the need to take action and to do more than we have done.

We have one piece of legislation before this Congress, H.R. 277, in addition to a number of other measures, aimed at stopping or curtailing immigration. But H.R. 277 would authorize the utilization of U.S. forces on our borders. We have troops on the borders now, but they are not United States troops. Troops from Mexico frequently come to the border and have various activity and occurrences there, but they are not our troops.

The focus of the 107th Congress in large part was on homeland security. A big focus of this, the 108th Congress, is homeland security. On the Committee on Appropriations we have a subcommittee devoted to appropriations matters related to homeland security. They are going to be in charge of billions of dollars. Working with the executive branch and the other body, they will craft a budget for that Department; and I can tell my colleagues when it is voted on here on the floor, it will contain, as I said, billions upon billions of dollars.

But spending a huge sum of money in and of itself will not guarantee us homeland security. There may not be anything that can guarantee us 100 percent safety in the United States of America, but I will tell my colleagues one thing that can significantly enhance our homeland security, and that is having a troop presence on our southern border and on our northern border.

We had a discussion in the 107th Congress on an amendment for troops on the border on the defense authorization measure. It passed the House. We debated that issue. A fear was voiced that the troops might shoot someone; and, in fact, years ago, that occurred, and that has some persons upset. But if we want a lifesaver, I would submit having troops on the border will be a lifesaver. Hundreds die every year trying to cross the border. Some suffocate, a few drown, others are lost, and some just die in the hot desert sun. Troops on the border would save those lives. We need a lifesaving position, and that is having troops on our borders.

In World War II, prior to World War II, there was a book that received considerable attention after World War II. That was entitled ``Why England Slept.'' America is asleep today by not positioning and having troops on our borders. They are too porous.

I was handed some information that appeared in Newsweek where the mastermind of the September 11 occurrence discussed bringing operatives through the Mexican borders. He indicated that officials were concerned that the United States remains dangerously unprepared for terrorist attacks on several fronts. The easiest way for them to come in would be across our porous northern and southern borders.

If we are to get a handle on illegal immigration and if we are to prevent a situation which has millions of illegals in this country, we must start with troops on the border, and by adopting other measures of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus sponsored by the gentleman from Colorado and others.

We also need to discourage those from coming to this country illegally. Under the laws of a number of States, illegals have the opportunity by one way or another of getting a driver's license. My home State of Virginia this year adopted legislation to prohibit those in the country illegally from having a Virginia operator's license.

They also adopted legislation, and I was proud of this because this is a discouragement to illegals from entering the country, they adopted legislation to say that they could not get an in-state tuition rate at our community college system if they were here illegally. I would suggest that they should not even be at the community college system. However, the debate was over whether we should give someone in this country who either came across the border through no checks or overstayed their visas and were undocumented an in-state tuition rate.

What they were saying with a policy like that is if you were from the State of Maryland and you wanted to go to Northern Virginia Community College, you had to pay one rate; but if you were here illegally and you happened to be in the State of Virginia, you got a lower rate. That is the type of encouragement for illegal immigration we need to do away with in this country.

Another thing we cannot do again that we did in the past was adopt another amnesty. Millions that come across the border say, you know what, if I can make it across and not drown, if I can make it across and not die in the hot desert sun, and stay in America a few years and have an employer, I can get amnesty.

We need to send the message loud and clear, if you are here illegally, you are not going to get amnesty, not now and not in the future. If we adopt that forthright position, we will not have between 9 million and 11 million persons in this country illegally.

I will never forget a few months ago standing on the steps of the Cannon Office Building. There was a gentleman there. He had a son that was killed on September 11 at the World Trade Center. He said, if I had to pick out a fact that I think contributed a great deal to what happened to my son, it was the massive illegal immigration in the United States. He said, those 19 terrorists that were here on September 11, all illegal, they were swimming in a sea of illegal immigration. How could the officials ferret out 19 out of the millions and millions that are here that are not supposed to be in the United States of America?

He was right on the money. We need to stop illegal immigration, and we can do that by adopting some of the legislation sponsored by the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) and others in the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, and we need to put troops on the border tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I too want to solute the Congressman from Virginia's Seventh District for crafting this bipartisan measure covering in a fine way the interest of all the stakeholders. The original Mint proposal was to remove both the current Thomas Jefferson and Monticello from the nickel. Needless to say, that proposal created an uproar in central Virginia, which is home to Thomas Jefferson and Monticello, the dwelling of our Nation's third President.

Under this proposal the nickel will feature scenes from the discovery of Lewis and Clark and the Louisiana Purchase. That journey of Lewis and Clark which left St. Louis in 1804 had its beginnings in Charlottesville on January 18, 1803, when Jefferson requested funding from Congress for the Lewis and Clark expedition. In 2006 the nickel will return to its original front of Thomas Jefferson and the reverse of Monticello in a design similar to that which has been in place since 1938. I hope it will be the pleasure of this body to overwhelmingly pass this measure and lay the foundation for its enaction this year