the chair will entertain up to ten one minute speeches on each side of the aisle gentleman from tennessee without objection mr speaker the one thing that we should all be able to agree on in this house regarding the upcoming farm bill is the need to reform crop insurance the folks back home are demanding that we cut federal spending and this is not only a great way to do it it's probably the best way to do it there are only sixteen crop insurance companies in america but sadly each one is addicted to corporate welfare from washington reforming these companies can save at least two billion dollars a year without hurting a single farmer let's stop these middlemen from taking forty cents out of every dollar the taxpayers offer to help the american farmer the cooper wax mcgovern amendment unites this house from conservative blue dogs to progressive members it's a bipartisan approach we simply adopt the reform proposals of the bush administration that's all we do these are not radical ideas these are u s d a approved but these ideas will save over two billion dollars a year it won't kill the industry it'll just trim back the massive subsidy flows farm bill supporters should also endorsees because they reduce the need for new revenue and the ag committee itself recognizes the need for reform they just want to do it in the next farm bill i think speaker what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee he tries to address the house for one minute without objection thank you mr speaker being from tennessee the volunteer state i volunteered to visit the men and women in uniform in iraq this past weekend i wasn't disappointed our troops are well trained well motivated and successful offered them the best chance for a normal and free existence the insurgent extremists chose to win the local people over with the use of force force against our american troops and against any local who did not support their radical agenda our troops on the other hand have reached out with friendship and support the local people seen the difference have chosen to have their lives returned to normal and live in freedom remati has gone from a city of death and destruction to one of rebuilding and hope i was able to see it firsthand the cost to american to the american family is just too great to allow any other outcome then success in the global war on terror time is expired  for what purpose does the gentleman from washington without objection mr speaker a man from kansas said every gun that is made every warship launched every rocket fired signifies in the final sense of theft from those who are hunger and are not fed from those who are cold and not clothed this world in arms is not spending money alone it is spending the sweat of its labors the genius of its scientists and the hopes of its children this is not a what life is a way of life at all in any true sense under the clouds of war it is in manatee that is hanging on a cross of iron dwight david eisenhower april sixteenth one nine hundred fifty three i ask that the rest of my time be in silence with those who have died in iraq americans and iraqis gentlemens time has expired for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise these women without objection mr speaker some members of congress are proposing legislation that would attempt to develop a new military strategy presidential candidate recently said the fanatics who exhort the tens of thousands to show death to america don't distinguish between republicans and democrats and we should have the common sense let alone the sense of responsibility to our that iraq is a central front in the global war on terrorism we must stop the terrorist overseas and not place them again in the streets of america in conclusion god bless our troops and we'll never forget september the eleventh after what million displaced and the situation on the ground grows worse attacks against humanitarian workers and african union peacekeepers are increasing i was in eastern chad in april over a quarter of a million darfur refugees live in camps along the chad sudan border i talked with many of these men women and children i heard about family members slaughtered villages burned children who perished from heat exhaustion and hunger and the desperate walk to find safe refuge i was there when the when the violence of darfur spilled over into chad january militias attacked two chad villages overnight eight thousand people displaced i watch the u n and n g o s provide emergency food water shelter and medical care in the middle of nowhere under a blistering sun i say to my colleagues anough is enough i said to my colleagues never again the time to end the killing in darfur is now and i ask unanimous consent to insert extraneous materials into the record without objection for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise without objection mr speaker last week the national intelligence estimate report stated that al qaeda is most serious the most serious threat in the u s homeland on tuesday president bush flew to my home state of south carolina to speak t troops in charleston in a speech he reminded the nation of the threat that al qaeda poses to our nation and the stability of iraq the threat is real i'd like to share with you a fourth of july blog entry from lieutenant colonel clarence boucher who is currently serving with the south carolina national guard in kandahar afghanistan quote i'm so proud of my service here and to this nation i don't know the politics i'll leave that to the politicians but it is my prayer for their leadership that we as a nation do the right thing for this country and iraq mr speaker my hope and my prayer is that we as politicians have the courage to do the same for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon arise without objection thank you mr speaker there's a bipartisan instinct in congress that's been evident for years we all want to reform our f policies in the next farm bill that's why the bill that's coming forward from the agriculture committee couldn't find any way to reform the crop insurance program luckily it looks as though the rules committee will bring make an order a rule that will force that upon the committee saving up to forty cents on the dollar there are no meaningful limitations on extraordinarily wealthy farmers they talk about reform but the limitation raises only forty six million dollars a year from thirty one hundred seventy five farmers and if the farmer can't get their adjusted gross income under a million dollars they ought to get a new c p a i strongly urge my colleagues to just read some of the news accounts like that in the morning washington post that expired bill and if you do i think you will join with us in the kind flake amendment thank you very much for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise without objection my remarks you mr speaker i rise to address the concerns of many of our small businesses in the seventh district of tennessee the ongoing debate over illegal immigration has brought many issues to lie while this issue is striving its way through congress small businesses are stuck trying to figure out how to confront the problems of illegal immigration that are created at the local level for instance these businesses should have the right to refuse to hire or fire a person who cannot speak english and employer who signs the paycheck and pays payroll taxes and their customers should be able to communicate with an employee but under current law that small businessman can be sued by the federal government for refusing to hire or in some cases firing a person who cannot communicate in english as ridiculous as this sounds it straight that's one today i'll offer a commonsense amendment to the commerce justice state approach bill that will close the ridiculous loophole and offer some protection to the businesses that drive our economy and employ our citizens i are jhala my colleagues to join this effort to protect our mom and pop businesses time is not my rose it's a hard line against illegal immigration but it's the rang hollow today it was exactly three years ago that we declared what was happening in darfur or was genocide and yet we have basically stood on the sidelines lots of words but no meaningful action what we said was that we would deny the government of sudan access to oil revenues extend american business sanctions on sudan but we haven't done it in any meaningful way hundreds of thousands of people innocent people killed millions made homeless but our oil accounts for seventy percent of sudan's total exports and you know seventy percent of sudan expired instead of telling him this is wrong he offers to build more castles let's get serious let's not allow genocide to continue when the twenty first century that was what purpose does the gentleman from texas ri mission to do us a house one minute without objection mr speaker in bastrop county texas there's a new sheriff in town over a dozen candidates reinterviewed and at the end the last man standing was a woman becoming the third female s texas rosanna brail became the first female sheriff in county history roseanne is anything but an ordinary candidate she has seventeen years of experience in texas law enforcement throughout her law enforcement career she served with the love that police department in west texas and the texas department of public safety where she served as a state trooper a special crimes investigator and i member of the d p s want team rising to the rank of lieutenant this texas law woman is educationally comp achieve achieving a bachelor's degree a master's degree and now a lot agree having passed the bar exam last may criminals and outlaw should be aware of this new texas sheriff that is the enforcer of the law in her county today i congratulate sheriff abrazo on her sound dedication to public service making her a role model for all peace officers in our state texas is proud of its new lonestar share and that's just the way it is and  purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise without objection thank you mr speaker last night this house had a proposal before to prohibit the da from in forcing federal laws on medical marijuana patients in the twelve states the public has legalized medical marijuana on fortunately it failed i voted for the proposal why did i vote for the proposal yes i'm compassionate about people who have multiple sclerosis and aids and cancer who could benefit parkinson's disease and glaucoma who can benefit from medical marijuana yes a boat of work with the believe in states rights and i believe in justice brandeis and the laboratories of democracy to see how things work in other states and you'd be able to adjust and see how they should work in other states but also because i believe the da shouldn't be busting medical marijuana houses and stores in los angeles but should be working in my community to eliminate and eradicate methamphetamines crack and other drugs that are ravaging my community and causing a crime problem in memphis tennessee and throughout this country the da has not been effective in controlling the war on drugs we need to win has expired i'd like that to happen thank you mr speaker for what purpose this gentleman all appreciative of the heroic sacrifices made by our men and women in uniform however there is little recognition given to the military spouses who provide the backbone of our armed services recently i introduced h r s three  to six the military smiles memorial act of two thousand and seven which provides the authority to us stablish in our nation's capital a memorial commemorating the self says selfless sacrifice of military spouses from hundred seventy six to the present day this memorial will honor the husbands and wives that tend to the home front and land to our service members the support they need as they serve in the defense of freedom i encourage all my colleagues to lend their support to h r three two three zero two six and ensure that the sacrifices of our military spouses are recognized thank you mr speaker i yield back thank you for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california since then to put pressure on khartoum the genocide still rages our young people in the faith community have tirelessly reminded us of this i was in darfur earlier this year for the third time and let me tell you it is getting worse we passed a number of bills in congress imposing sanctions urging our allies like china and the legal bear states to get involved but we must do more today with the help of our good friend and great leader chairman barney frank the financial services committee chair we will take another step toward marking up my bill h r one eighty the dark for accountability and i best man act which authorizes states to divest from sudan and banned new federal contracts with companies doing business with the protected a mexican drug smuggler over our own border agents johnny sutton gave a confirmed drug runner free access to cross our border on condition he would not smuggle drugs again but he has johnny sutton found out the witness was runnin drugs but still let him testify as an innocent victim by allowing the drug runner to testify johnny sutton led a known liar to testify against our own border agents johnny sutton must testify under oath why did this in view of this new evidence president bush should pardon agents campian and ramos today they did not get a fair trial and the punishment did not fit the crime this case is a travesty to our justice system fix it mr president yoga q are you going to go who's next ok for what purposes the gentleman from massachusetts writes without objection for speaking with speaker i rise today to commemorate the third anniversary of the congressional declaration of genocide in darfur is not a happy occasion it's a sad one and i hope we don't do this again next year or any time after that i also want to thank the american people the american taxpayer the american activist around this country with kept the pressure on us on the administration on the united nations and on the world to try to stop this genocide now then i would say lucky enough that i've been to darfur and i will tell you that as an american taxpayer you can't be more proud than when you look out and unfortunately these poor people have been chased out of their homes and families killed and massacred with me when you look out all of the shelf it's a couple with u s flags now it's because we have to send all the aid to feed in take care of them you for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise without objection as a member of congress from the heartland i have supported the farm bill in the past regrettably the two thousand and seven farm bill that we will consider this week is a deeply flawed piece of legislation that combines traditional agricultural programs with the misplaced priorities of the democratic congress tax increases budget gimmicks workplace restrictions and a public union provision that offends states rights and i cannot support it this farm bill is a disservice to american farmers and an attack on hurting families in the state of indiana at the behest of one of the nation's largest public employee unions the democrat congress added language to this bill that will prohibit states from working with private companies to improve the administration of welfare services since indiana is leading the nation in improving welfare services through these partnerships this bill is bad for indiana bad for hurting families and bad for her taxpayers in the interest of federalism it's imperative that congress give state governments the freedom to innovate in the delivery of food stamps and other welfare programs or to benefit recipients and improve services i'll vote against this farm bill because it raises taxes bust the budget and does a great disservice to our most hurting americans what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois rise without objection is speaker three years ago the congress named the humanitarian crisis and are for as genocide naming is really important because once we've acknowledged the hundreds of thousands of innocent lives that have been lost there we have a responsibility to act and yet the did disastrous crisis continues on to the a i visited are for i've seen the situation on the ground and now the high tech t s g p s satellites and mass media allow everyone to bear witness to the tragedies and are for the burn holes where villages used to be the mass migrations of internally displaced starving children victims of rape i want to thank the student groups the faith organizations and the americans around the country who have worked to raise this issues profile and to keep our for the agenda last month the sudanese government allowed a combined un african union peacekeeping force the democratic majority approved nine hundred forty nine million dollars in humanitarian time expired you have to go further let this be the last time we bought the anniversary of genocide for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise without objection mr speaker i am pleased that president bush has selected a man of great integrity and one of our former colleagues who served in this congress to lead the office of management and budget jim nussle his chairmanship of the house budget committee gave us an opportunity to witness the expertise and responsible use of taxpayer dollars that he will bring to the o m b during his tenure in this body chairman nestle's work made a positive impact on countless americans without his hard work and leadership the family opportunity act which provides badly needed medical care to children with disabilities would never was a fair and honorable chairman in selecting jim nussle to succeed rob portman the president is replacing one able and knowledgeable man with another i congratulate president bush on this astute choice i wish ago congress declared the atrocities and dar for to be acts of genocide since acknowledging this genocide we have implemented unilateral sanctions sanctions against the sudanese government we've authorize funds for peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance in the region we've called for concerted international action to end the abominations in dar for yet the genocide continues four hundred thousand people have been killed two and a half million have been forced out of their homes and a million continue to live under the constant threat of bombings rate's murder and torture by government troops and the january militias international diplomacy has failed to force sudanese president bashir to stop pursuing his genocidal policies we cannot afford to fail any more every possible means must be employed to pressure the sudanese government to allow the rapid deployment of an international peacekeeping force large enough to protect the civilian population and dark war gentlemen time has expired and i yield back for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska arise without objection speaker i rise today as we consider commerce justice science related agencies appropriations act according to the d a thirty three point three kilograms of men i've received in my home state of nebraska in two thousand and six for this reason i would like to commend the leadership  appropriations committee for including eighty five million dollars in funding for grant projects to address the manufacture sale and use of methamphetamine however we must send a stronger message to those who are smuggling and distributing the drugs which is why i have introduced the meth kingpin elimination act of two thousand and seven the number of meth labs in the u s has declined since congress and acted that combat methamphetamine epidemic act last year to reste restrict the sale of pseudoephedrine the key ingredient in meth unfortunately a reverse trend has occurred south of our border mexico is the largest foreign supplier of methamphetamine destined for the u s it is estimated that as much as eighty percent of the math on u s streets comes from mexico unlike the small u s kitchen labs mexican drug cartels are creating super labs which produce huge quantities of cheap meth and then they smuggle it north to the u s it is time we stop this lot of meth coming across our parents time is expired and we must work together to address this this severe problem and i thank you m speaker pursuant to house resolution five sixty two and roll eighteen the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house and the state of the union for further consideration of h r three zero nine three will the gentleman from arkansas mr snyder kindly resume the the house in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of h r three zero nine three which the clerk will report by title a bill making appropriations for the departments of commerce and justice and science and related at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following title seven additional general provisions your vision of section seven zero one none of the funds made available and this act of the equal employment opportunity commission may be of allegedly discriminating against two of their employees in a boston area thrift store for requiring them to speak english on the job so mr chairman the amendment would prevent the c from using any appropriated funds to initiate a civil action or file a motion in any courts on the grounds that the organization in this case the salvation army requires an employee to speak english while engaged in work the question i have is how do you discriminate against a person who speaks english on the job this amendment was prompted by this lawsuit filed in april by the sea against a salvation army which has helped thousands of people in countries all over the world can't you hire people today who speak english the two employees were given one year to learn english in order to speak the language you and i are speaking in the house today and the language spoken speaking by spoken by our coworkers however these folks failed to try to learn even some basic english and were fired and even though the salvation army clearly posted the rule and gave the two employees a year to learn english the sea lawyers file a lawsuit seeking hundreds of thousands of dollars in monetary damages to compensate the employees for the emotional pain suffering and inconvenience and quote they suffered by being asked to speak english to the best of their ability while on the job in two thousand and three a federal judge in boston upheld the salvation army's policy requiring workers to speak english while on the job however the e e o c did not like this ruling so they are continuing to harass the salvation army now the salvation army as we all know is a christian evangelical organization whose sole mission is to help the downtrodden the blind the sick and anyone else in need their personal stand on coal street corners during christmas time is something we all know ring bell on behalf of the poor they collect and sell donated clothes household items in their thrift stores to raise money for the poor operate soup kitchens and hire people hire people that no one else w since eight hundred sixty five this organization has lived by christ's teaching that we that as we do on to the least of our people we do want to the lord now there's organizations in trouble for insisting its employees learn to speak english and in order to better serve these lofty goals and remember the salvation army is trying to help their employees by encouraging them to simply learn the english language e u c has crossed the line in its overzealous pursuit of companies that require english in the workplace and only congress can bring this organization back to its intended mission if we don't to continue to pollute for ration of english related lawsuits recall will cause employers facing close hiring decisions to hire defensively to the detriment of new immigrants with marginal english proficiency and while the children of immigrants typically learn english in our school system adult immigrants are most likely to learn or improve language skills for work related reasons often through programs that are simply hosted by the employers themselves this arrangement is ordinarily a win win situation the immigrant is encouraged to gain a full knowledge skill that improves his work efforts and civic engagement and the employer benefits from having employees they can communicate with one another so the seas policy takes a mutually beneficial situation and injects the constant fear of litigation on employers most importantly since e e o c is funds are fungible every dollar it uses to pursue these cases is a dollar not being spent on pursuing the kind of discrimination that the sea was richly created to combat these are our tax dollars my colleagues yours and mine spanks the salaries of this of the seas lawyers who file endless lawsuits while the salvation army must use its own funds funds that would be better used helping the poor instead of hiring more attorneys to fight these kind of cases in court the e e o c should instead focus its limited resources on the current backlog of fifty four thousand two hundred and sixty five complaints instead of wasting time and taxpayers money on policies a serve to achieve unity in speak english in this country and i think we ought to have policies that encourage it what i don't believe is i don't believe that the congress of the united states as any business whatsoever pre deciding a court case when the congress i head of time tells e e o c that they cannot even bring a suit that means that congress is substituting political judgment for legal judgment on an issue that ought to be decided in a court of law congress has the right to pass legislation saying whatever he wants about immigration and about to he's going to get to get federal aid things like that but it is dead wrong it is wrong morally it is a it is wrong constitutionally for the congress to prejudge what the outcome of a court case is going to be and if they deny funds to the to the equal opportunity a gency in this government the agency that's supposed to enforce civil rights laws if they deny funds to that agency on a hit or miss basis based on what can get a majority on this house floor god help us all i y discrimination in the workplace now unfortunately the organizations actions are speaking louder than their words and certainly they are not in step with the mission that they are instructed to to me and what we see is an agency that is waging war against private employers who have the english speaking policies in english only language policies in their workplace and with their with their workforce now as my colleague from florida said the situation we've discussed is in zero four we had two employees from the massachusetts salvation army thrift store they were instructed to learn english within one year to comply with that organization's anguish only language policy on the job the employees refused to comply or even to make a good faith effort and i think that everyone would like to see them make a good faith effort to learn the language and they were summarily dismissed in december of zero five so they had that full year interestingly enough the two employees were able to navigate their way through the bureaucratic system and get the seat to file a discrimination lawsuit against the salvation army on april two zero zero seven despite their limited command of the english language the turn of events would be laughable if it were not true and if the consequences were not as grave as they are yet in zero six alone roughly two hundred charges were filed alleging discrimination due to english language only policies in different workplaces this explosion of claims against workplace english is a six hundred and twelve percent increase since one thousand nine hundred six and mr chairman i think that's one of the things that is of concern to us six hundred twelve percent that is the increase in these claims against american small businesses against the businesses that are employing our our citizens we colleague previously mentioned we have the u s equal employment opportunity commission it has a backlog file fifty four thousand two hundred sixty five cases right not getting their workload done what we see is the o c is putting their energy on something that they don't need to be putting it on and they have those misplace the items that they're supposed to be addressing in order to meet their mission are languishing in there and box they are never getting around to addressing those files so those are continuing pile up and what we see is that they should be taking their resources they have plenty of employees that have plenty of funds this is not an issue of them having more money or more resources this is an issue of them putting putting their work and making their priorities where they need to be of addressing these problems come to getting their nose to the grandstand if you will and getting in behind th cases and getting them done not over here suing us small businesses that are employing our citizens not over here suing the mom and pops who have the right because they are signing the paycheck they are paying the payroll taxes they establish their workplace policies and they have the right to say we would like for you to learn english and we should them to assist in having those employees learn english so that they better communicate with their employer so that they know how to communicate and they are learning by that interaction with those customers we democratic through republican administrations has had a consistent position on lawyers english only policy throughout both democratic and republican administrations this memo would undermine that long standing policy fine if the gentle lady and the gentleman want to do that they ought to take it to the authorizing committee where they can have hearings they can have a full blown discussion of it rather than trying to change this policy that's been in place for a long period of time and again i say supported mr stearns as a member in the interests of transparency for a dozen years i was on the board of the mars town salvation army in new jersey and anybody who's been associated with this organization knows that they work in the trenches for the poorest of the poor they do a remarkable job and they work with those that are english speakers as well as those who do not speak english it seems to me the e e o c has been somewhat shopping for another venue here while the salvation army i think is truly doing the we're the lord's work and for them to expand as apparently they have  tens of thousands of dollars and some sort of a lawsuit as a result of this e e o even e e o c litigation i think quite honestly is an absolute travesty so i'm pleased to yield some time mr chairman to the sponsor of the bill mr stearns from florida and i and i commend him and others for supporting this bill pay or thank the distinguished chairman and let me answer some of the criticism from that side of the aisle mr mollohan from west virginia talked about this is not a recent problem that all administrations e e o c has been following this pattern and that's not true the general eighty from tennessee pointed out that there's been a six hundred percent increase since one thousand nine hundred six in fact has been a large increase more recently so this is not something that has been going on for the last forty years it's a more recent phenomena so we here in congress should realize that we have every right to prejudge we have three equal branches of congress we have the executive huge issue in congress we have the right to say to the o which is a government agency the priorities you are stablish ing are wrong i mean as as i pointed out earlier this particular agency has a fifty four thousand case backlog and it looks like it's going to go very shortly to sixty four thousand it's going to be a ten thousand cases increase now should they be spending all their time trying to intimidate employers employers simply want to hire employees that speak english and are they going to be so scared that when they hire this employee they're going to be sued by the sea because they're saying to the employee we think it's going to be help for you to speak english to our customers but as a salvation army did they said we'll send you to a class for one year and you can learn english so we'll hire you we'll let you be trained and hopefully after a year you'll be able to be conversant in english these people didn't fall through they didn't go to this class so what did the salvation army did they simply said ok we're going to have to fire you they counseled in the top two and then they said we're going to have to let you go because you're not speaking english proficiency enough so that our customers can understand you and here we are a organization that simply has a mission to help and serve people and we can't communicate with these people because you cannot speak english so would you please go to this class that we're going to pay for and help you with these people would not go so they were fired and so now the sea is staying saying to its agency this is the highest priority we're going to forget the fifty four thousand cases that are backlog here in america and we're going to go after the salvation army so god help us is the words that mr robey use i say god help us if employers employers in this country cannot hire employees who speak english we have every right to judge this is nothing morally wrong as mr robey said are constitutionally wrong this is simply congress saying set your priorities e e o c let the employers hire people who speak english and we support the concept what  is trying to do is enact civil legislation against people that are discriminated in in the workplace we understand that we accept that but this is a case of priorities this is a case of congress has every right as an equal branch of congress to say this is and atmospheric administration operations research in facilities is hereby reduced by two hundred thousand dollars dollars recognized for five minutes i think the chair  chairman this amendment would strike funding for the lobster institute at the university of maine we've heard a lot this week and we'll be debating the other today later today subsidies for corn and cotton rice and sugar  this is about subsidizing lobsters i frankly think that we subsidize corn cotton and sugar far too much but but lobster subsidies seem to be particularly out of line as well  i think taxpayers are already feeling the pinch if you will with high gas prices huge deficit all the other things they're asked to pay for but providing hard earned federal tax dollars to the lobster industry i think i should make members of this body a little red in the face according to build a new new england lobster industry will be receiving two hundred thousand in federal taxpayer dollars the certification letter doesn't offer much an explanation of what it would use for except to provide resources for the new england lobster industry what kind of resources i think we were justified in asking this is a private industry that makes millions and millions of dollars annually what possible support should the federal taxpayer be offering to this particular industry again this is one area where the congress through earmarking is circumventing the regular process that we typically go through it's a process that i don't like very much i don't think that we ought to be providing funding to the federal agencies to give in subsidies this way either but there are programs at the federal agencies programs that are usually open to competitive bidding where people will submit grant submit grant proposals  but through earmarking like this we circumvent that process and we say we know better we're going to give what amounts to it seems like a no bid contract to a particular industry or business or group of industries and so i would think that that this is simply isn't the way to go i would revisit reserve the balance of my time the gentleman cannot reserve his time he has to use it all now as a gentleman  in arizona cannot reserve time do you prefer to use your time now or do you feel backward to let me let me complete then i i would submit that no amount of drawn butter can make this kind of subsidy taste any better we simply shouldn't be doing this kind of thing we need to get rid of these kind of earmarks i again when we know so very little about what it would go to we're just told that it would go to provide resources for the new england lobster industry this is industry like some of the others will be discussing later today that do quite well on their own make millions and millions of dollars what possible justification can we have using federal taxpayer dollars to subsidize or to support an industry strike funding for the lobster institute corps initiative for the university of maine a program vital to the continuation of the lobster industry i'll say few words in a moment about the importance of the lobster industry not just the maine but to england  entire northeast but i want to go straight to this particular program the lobster institutes core initiative provides for conservation outreach research and education in order to this is to sustain the the lobster this is one of the most successfully managed fisheries along the atlantic coast and when you look when you look at this from the point of view of the coup the private sector this is not a case of a big corporate fishery the lobster industry is primarily a small fishery with individual lobsterman who cannot possibly afford to do the research on the scale that this institute does and i would say that the institute is funded primarily by contributions from the industry itself some people who are contributing to the to the research and through private donations by the friends friends of the lobster institute but fundamentally this kind of research done by our land grant universities is absolutely essential in maine you could you know we the university of maine does work on on wild blueberries it does work on potatoes the industry itself could not possibly sustain industry wide research because those industries like the lobster industry are made up primarily of small business men and and frankly it is exactly this kind of public private partnership that makes our economy stronger than it ever would could be without without the support let me give you some examples the core program aims to establish a unified logical progression of research to address lobster health stock assessment and environmental monitoring issues and you know for example we in southern new england we have some very serious disease issues with some lobsters we have to be able to track those diseases and make sure that we understand what's going on the program will also develop infrastructure to support lobster health and habitat research the information that is gathered by the institute is community communicated to the public in many ways outreach education conducted by faculty students and industry members as well as conferences seminars and workshops throughout the region spreads information developed by the institute is the institute is also home to a lobster library which holds nearly two thousand journal articles research reports and informational pamphlets basically what we're saying is that one of the reasons the lobster industry is one of the most successfully managed fisheries in the northeast is precisely because of this research and some federal contribution a small contribution two hundred thousand dollars is what's at stake here is the linchpin that holds the holds this organization together let me add few final can come concluding comments the private sector which is supported by this research institute includes jobs for eight thousand fishermen and countless other jobs for additional businesses such as dealers distributors boat builders marine suppliers and a variety of tourism related businesses throughout the nation the lobster industry has an economic impact of somewhere between two point four and four billion dollars a year with ten thousand commercial lobster licenses he issued each year it's rank american lobster i would say maine lobster but you know who's quarreling here american lobster is rank third in the us c for seafood export list proving that it's essential to our economy in maine we have fifty eight hundred licensed lobsterman and the catch remain lobsterman makes up approximately seventy percent of all s landings i would just say in conclusion this may seem like a small small amount of money to a small research institute but it holds together a private industry of great economic importance not just  main but to the northeast and to all of our oceans related industries that's why i strenuously object to this amendment i urge its defeat and mr chairman i yield back the balance of my time german yields back spending and in this case this funding a sports scientific staff to monitor the health of the lobster fishery a crucial industry in his area and of course a crucial resource as he points out for the whole country it provides infrastructure to improve science research efforts in this in this regard as funding is crucial to understanding the health of the lobster fishery and stresses and he stresses that in his remarks this man is supported by the subcommittee it's a good amendment it's i'm sorry it's a it's a good earmark it's a good project and this member has i concluded that essential in his area and to support this very important industry in his area the subcommittee strongly supports this members project in this regard him when he goes back what purpose does him with the new jersey right spending included in our committee's report augments and in some cases enhanced as the administration's own earmarks with congressional priorities which is entirely appropriate funding recommendations included in our report were made in full compliance with the a political rules and procedures of the house so there's total transparency on a bipartisan basis i've worked with chairman mollohan reviewing all of their quests requests before congress justice and science committee all of the member graphs and we recommend funding for this and other projects which people will try to take out what we believe these projects have merit and what's most appropriate is that members are willing to come to the floor to defend their projects and that's necessary because we need to hear from  twenty thousand dollars as for federal funding for meteorological equipment at valparaiso university in dallas rezo indiana growing up i often was told the best way to tell the weather was to stick your arm out the window  this equipment as a teaching tool for the university's meteorological department and provide weather information to entities in northeastern indiana and surrounding areas this university is a coed four year private university located as i said in northwestern indiana it's ranked by the u s news and world report as one of the top universities in the midwest it's in down what is in excess of one hundred forty three million dollars again why do we there are marks for institutions that are as flush as this one why do we dole out any federal money to any private institution such as this with a generous endowment already there when we approve earmarks like this we as an institution are bypassing the competitive grant process that already exists for funding educational and research institutions no nine hundred fifty the national science foundation an independent federal agency was created by legislation with the intent of promoting the progress of science and advancing national health and welfare by supporting research and education in all fields of science and engineering in the past the federal government has awarded more than four hundred billion dollars in the form of competitive gra four hundred billion dollars has been given out by the n s f over the years these this agency was created with a specific purpose of giving out grants like this over the course of this year the division of atmospheric sciences an office within n s f has awarded more than two million dollars to fund research for media log meteorological experience federal funding exists for the sponsors earmarks this grant process should be respected again  are going outside of the process there is a process that we have stablished that we have cause to be established in the federal agencies to give out money in this regard and here we're saying well we're not going to go through that perhaps this university i don't know perhaps that applied for a grant and didn't get it perhaps it has received other grants just don't know but what i do know is that we are giving what amounts to a no bid contract where we're saying we one member of the appropriations committee is going to say i'm going to designate or earmark money for this institution and bypass the process that we have set in place and i just don't think that's right if we don't like the process that's been bush let's change it let's tell the federal agencies you need to be you need to have a broader pool you need to give more grants out to small colleges you need to do this you need to do that but let's establish a process and then follow it rather than circumvent it and this i see is circumventing the process this bill this bill that the underlying bill today funds a national science foundation a level of more than six billion dollars what is the purpose of funding an agency like this and telling that agency give out grants on a competitive basis if they're with we're going to go around and give out our own grants from congress it just doesn't seem right urge my colleagues to support the amendment and you served by pinpoint weather forecasting in addition to doppler radar be you will begin daily weather balloon launches as the only pollute site in the state of indiana valparaiso university will supply critical data to the media logical community the natori of flight unpredictable weather conditions in this area like effect snow in the winter is severe thunderstorms or tornadoes in the spring and summer months make the presence of doppler radar and data gather from the balloon station critically important to the region the amendment also deals with the issue of strengthening our future by investing in science in the young people in our nation the global economy is nothing if not competitive and in order for the united states to remain at the forefront of scientific innovation we must work with our universities to develop and maintain world class scientific programs  nationally ranked munira logical program and we must leverage this resource to advance our national scientific interest and i believe the university is well positioned to use the funds to continue to be a national and global leader in this field mix of the latest industry standard equipment by the use meterological program is also vital to helping students become familiar with the technology they will encounter after graduation as they go on to pursue careers that include the united states military nasa and the national science foundation the purchase of the new equipment will enable valparaiso students to conduct more undergraduate research as they will have access to a greater variety of data and the ability describing justifying questioning the merits of this particular project however you want to describe it the gentleman who offers the ame his basis of offering these amendments is on the one hand that we shouldn't be doing this we talk about that almost every moment the fact that indeed it is the job of the united states congress and particularly the house of representatives in the first sentence under article one of the constitution to do just exactly this this is our job this is what we do is funding for the united states of america and  gentleman paraphrasing said one member of the body or of the appropriations committee or one member of the congress brings that project forward while there's nobody in the congress who would bring a project forward for this gentleman's congressional district if it were not this gentleman and then we get to the merits of the of the particular project this one seems eminently justifiable funding for equipment to train young people and forecasting that's what if you believe in government that this patient in education that's what we do and this is how we can empower this institution this educational institution so that they can bring excellent training for weather forecasting which i think we all have to stipulate is extremely important for the midwest the kind of weather conditions they have so let me compliment  opportunity to stand up and and discuss and describe his amendment for us and for his constituen so from hearing from the gentleman from indiana that this project has merit he's had the opportunity to sort of expand on what we saw in the digested form and i think he's made a strong case for this project and he's willing to put his name on the project which means his integrity is backing that project so i salute him for what he's doing i posy a member but i do yield time to the gentleman from arizona for a response i thank the gentleman f let me simply say that it's often said that that through earmarking we are simply asserting our right and responsibility we have as members of congress under article one under article one we certainly have the power of the purse the problem is i think the contemporary practice of earmarking when you bring a bill to the floor that has over fifteen hundred earmarks you you diminish that that responsibility that you have because we go around our circumvent the careful process of authorization appropriation and oversight that is the time honored practice and hallmark of this institution when we earmark we get away from that and not enhance it and that's the reason for bringing these amendments forward i thank the gentleman some progress in reducing the number and in any case we members come forward to defend their earmarks which i think is entirely appropriate far more transparency far less in the way of earmarks and so i think the process would prohibit funding for the national textile center the remark description in the various certification letter submitted the committee by various sponsors and this is one that is sponsored by a number of members i understand says that the earmark will fund the development of  national textile center specifically the funds of be used to conduct research and development proved technologies the website for the national textile center states that is a consortium of eight universities auburn clemson kornel cornell i'm sorry  georgia institute of technology north carolina state university university of california davis university of massachusetts at dartmouth and philadelphia university the chair human resources equipment and facilities this consortium serves as the u s fiber textile retail complex industries it's not at all clear what amount this program is to be funded the committee report language says fund funding for two textile related programs but the proposed funded amount is nowhere to be found in the text of the bill or the committee report the manager's amendment recommended that u s foreign commercial service account be increased by five million dollars to two hundred forty five seven hundred twenty thousand two hundred forty five million seven hundred twenty thousand in order to fund quote two textile related programs we can only infer that this increase will fund this program and another program but there's no way for us to be certain in inquiries made to the relevant subcommittee failed to clarify the matter  members of congress as stewards of the taxpayer dollars as stewards need and deserve more information to make informed decisions beyond the transparency issues here i simply don't agree here again with this picking winners and losers here i understand that the textile industry is on the underground great transformation with with jobs a lot of jobs going overseas and there's great difficulty there and i don't minimize that that is true with a lot of industries and in my district and elsewhere a lot of people would like to receive funding to help their industries transition but we simply can't do it everywhere some internet searching on the national textile center indicated the center already exists and has received generous funding in the past press release from the center town to that more than nine million dollars in federal funds were received in two thousand and one that again is a little confusing when we're told that this will fund the development of a national textile center it seems to already exist but anyway again here this is an example of congress a program we have over there part of commerce that we have used that funds programs like this i simply don't see the need to earmark additional funds to supplant or to replace or to augment funds that have already been appropriated and for which there is a process chairman i am joined by eleven colleagues from north carolina as well as colleagues from several other states in requesting fiscal year two thousand and eight funding for the national  the to the gentleman introducing this amendment that if there's indeed any lack of transparency or any confusion i be happy to clear that up we do intend indeed intend for this funding to go to the national textile center which has been established as he  it's a center that has has a well established track record the national textile center is just what the name suggests it's a national program for a national industry that affects our national competitiveness  there's a consortium of eight universities really leading research universities that participate all been clemson cornell georgia tech north carolina state philadelphia university university of california davis and university of many of us from north carolina or other traditional textile producing states are all too accustomed to new news of textile operations are closing their doors  some may be short sighted enough to suggest that the textile industry is unworthy of investment given the loss of manufacturing jobs over the past decade i and my colleagues said mr chairman come to exactly the opposite conclusion the textile industry is a major player still and will be a major player in the u s economy it employs six hundred thousand workers nationwide and it contributes almost sixty billion dollars to the national g d p it's true that many lower skilled and lower paid jobs have left our states but the domestic textile industry is undergoing a remarkable transformation and the research provided by the national textile center is a partner in that transformation it's helping advance the industry to new heights providing new higher paying jobs increasing u s competitiveness and in the process as the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee on homeland security i know firsthand about the new fabrics the new fibers that are protecting our first responders in in new and threatening situations and that's just one example actually the suits worn in this chamber the next generation of suspension bridges there is a long list of products and technologies that this research consortium is going to help shape the new texel products and the processes created by this research are valued at three times the federal investment to date so it's certainly not the time to pull the rug out from under these vital projects mr chairman the national texel center is needed by a national industry the national textile center is wanted and welcomed by the department of commerce and a national textile center was requested by more members than any other project in this bill it's a worthy recipient of federal funding and i urge defeat of the amendment and i yell back  speaker amounts to hypocrisy but it is nonetheless a political fact of life now when you talk about the textile industry mr baker i become very subjectively involved my late mama was a machine operator to hose her mill that she let her work for the bluebell corporation which was the predecessor to the right color and the v f corporation her job was to sew pockets own overalls a tedious demanding job before the days of air conditioning on my dad so when people gang up on the textile industry they're ganging up on my mama and it bothers  me i can we can talk all day here the speaker many of my friends from north carolina we represent what was recognized as the buckle of the textile belt is the beleaguered industry and they know we don't need to be piling on at this critical role in helping the u s text of an apparel industry which currently employed over six hundred thousand workers nationwide and could trick could could be as nearly sixty billion dollars to the nation's gross national product  annual basis to compete with textile manufacturers and other countries it should also be noted the maker that the industry is a primary a supplier of employment to women and minority workers with many of these jobs apparel industrial sector the value of new textural products and processes that have been created by n t c research is over three hundred million dollars nearly three times the federal investment and in t c to date t c two has engaged in helping to transform the u s tax bill and apparel industry into a highly flexible supply chain capable of responding to rapidly changing market demands during calendar year two thousand and six sixty percent of t c tubes and your budget was supplied by the private sector t c two expects at least fifty five percent of its two thousand and seven thundering to be provided by the private sector to date the public investment alone in t c two has produced technology advancements valued in excess of three hundred seventy five million dollars a return of more than four hundred percent these programs do not space sipek lee benefit a particular congressional district they are an important element of our national textile industry which once led the world but as has been noted is now struggling to keep pace with the textile industry needs these programs in our support which have proven to be a wise investment in the past and i think we come to the floor not because we feel like mr flake's amendment is likely to pass but he provides a unique opportunity for us to talk to each other and the american people about some of the problems and stresses that taking place in our country there are three points that i want to make first of all this is not a local issue for me the the appropriation the consortium is of eight leading text all research universities in alabama california georgia massachusetts new york north carolina pennsylvania and south carolina neither one of those universities is located in my congressional district so this is not a local pork barrel  which the textile industry provides a major base for in north carolina and in other parts of the country so this is not something that's just about tolls it is about a broader base loss of jobs and employment opportunities and a severe impact on  point i want to make is a broader point because it is it is it is made by it's raised by mr flake in a sequence of amendments he's made the argument that  somehow we have better off to let the federal government be making these decisions rather than trying to direct these appropriations through  this process to local communities not that's a that's an interesting argument for a person to be making who in most cases makes makes the  counterargument that states rights are more important than federal rights if anybody knows what the priorities ought to be enough carolina massachusetts alabama south carolina it should be the people who are representing those areas and i would have to say presidents administrations democrat and republican have not pay sufficient attention to the plight of the textile industry the furnishings industry the loss of manufacturing jobs that we pay in our local communities so for somebody to make the argument that we shouldn't be involved in the process when these things are impacting the decisions that are being made impacting our local communities i don't understand especially a a gentleman who has consistently and long term supported the the notion of states rights so i think this is an appropriate thing for us to be doing not only in this amendment context but in in most of the context in essentially all of the context that i even supported the his colleagues republican colleagues christmas tree amendment because i thought he knew more about the christmas tree industry in his local community then anybody was ever going to know own a national basis  about the importance of christmas trees to his local economy these are things that we are uniquely situated to understand and advocate for and i would hope that our colleagues would strongly and minutes thank you mr chairman i rise in opposition to the amendment and some people may have thought that since i've supported mr flake on a number amendments that this was sort of a subterfuge way for me to help defeat the amendment because it might lose support given the fact that i have supported some of his amendments and not supported others but rather i did request a an earmark it is one of the seven or eight earmarks that have been combined together in this in support of the textile center because the textile center exists in about eight different locations around the country eight institutions one of them that you university of california davis that part of the universe of california davis which is part of this is actually not in my district as in the gentleman mr thompson's district but i am convinced of the worthiness of this request for a slightly different reason than has been mentioned on the floor at this time one of the key areas that the textile center funds go to support in the work and research that is done at the u c davis center is in the area of personal protection research improving the functional clothing for homeland security and occupational safety what do we mean by that well there are what are known as bio seid fabrics which have been developed for firefighters for first responders and for military personnel in collaboration with the national personal protective technology laboratory in collaboration with the california department of forestry and fire protection research has enhanced the safety and comfort of firefighter uniforms by improving and redesigning the fabrics and clothing bias sid textiles and biocide all means that there is something that is in that the textile itself the product itself which can kill certain certain  certain difficult as certain kinds of things to substances which would be harmful to those who are wearing them this is a dedicated research for this specific purpose  textiles including protective masks have been designed and developed for health care and other workers resulting in the interdisciplinary research teams which include social and physical scientist public health and environmental researchers so while there are many reasons to support this amendment from the standpoint of those that are attempting to help an industry that has had difficult times i rise in support of the very specific research that's being done as part of the textile center operation at the university of california at davis which goes to protecting those folks who respond as first responders when we have explosions when we have fires it is not just being said to come up with some extraordinary reason to support this this is actual research being done that has produced products that has made it safer for our first responders and one of the things i've requested from anybody who is asked me to put forth a earmark request is show me the federal nexus this to me is clearly a federal nexus this is research that supports first responders all over the country it's concentrated research that means it is done on a far better basis than otherwise would be possible it enhances the final product and in that in that way it seems to me it is a substantial reasonable application of federal funds for a federal purpose and for that reason even though i have great respect for the gentleman from arizona who i think as done a great job and i referred to him publicly because of his pleasant demeanor as he approaches this difficult task as don quixote with couth i still would have to say with all due respect i must oppose his amendment colleagues this is just another you mark for me this is somewhat personal because the first job that are ever held right out of high school before i went to college was in a textile plant that was when they were plentiful in north carolina and really close to southeast hard work a lot of cases that were dirty work but it was honorable work and it made a difference in people's lives you know the national see as you've already heard really is a national initiative it's not a localized project it's a project that's already made a difference it will continue to make a difference and as you've heard this a consortium of a leading textile research universities one of those is in my state actually one of the universities happens to be in my district an outstanding university north carolina state university and more importantly industrial partnerships that's the kind of thing we ought to be promoted here we all to be about getting people to work together that's what this is about and yet we have an amendment that says no we don't want  work together we just know you have those silos we argue on this for daily about knocking down silos and getting people to work together the national texas center was established really to achieve that one goal but three other it was develop new materials innovation to improve manufacturing procedures and then a great systems essential to the success of the modern fiber fabric and fabricated four plants he closed one in the western part of north carolina now for some people that might make a difference but that about three hundred people that lost her job that's far more their lives have been activity the center has made numerous contributions to its constituents helping to keep the text of lintas economically viable in providing a knowledge base comparative currying age opportunity for all of them enjoys a wide spread industry support and a partnership across to states as it's been stated already this industry is still the last six hundred thousand workers in america industry contributing nearly sixty billion dollars to the national gross domestic product on an annual basis research has already provided as you heard uniforms and opportunities our first responders are in a process of developing in a broader sense for creating fabric that are self decontaminating to protect against biological and chemical hazards these are things we all to be doing and yes we all could be new and i'm and i way that we work together so that multiple universes work in the bright minds we have across this country so they can work together to make are facing a tremendous competition from around the world and much of that is due to the way that our trade laws in this country are structured and it's not the fault of our domestic manufacturers the only way we can remain competitive against cheap labor in these foreign countries is through cutting edge technology the national textile center strengthens our nation's efforts by bringing together diverse research and also those in the industry so that our textile producers can produce to lead the world in technology so the end result therefore will be warders and the united states can continue to produce the highest quality products and in the most efficient manner this center that we're discussing today the national textile center is provides real world applications that are needed to make sure that the textile industry in america survives and for that reason mr chairman  to support that of many support this center and to oppose amendment that has been offered before so at this time i yield back the balance of my time the question is on agreeing to the amendment those in favor please mentioned that we shouldn't let we in congress simply should let the federal government spend this money last time i checked we are the federal government who are one branch of it and it's our job to appropriate money to another that is to actually spend that money we don't spend that money here we don't write the checks that's done by the federal agencies our role is to provide oversight and to authorize the programs and so i'm not advocating at all that we step back i'm i'm advocating that we actually go to the time honored practice of authorization appropriation and oversight and that allows us to to actually go into these federal agencies and and really provide good oversight but i can tell you it's very difficult to provide oversight for example for the defense bill last year the year before i believe we provided an earmark in the defense bill for a museum in new york in the defense bill how can you provide good oversight with any straight face go to the defense department and say we think that you should have spent more money on body armor for our troops in iraq well that by the way you we directed you to spend two million dollars on a museum in new york it just doesn't seem right to me and so i think  frankly we cheapen our role when we hear the contemporary practice of earmarking i think is cheap in the role of congress and moved away from authorization appropriation oversight so that would be my response and i would support for the  a lot more than two million dollars for the united states government if he turned his attention to the defense department's on the contracting activities is certainly going on in iraq and perhaps that's something he will want to look at but let me say with regard to the when we are our industries are competing internationally the textile industries particularly under siege around the world this this initiative has probably saved the textile industry that continues to exist in this country and to the extent it's been able to save it and the the research and development that has come out of the textile  industries research has has can largely take credit for it and i want to commend the members who represent these areas and it's not one area it's not two areas or eight universities involved in this for focusing on this and being ahead of the problem in order to be able to fund to promote to facilitate the research the allow the textile industry to be as competitive as it is around the world it is only research it is only new discoveries it is only new materials new ways of of manufacturing that have allowed the textile industry in this country to survive so actually the show are to be commended each and every one of them for their foresight in supporting this project i think i heard sixty thousand employees across this country sixty billion dollar industry this is really a small amount of money which has had a huge payoff for the textile industry and the economy of the and then that number twenty five printed in the congressional record offered by mr pence of indiana at the end of the bill before the short time and insert the following new sex new title title seven additional general provisions section seven to enforce the criminal penalties provisions of the bipartisan campaign reform act of two thousand and two commonly known as mccain feingold it would it would essentially prevent the justice department from using funds to enforce criminal penalties against organizations that make electioneering communications and or that bill electioneering communications section of mccain feingold prohibits the use of corporate or labor union funds to finance broadcast advertisements that include the name or depiction of a federal candidate within thirty days of a primary election and sixty days before a general election basically restricts the first amendment rights of americans whether they be in right to i forgot his ations or the a o or other labor organizations from lobbying their representatives using the airwaves in those days before elections happily on june twenty fifth of this year the united states supreme court in the case of f e c vs wisconsin right to life ruled unconstitutional this provision of the mccain feingold law prohibits the broadcasting of such issue advertisements prior to an election even if those advertisements reference a federal candidate and even if the advertisement have some electoral effect it was in a very real sense mr chairman a huge victory for the first amendment because it's a major step in restoring the free speech rights to grassroots lobbying organizations left right and center the ruling allows advocacy groups around the country like wisconsin right to life the freedom to run ads to encourage citizens to contact their legislators on issues of importance to them and it reasserts the principle that the presumption under the law should be in favor of free expression rather than the of speech those of us who hailed this ruling and welcomed as a first step toward the reversal of mccain feingold were encouraged but we knew this was not the end of the story as the sole house plaintiff in the mcconnell vs f e c case the challenge mccain feingold i believe we must maintain our effort which is to ensure that that about mccain feingold that intrudes on the first amendment rights of every single american our challenge and that's why i'm on the floor today the pence amendment reaffirms the supreme court's ruling in wisconsin right to life it simply states that no funds under this bill can be used to enforce criminal penalties against any organization airing such an issue advertisement it further prevents criminal penalties attendant to the reporting requirements associated with the airing of such ads we should not allow criminal penalties to be imposed on citizens for engaging in protected speech and for not reporting to the government about their protected speech unconstitutional or does or does it have broader effect against other provisions of the mccain feingold act reclaiming my time i appreciate the gentleman's question in fairness my amendment says that no funds may be made in the act used to enforce amendments made subject to title a up title to a public law one zero seven dash one fifty five which according to some is slightly broader than the supreme court decision but this is the provision of the law that the supreme court essentially struck  that's the crux of the pencil meant all of those who claim allegiance to the first amendment i believe should be thrilled with the wisconsin right to life decision and support the pence amendment i think we still have much to do to reinstate full first amendment protections for the american people that i continue to believe were badly trampled by mccain feingold but passing the pencil memet today in the congress would simply reaffirm the essential elements of the supreme court's decision in the wisconsin right to life case it's important first step on this floor when i encourage my well mr chairman the f e c is planning to issue new regulations to comply with the supreme court ruling that the gentleman references so that issue ads mention to mention a chance may be shown in the run up chairman this amendment will increase the violence against women prevention programs by five million dollars intended to provide to fund a specific provision namely the jessica dollars victim assistance program to offset this cost the department of justice general stalking in order to improve the enforcement of protection orders it develops in collaboration with prosecutors courts and victim service providers standardize response policies for local law enforcement agencies including protocols to ensure that dangerous or potentially lethal cases are identified in prioritized victims of domestic violence need yes you can vouch program because the current system is undermined the effectiveness of restraining order the supreme court held that the police did not have a mandatory duty to make an arrest under a court issued protective order to protect a woman from a violent husband this case came as a result of an incident in one thousand nine hundred nine involving the kidnapping hi estranged husband despite her numerous pleas to the police to arrest her husband for violating a protection order including providing them with information on his whereabouts the police failed to do so later that night mr gonzales murdered their three children of victim assistance program restores some of the effect in this restraining order is that the supreme court took away with its ruling this is the first opportunity we have had to grow the jessica's out victim assistance program since it was first funded last year after what there is a sion initial authorization in the violence against women act reauthorization of two thousand and five in order to strengthen the effectiveness of restraining orders this program strengthens the efficacy of restraining orders against the prevalent matter of domestic violence tragically as we know violence against women is a pervasive problem which goes beyond class culture age or ethnic background every nine seconds a woman is better than the united states and every two minutes someone is sexually assaulted according to department justice more than three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends every day more than two and a half million women are victims of violence each year and nearly one in three women experience at least one physical assault by a partner during adulthood many more cases go unmentioned is women fearing to come forward leave the assaults and reported the je assistance program helps to reinforce restraining orders to protect women who are victims of domestic violence and needs and it is a great step forward when it authorized it two years ago and when we first funded it last year mr chairman we need more funds for this program i am aware that this bill because of the good work of the chairman of the committee members includes approximately four hundred thirty min endows to support grants under the violence against women act which is forty seven million dollars more than the current budget and fifty nine million dollars above the president's meager request for f y eight i'm also aware that in amendments we passed last night we increased funding for violence for the violence against women act by that forty or forty five million dollars and i hope that some of that will survive in conference and in light of that i will now be with you on the amend this amendment but urge my colleagues to support the c j s appropriations that mounts granted to programs that protect women and their families better understand water quality and ecosystem effects on our fisheries u s fisheries are experiencing increasing pressure as the near shore marine ecosystems that sustain them deteriorate due to human a as blooms of jellyfish another organization organisms that compete for food with juvenile fish like summer flounder grow in frequency in abundance the present trend may well be the cause of significant economic harm to coastal communities in various areas along the coast the lack of rebuilding in one of our most important coastal fisheries summer flowers or maybe an example of the down side to managing a fishery without taking into account the ecosystem impacts on its ability to rebuild an ecosystem based approach to management requires ecosystem based monitoring the use of innovative cost effective play place based data collection systems would provide continuous high quality data on a number of important water quality and biological parameters that will greatly improve the data with which fisheries are managed i hope mr chairman you will consider allocating some of the resources in this bill to support the use of such new technologies that hold great promise i thank my colleague from new jersey for bringing this important technology place based data collection stations  attention and please to consider this funding need as we move forward to congress should funds become available i thank the chairman very much for his attention to this matter and i yield back the balance of my time gentleman yield back all the balance of his time all times expired for the part of the gentleman from new york right was there i chairman have a minute that's the to enforce section five zero five of the usa patriot act until the department of justice conducts a full review and delivers to congress a report on the use of national security letters to collect information on u s persons who are not suspected that no funds shall be made available to authorize an issue a national security letter and then a cell in contravention of current law that should go without saying that as we have seen apparently not with the current administration an accounting by the department of justice of the f b i selection and use of information on u s persons who are not suspected of being terrorists or agents of a foreign power before we provide for the funding for the issuance of more national security  on u s persons who are not suspected of being agents of a foreign power or terrorist as that term is defined in fifty u s c eighteen zero zero one now the underlying bill asked for the f b i to conduct a report within two months and what has been done to implement the inspector general's recommendations with respect to and ourselves this would simply ask that that report be more specific and and more inclusive and include the following information how many national security letters have been issued what standards are used to determine when to seek information of the person who is not suspected to of being an agent of a foreign power the current guidance as to what is quote relevant to an investigation where the targets are not suspected of being agents of a foreign power how that information is stored how the information is used whether the information is used whether that information is ever destroyed whether that information has led to any substantial leads in terrorism case from cation providers financial institutions and consumer credit agencies can now be collected secretly by simply issuing a national security letter and f b i field director simple assertion that the request is merely relevant to a national security investigation these communications and records can be of people who are u s citizens who are not suspected of being agents of a foreign power or a terrorist these communications or records can be demanded without any court review or any court approval worse yet the target of the n will never know that it's communications records when suspected by government agents because the company the financial agency the service provider the bank is barred by law from telling him or anyone else of the demand and as we know from the attorney general from the f inspector general's audit this broad discretion has been abused by the f b i whose agents may have violated either the law or internal rules more than a thousand times while misusing the authority to issue national security letters this recent i g report heightens the clear need s i intend to introduce this week with congressman flake the national security letters reform act of two thousand and seven to address more fully the issues presented by section five zero five a national security letters the bill would restore a pre pay to that requirement that the f b i make a factual individual i showing that the records so it pertain to a suspected terrorist or spy it would also give the recipient of a national security letter an opportunity to obtain legal counsel and that's preserve the constitutional right to a day in court already courts have found parts of the n authority to be to brew it unconstitutional the provisions that state the n f l recipients are forbidden from disclosing the demands of the targeted individual and offer been even from consulting with an attorney have already been struck down another court found the n f l authority to be unconstitutional and on its face because it violates the fourth amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures the national security letter reform act of two thousand and seven would allow the f b i to continue wish to continue issuing national security lett correcting the constitutional deficiencies in the law the bill would enable the f b i to obtain documents that are legitimately needs while protecting the privacy of law abiding american citizens i ask that my colleagues vote for this amendment so that we can protect the privacy of u s persons who are not terrorists were agents of terrorists before we provide funding for those broad and sweeping powers provided under the patriot act i urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment and i yield back the balance of my time no gentleman yield back his time doesn't gentleman from new jersey continue to preserve this point  mr chairman i rise to briefly lend my support to the conservative goal of congressional oversight i have heard from many individuals and business leaders in the private sector about section five zero five it has caused the financial services sector to work overtime of complying with the section and it has laid the foundation for an explosion in the use of national security letters section five zero five allows the executive branch to bypass the constitution's procedures for search warrants and grants authority that congress has a legitimate interest and role in monitoring this amendment simply ask the d o j to conduct a review of their activities and ensure that the civil liberties of law abiding americans are not getting swept up in the process of keeping our nation safe mr chairman we all agree that protecting the skunk there is a top priority but alongside that should be ensuring that our freedom is not threatened along the way the best way this body can do that is through smart and direct oversight this amendment calls for that a point of order the f b i views of national security letters is a very important issue and should be addressed by authorizing committees i'd like to point out which i know the sponsor knows that it's his judiciary committee that is the authorizing committee and i respect that and i know he exercises a very powerful position on that committee this amendment requires the department of justice to report on its use of national security letters before they can issue any new national security letters as we all know the department of justice inspector general released a report on the f b i s abuse of the national security letters in march i hope the dish committee has been asking the department of justice questions i'm sure they have perhaps they should even mark up a bill to reform the f b i his use of national security letters after they further study this issue if they feel the reforms made by the f b i are not sufficient today despite past abuses of national security letters we know that they are an important intelligence tool we also know that al qaeda has reestablish its central resort its central organization training infrastructure in the lines of global communications and that the national intelligence estimate has put the night it states in the in the words of that estimate and i quote in a heightened threat in environment status and of quote taking away this import intelligence tool these national security letters from the department of justice while they compile a report given this heightened threat environment is not prudent the use of national security letters is a very important issue that should be considered carefully and not debated for a few minutes on an appropriations bill i urge rejection of the amendment and i insist on my point of order the gentleman's status point of all the chairman i make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitute legislations on an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause two of rule twenty one rule states in pertinent part and amendment to a general appropriation bill should not be made in order if changing existing law report that the underlying bill demands that the they will include the information requested by this amendment the gentleman withdraw and then the chairs prepared to rule the chair finds that  thousand a congress justice and sides appropriations act the bill we're debating today just an amendment before to prohibit funds in the bill from being used to enforce a criminal penalty provisions of the bipartisan campaign reform act two thousand  provisions dealing with electioneering communications this was debated and accepted on a voice vote it is my intention to ask that that vote be they catered so it can be part of the two minute voting process and failing that i will just ask that the boat be heard in the full chamber which would take fifteen minutes i'm not trying to slip one by someone i just simply want a roll call vote on the floor of the house why do i want a roll call i want to roll call vote because the supreme court did not rule against the provision of title two it did not say that baker was unconstitutional as it related to title two rather it stated the provisions were unconstitutional as they apply to a certain advertisements this ruling means title two will still be applied on a case by case basis now what did the campaign finance reform bill seek to do it seek to do two things one it seek to prevent members of congress from raising money from corporations labor unions and unlimited sums from individuals and what we call hard money that meant to enforce the  that banned corporate treasury money the tillman act the one hundred forty seven law banning union dues money the tap partly act and the one nine hundred seventy four act the campaign finance reform bill that made it clear you could not get unlimited sums from individuals that was one part of the legislation the other part of the legislation attempted to deal with hard money contributions these are monies from corporations from unions dues from individuals unlimited sums and the way we sought to do that was we sought to do it by saying that a candidate's name mentioned thirty days before an election and  a primary end and sixty days before a general election would be deemed campaign expenditures therefore no one saw the so called soft money the unlimited sums from individuals corporations and labor unions and it it sought to say it had to be hard money contributions so right to life would have to raise five thousand dollars from each individual put in a political action committee and it could spend unlimited sums based on whatever it raised in their and their pac for instance the n r a it has four million members raises ten thousand dollars from each it could spend forty million dollars up to an election it would be hard money not soft and so my point is the supreme court has found the campaign finance law cost to tional it had a second issue looking at these electioneering provisions thirty days before a primary sixty days before a general election and determined the case before it the wisconsin case right to life case vs the f e c was in fact permitted  and therefore the f e c needs to rewrite its regulations it is my intention mr chairman to ask for a roll call vote and this chairman at this time the chairman at this time i would ask unanimous consent well let me just state again why i'm doing this i will ask for a roll call vote there will be a roll call vote the question is should it be a fifteen minute roll call vote or a two minute roll call vote i would prefer it be part of the whole system so at this time i'm asking unanimous consent that the adoption by voice of the amendment offered by the gentleman from indiana mr pence be they carried to the end that the chair put the question to novo is their objection i reserve the right to offered by mr flake of arizona at the end of the bill before the short title insert the following new title title seven additional general provisions section seven zero one a limitation on use of funds known on the fund made available by this act may be used for the east coast shellfish research institute at the east coast shellfish growers association toms river new jersey the corresponding reduction in fund the amount unwise provided by this act for this this event would simply strike two hundred fifty thousand dollars for the east coast shellfish research institute you know we just debated an earmark a few minutes ago with regard to the textile industry and were told that we needed this earmark because the textile industry is in such dire straits and that has been affected by international competition and incomes are down and jobs have been lost with regard to the shellfish industry you have the opposite you have an industry that's actually doing quite well you have according to the east coast shellfish growers association this is the ad mr administrate of organization that would receive the earmarks there are thirteen hundred members of the association with a combined revenue of approximately eighty million dollars just last year this revenue averages more than sixty thousand dollars per farmer for shellfish farmers far more than the median household income in the country according to the u census bureau the median house household income is around forty four thousand so we have sixty thousand in this industry as opposed to forty four thousand nationwide it brings up the should if we fund  to study industries or to help industries that are in dire straits and we fund industry or fund earmarks to fund industries that are doing quite well why not everything in between what's to stop us to go from going ahead and seafood harvests has produced increasingly higher yields since two thousand this is in addition to increase consumer demand for seafood based on new dietary guidelines and i grew up on a cattle ranch in a far and i don't want anybody to accuse me of  favoring before for seafood or shellfish i don't like bolton but but in this case it seems to me the congress is again picking winners and losers here we're saying we're favoring one particular industry be a textiles  it shellfish and the only way to not do that is to give earmarks to every industry out there and i just don't think that we can we simply can't afford that the taxpayer needs a break here so with that  significantly increase transparency we targeted a decade of abuse while still protecting members ability to direct critical functions porton projects and to ensure they remain in the public interest this earmark meets that obligation the east coast shellfish research institute is a nonprofit entity it distributes funds to the national oceanographic and atmospheric administration fisheries lab in milford connecticut conducts vital research about the shellfish industry i understand that the gentleman from arizona is from a state that is landlocked for those of us who are at connecticut louisiana south carolina texas and other areas that this lab meets the needs for rely on a healthy shellfish industry this is a small investment it goes a long way and pays big dividends for this entire country we keep the industry competitive spurring significant sustainable growth and strengthening communities around the country the milford lab performs similar research such as stony brook university the virginia institute of marine science and these are national assets they provide shellfish hatcheries with pioneering research the tools to fight predators and disease to keep businesses profitable to promote efficient environmentally sound farming techniques shellfish aquaculture industry is an economic powerhouse and a potential source of tremendous growth in the east coast which relies on this industry is home to more than thirteen hundred small shellfish farmers on yes the annual harvests are valued at nearly eighty million dollars the per acre yield from shellfish aquaculture are among the highest of any form of agriculture and i might add this is agriculture we just farm fish and the industry provide thousands of jobs in rural areas it supports related industries such as boat building outboard repair tourism and shellfish processing you know today the u s now imports eighty percent of the seafood that we consume some of the worst food safety scares in recent weeks have come from seafood shipped from foreign shores we should be building american businesses and providing an environment where more homegrown save seafood can reach the american public these funds will turn research into results making scientific information and innovation possible benefiting shellfish producers nationwide not only in connecticut but louisiana texas south carolina washington state and yes other northeastern states you know if my colleagues truly believe in supporting families and farmers harnessing innovation strengthening our economy this policy is commonsense and i urge my colleagues to oppose the flake amendment and yield back the balance of my dear gentle lady years back balance of  congressman jim saxon district they do some good work they work with other institutes around the nation and so i strongly support the retention of this language and this project in the bill and the bill and yield back the general yells back it's time  from connecticut and still are oh i think she has articulated and laid out very eloquently the argument an argument that is put forward on this floor i think that makes all the sense in the world especially as we seek in the ensuing days and next week to talk about farmers and in essence fisherman i don't think there's any greater representation of of the american way in the american way of life and rugged individualism then through the eyes of people that labor in agriculture or aquaculture and so when you take a look at this very modest earmark so eloquently defended by mr lauro it's surprising to me especially as someone who is the co chair of the congressional shellfish caucus that this amendment  be drawn against such a regional way of looking and promoting in fostering aquaculture and making sure especially in light of the concern them a with regard of foreign entities importing into our country without the kind of care and caution that we know comes from homegrown fisheries and in this case shellfish the science behind this in the coming together government operates best when it operates as a collective enterprise and this process here is contrary to what the gentleman is saying is most democratic in terms of representing those fishermen and those farmers who rarely get a chance to come to this floor themselves but through their representative process whether it's puget sound or whether it's long island sound from coast to coast we make sure that their concerns get represented and that there's an opportunity through this year mark to make sure that we provide them with the necessary research to continue to fostering grow in my name it is designed to prevent the department of justice for in forcing a decision made recently by the second circuit court of appeals in new york many of us know of the policy that exists in china for sterilization and forced abortions and this this decision recently really ties into that as we also know that the illegal immigration reform in immigrate immigrant responsibility act of one thousand nine hundred six clearly state that the chinese nationals are eligible for asylum if they were subjected to forced abortion as of sterilisations procedures in china and a decade of department of justice policy is held that spouses of unmarried partners of those subjects of those subject to brutal treatment are also eligible recently in line at alvarez of the united states department of justice the second circuit overturn years of that policy and previous judicial decisions allowing chinese men to claim asylum if their wife or partner is subject to a forced sterilization in china less than one month before the second circuit handed down their decision the third circuit came to the exact opposite assertion in chen versus the attorney general in the united states where they clearly upheld the decadal policy of d o j granting asylum spouses of those physically harmed by china's policy the chilling effect of the second circuit decision is already being felt in states covered by the circus the second circuit just one day after the second circuit handed down its decision in immigration judge him and hatton was bound to order the removal of an individual because of her claim of the siloam was based on the fact that her husband was the victim of the forced sterilization the lady had three children in violation of china's barbaric population control policies keeping the first two hidden from government upon the birth of her third child the chinese government became aware of a violation of the law and came to her home to force her to undergo sterilization due to the complications from a third birth the doctor was unable to form the sterilization so the government simply seized her husband and sterilized him the judge in her case was sympathetic to her story and indicated his wish to grant her asylum however felt that his hands were tied by the second circuit decision just twenty four hours prior i ask unanimous consent that the this individual's entire story be entered into the record we also have heard from many immigration lawyers about generally many immigration lawyers are actively recommending in light of this decision to their clients who are seeking asylum based on such inhumane treatment to leave the states covered by the circuit and to avoid to avoid expulsion chinese nationals make up the largest number of asylum seekers in the united states between two thousand and two thousand and five thirty five thousand of the hundred fifty seven thousand asylum seekers came from china it is unclear how many were petitioning soley d china's brutal population control policy in her dissenting opinion in the second circuit case judge sonia sotomayor made the point well when she wrote quote the majority clings to the notion that the persecution suffered is physically visit upon only one spouse but the simply this simply ignores the question of whom exactly the government was seeking to persecute when it acted the harm is clearly directed at the couple who dared to continue an unauthorized unauthorized pregnancy in hopes of enlarging the family unit and quote to me it's clear that the effects of china's brutal for sterilization procedures do not harm only the mother but also the father or vice versa and if the second circuit of the second sort of appeals can't recognize that i feel it's our responsibility to protect such asylum seekers either until there is a consistent national policy or congress considers a legislative remedy if necessary a second circuit's opinion as we mentioned the gentleman is recognized as a fireman and thank you mr speaker i entirely agree with the gentleman from new york i entirely agree with the with the purpose of this amendment the problem i have with this amendment is that it is i understand that it says no funds may be spent to enforce a court decision if that's what this amendment says i just heard it briefly then it's the wrong way to do it we had to put in a bill and i'm sure the judiciary committee would entertain assume would entertain it quickly to to clarify the law and say that's not what the law is and that what the gentleman seeks to do we are to do legislatively but the idea saying that we won't that we will not permit funds to be used to carry out an order of a court destroys undermines subverts the rule of law in this country we cannot subvert the rule of law in this country by denying funds to carry out an order of the court if we don't agree with you or to the court and i agree i certainly don't agree with you or to the court in this case it's terrible we have to change the law that's why we have a congress that's our job let's change the law it's according to the law wrongly as it has in my opinion and along with  gentleman we had to put in the bill to change the law clarified i think that that bill would sail through here pretty quickly in all likelihood and that's the way to do it but this puts it take an amendment to say no funds appropriated may be used  enforce the court order what's next the different court order that we dislike that subverts the rule of law and is the wrong way to go and i hope this amendment  clearly again we're all in the same page as to the decision and so i can hear that is that we're on the same page that the decision itself in the consequence of what we're trying to offer this amendment is to delay deportation as is already occurring in the second circuit you and i share the concerted members of new york city delegation but what we're trying to do is at least provide a stopgap measure as we know quite clearly that just twenty four hours after this decision was reached a young lady to work with the gentlemen and anyone else to try to effectuate this policy and i would hope that the gentleman and others and i could address the administration and urge them for the next few weeks that it may take the congress to act for the administration withhold action that they should not engage in deportations now i hope the comedy committee not comedy the committee with the administration would allow them to to delay a little and in forcing  after all the court didn't say you must the court did not say you must deport these people said you made deport these people it's up to the administration to determine that so i would hope that the administration would delay for the few weeks it may take for congress to show our will on this matter and that we don't agree with the court but but again i hope this amendment doesn't pass because it sets a terrible precedent may that be unconstitutional not sure but but clearly we don't want to start stripping  voice vote of the amendment offered by the gentleman from indiana mr penske vacated to that and the chair put the question to no avail and if it is in either direction i will still ask for a roll call vote is there objection and it's still slow in arriving but once it gets here it will facilitate and speed up our business for the day will allow us to in an orderly fashion finish our business on c j s not as expeditiously as we would li and if it hadn't just arrived i would have been asking my ranking minority to get up and contribute to this the chairman of th under consideration h r thirty ninety three and has come to no resolution there on notwithstanding clause eleven of rule eighteen no further amendment to the bill may be offered except pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the chairman or ranking minority member of the committee on appropriations or their designees for the purpose of debate amendment by mr price of georgia regarding funding or the executive office of immigration review and amendment by mr campbell reducing funds in the bill by point zero five percent which shall be debatable for thirty minutes amendment by mr kapil wanna regarding funding for young witness assistance mimicked by mr conaway regarding use of reductions made through amendment for deficit reduction and amendment by mr garrett in new jersey limiting funds for attendance at international conferences and amendment by mr inslee regarding federal law enforcement on tribal land amendment by miss jackson lee of texas regarding the early release of prisoners an amendment by miss jackson lee of texas regarding transit workers access to enter operable communications and amendment by mrs jackson lee of texas regarding the safety of the international space station a member of mr jordan reducing funds in the bill by three percent what should be debatable for thirty minutes an amendment by mr mack or mr flake limiting funds for certain if the letters on lest certain reporting requirements are met reducing funds in the bill by point five percent what shall be debatable for thirty minutes and a minute by mr o'bee regarding earmarks and the minute by mr price of georgia reducing funds  bill which shall be debatable for thirty minutes and amendment by miss linda t sanchez of california regarding the state criminal alien assistance program an amendment by mr ten or mr hunter limiting funds for the security and prosperity partnership and amendment but mr upton mrs harman mr penske mr inglis regarding use of energy star certified light bulbs an amendment by mr weldon limiting community oriented policing funds for state and local governments acting in contravention of section six four two of the illegal immigration reform and immigration responsibility act amendment by mr weldon or mr king of iowa limiting state criminal alien assistance funds for state and local governments acting in contra vention of section six four two of the illegal immigration reform and immigration responsibility act and amendment by mr king of iowa limiting state criminal alien assistance funds for state and local governments unless certain reporting requirements are met an amendment by mr king of iowa regarding a study of aliens in prison amendment by mister king of iowa limiting funds to employ workers described in section two seven four a of the immigration and nationality act and amendment by mr king of iowa limiting funds for the institute for scientific regarding funding levels a such a minute may be offered only by the member named in this request or designate a shall be considered as read shall not be subject to amendment except that the chairman and ranking  ty member of the committee on appropriations and the subcommittee on commerce justice science and related agencies each may offer one pro forma and then meant for the purpose of debate and shall not be subject to a debate and for division of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole except as otherwise specified each amendment shall be debatable for ten minutes equally divided controlled by the proponent and  opponent and amendment shall be considered to fit the description stated in this request if it addresses in whole or in part the subject described jackson to the gentleman's  us consent request bearing on so ordered soon to house resolution five sixty two and rule eighteen the chair declares the house and the committee of the whole house on the state of the union the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for the further consideration of the build a chart thirty nine hundred three of which the clerk will report by title a bill making appropriations for the department of commerce and justice and science and related agencies for the fiscal year ending september thirtieth two thousand and eight and for their purposes when the committee of the whole hall of the house rolls earlier today all the bill had been read through page eighty five for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise i have an amendment at the desk the clock will designate them assist in forcing federal law when it comes to public interest as outlined in twenty eight u s c five forty two and twenty eight u s c five forty three it's in the public's interest to prosecute crimes committed against native women including domestic violence sexual assault stalking and dating violence and as they take on this task i also urge them to consult with tribes as practice required under executive order one three one seven five as we know there are over four million american indian and alaskan native people throughout the us and jurisdictional questions today are preventing  federal laws indian women suffer two and a half times more domestic violence three and a half times more sexual assaults than the rest of the american population an amnesty international report showed that eighty six percent of these crimes are committed by non indian men and the law today prevents tribal courts to prosecute them as a former prosecutor i was shocked at the majority of these crimes today and these criminals go unpunished justice department data compiled by syracuse university showed that in two decades only thirty percent of tribal land crimes referred to u s attorneys were ever prosecuted i'd like to see the u s attorneys consult with the tribes and work to enforce federal law specially when it comes to crimes of domestic violence stocking and sexual assault and assuring that u s attorneys appoint special attorneys to insist to assist in prosecuting these federal laws imperative i will be making part of the record of the information from wall street journal article titled tatter justice on us in the reservations criminals slip through the gaps it's time that we close those gaps and urge us attorneys act with dispatch in this regard and with that in mind of some of the rules that impede us moving this forward i'd ask unanimous consent to withdraw my m m as mr speaker and you'll back to balance my time without objection the amendment is what draw who seeks recognition once said well actually a wise man said often that freedom is the core of all human progress and it is my belief that he is right since coming to congress i have often been an advocate of oversight my colleague from arizona routinely comes to this floor urging us to make oversight a larger part of the congressional process and i agree with him it is an area where we all need to pay more attention unfortunately we turn our attention away it is often at the expense of our own liberty and freedom this amendment seeks to spotlight a particular area of concern the so called existent circumstances letter sent out from the f b i to obtain highly sensitive information while i support using the proper tools to keep our nation safe particularly in the war on terror these letters seem to fall well short of congressional i'm sorry of can constitutional checks and balances my colleagues and i fear is is that in the innocence of citizens are being netted in the process but mr chairman how are we to know that the very limited justification that comes from the department of justice stand on shaky ground to the rest of the time they hide behind national security as a reason for not telling us more while i am pleased the f b i is making internal steps to clarify the scope and use of these letters i believe we should read we should raise the firing it to ensure there are no questions that civil liberties are not being violated and the information that is coming from these searches is not being used for wrongful purposes thankfully article one of the constitutional says we are a co equal branch of government charged with cooperation oversight of these types of activities mr chairman when it comes to our freedom we are all we all need to be diligent we all need to exercise care and we all need to be cautious of government though it often seeks to protect us it always ends up capturing more of our precious liberties thank you and i'd like to yield i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from arizona letters these reforms came about during the reauthorization of the patriot act these reforms didn't go as far as i would have liked but we took the administration at their word when they said that civil liberties would not be violated a during the process i and others were told by administration officials that the reforms that we saw were not needed that the department of justice and f b i would never do the hypothetical worst case scenario that some of my colleagues and i worried about now that after a long investigation by the inspector general and department of justice i can regrettably say that many of the worst case scenarios actually came about and that our high  hypotheticals were not so farfetched the f b i has abused its power both in terms of national security letters as well as exigent letters in the case of actually gin letters it appears the f b i repeatedly asserted exigent circumstances where none existed in order to obtain  telephone records the inspector general's probe also concluded that there are sometimes was no open or pending national security investigation tied to the request this directly contradicts the requirements of the us law letters went out stating that a grand jury subpoena was forthcoming when none was forthcoming the inspector general's report was just a small sampling of the use of these letters and we have not been given a larger picture yet i just want to convey to commend the gentleman from florida for bringing this forward he has worked hard on this issue and it is we're not speaking any more in hypotheticals we have we have seen abuses been documented and so this is very important and i commend him for bringing this forward and i join him in his effort and i yield back the gentleman yield back his time to say that i think this is a absolutely a justified effort to bring to light something that i think all the american people deserve and that is to understand truly what is going on at the department of justice so  far as the use of these letters and unfortunately this is legislating on an appropriations bill i do hope that in the course of this session i do believe that we will get to it we will bring up legislation that will get at the patriot that we can bring to light how far the justice department is god and maybe overriding the initial initial intent of the patriot act and the overriding the sense of congress in terms of the abuse  of issuance of both national security letters and exigency letters and for that reason i think this this this intent of this is very well placed and and right now i'd like to yield to the gentleman i thank the gentleman and i want to thank my colleague mr mack for his strong work on this issue and and his protection of civil liberties and this regard and many others most disturbingly in my view from the inspector general's report was the fact that the f b i issued at least seven hundred thirty nine existent letters to obtain telephone toll records in violations of internal justice department guidelines these exit letters  used in emergency situations when an attack can be imminent and information is required immediately they said things like this do to exit in circumstances a request of the rue eckert's for the attached list of phone numbers to be provided subpoenas requesting this information have been submitted to the u s attorney's office that will process and serve them as expeditiously as possible the problem with these letters and at least seven hundred thirty nine cases was there was no grand jury meeting there were no subpoenas requested and none would ever be delivered and so here you had the prospect of the f b i going out to a phone company rather provider and saying this is an emergency we need this information subpoenas to be forthcoming and none were now is the telephone company you get the f b i not going on your door asking for record saying this is an emergency someone may a b someone's life may be at risk we may be at risk of an attack you're going to want to comply and then after the fact after the f b i discovered that it is shoot all these letters eroni asli unlawfully it then issues an s l national security letter asking for the information that was provided for in these exit letters basically to cover up to try to give up patina of legality over an illegal practice this is deeply disturbing and my friend my friends a member at that i was pleased to join him in co sponsoring w prohibit the expenditure of funds on these exit letters when the claim is made that a grand jury subpoena is forthcoming when there's no grand jury even impaneled on the issue we need to put a stop to this practice i very much appreciate my colleague raising this issue i'm proud to support it and i'm happy to give back to my colleague the balance of the time the gentleman from rhode reclaiming my time mr chairman i think that this issue is an issue of due process this country  founded on the basis of due process and on law and that is why this is a strikes at the very heart of our system of government and why this is such an important issue to be raised and for that reason i think that while this is a point of order i do believe this is going to be an issue for this congress to to address in the course of the session  thank you mr chairman i would like to thank my colleagues as well i think this demonstrates that that there is bipartisan support on this issue and and at the heart of this is to preserve and protect the citizens of this country's freedoms and liberties so i i want to thank again my colleagues and the staff on both sides for working this but understanding where we are i'd like to ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment if their objection hearing no objection colleagues thank the chairman of the subcommittee mr mollohan and the ranking member of the subcommittee mr freeland highs and for your leadership on a number of these issues which i will discuss today let me first of all acknowledge the department of justice funding particularly the state and local law enforcement crime prevention grants and the cops program of which many of us have supported for an extensive period of time i rose to the floor of the house yesterday and indicated that i believe that the father of community oriented policing was both the mayor and the chief of police in my city of houston leapai brown who serves as the chief of police in new york and atlanta i rise today to emphasize from my colleagues the importance of providing resources to public safety officers so that they can provide the service to the a community in this increasing period of rising crime statistics and let me share with you the vastness of the public safety offices responsibility what i want to suggest in this amendment as a public safety officers are needed in schools other needing on the highways they need in our neighborhoods the needed on our buses and out trains any times incidences will occur on our trains and buses with citizens who are using those facilities and the quick response of public safety officers can lead to the saving of lives that is why it is important for them to have the appropriate commitment and the appropriate pro create equipment let me cite in my own community what you are seeing statistically across the nation having just heard the f b i report that says crime statistics are increasing all over america not only in the urban centers like houston which is the fourth largest city in the nation but it is also increasing in our rule hamlets and villages and farmlands we have a crisis in crime part of it has been because we have not provided i think the extra resources that we see in this bill but let me just cite for you why are people traveling on transportation needs a quick access of a public safety officer one article says the second metro bus driver attacked two men attacked a metro bus driver tuesday after they argued with her about a failure that means all of those riding the bus were in jeopardy a quick response by a public safety officer was clearly  a need and so my minutes simple it provides for the reemphasis of the need of these equipment whether they are walkie talkies and others to ensure that we have safety and as well to ensure that these dollars a use effectively department of justice the clerk will designate the m m m m n offered by ms jackson lee of texas the court of the correction of the record of the previous designated amendment of was the one just discussed and the record will reflect same the gentle lady from texas and i thank the chair for his courtesies the record should be corrected with the early amendment tattling through the order of the house of today the gentle lady from texas is recognized five minutes and a member of polls will control five minutes the chair now recognizes general ada from texas thank the chair and thank him for his correction of the amendment let me also thank the chairman and ranking member for their infusion of dollars in the federal prison system hundred seventy nine million dollars above two thousand and seven  there needs to be an infusion of funding because we have an overcrowded system in the federal bureau of prisons we as the authorizing committee the committee on the judiciary have heard repeatedly of the concerns of both the management of the federal bureau of prisons but also the inmates i have visited institutions in my own area i've seen the overcrowding i've seen the conditions and paid attention to some of the elements that we can improve many may hear this debate and suggest that incarcerated persons should be treated in a certain way this is a very simple i'm emitted asked for a study to look at the possibilities of early release for nonviolent prisoners who are over the age of forty five how does that help our community won it since individuals back home to their families to provide resources we know that we are watching a second chance bill make its way through this congress we hope that it will move quickly many of these offenders are middle age many of them are sick this cost a great deal for the federal bureau of prisons it is noted that one point one million nonviolent offenders are currently locked up many of them are african americans and in the one nine hundred thirty seventy five percent of the people entering state in federal prison were of the majority population that is not the case now so it's a simple premise it has been adopted in the authorization bill it ask the hard question why are we incarcerating for decades and decades nonviolent individuals who pay their debt to society when they could come out and provide the comfort and nurturing and financial support to their own amendment and we and we accept the amendment let me let me thank the distinguished the chairman and i asked my colleagues to support this amendment it will go a long way to this very strong and harsh question of federal prison polls will each control five minutes the chair recognizes this young lady from texas let me thank the chair and again i thank the chairman and ranking member of this subcommittee let me also add my appreciation to the appropriators and the chairman and ranking member of the full committee mr chairman i also want to knowledge the hard work of the science committee i had the pleasure of serving on that committee for almost twelve years my issue there was the question of safety during the ten that i was in that role or a member of that committee of course we had the backdrop of challenger and then columbia safety is a crucial component to the continued support of americans of the international space station and america's space program when i have an annual christmas party in houston the most popular visitors is not santa claus for children it is the astronaut and i rise today to offer an amendment that will reinforce the importance of safety and the nasa program space exploration remains a part of our national destiny after the columbia disaster nasa stands at a pivotal moment in history is a responsibility as congress to ensure that the future of nasa is one of continued progress and i've long been an advocate of space exploration and i steadfastly emphasize that while safety must be the number one priority of nasa this should not deter pushing the boundaries of technology and discovery in june of this year we saw the space shuttle atlantis and the international space station both experience serious safety scares the shuttle's mission had to be extended following the discovery of a rip in the shuttle's thermal blanket while the space station experienced the failure of a russian operated computer system controlling a crucial portion of the station's navigational system the recent incident clearly indicates the need for improved safety standards and oversight space exploration must be coupled with satisfactory safety assurances the amendment mr chairman that i offer refers to the national aeronautics and space administration authorization act signed into law by president bush provided for the establishment of an international space station independent safety commission that i authored to discover and assess any vulnerabilities of the international space station that could lead to its destruction compromise the health of its crew or necessitate it's premature abandonment we will launch on august seventh that launch will head to the international space station people will be on that international space station which is the ultimate goal that scientists will find a place in space to be able to do the research that will carry america forward that safety path for provided valuable observations on the strengths and weaknesses of the international space station safety systems it went on to say that we should have strong congressional support for the space shuttle and international space station as well as a number of pacific technical recommendation such as increased attention to orbital debris and ensuring that all personnel and manages have the necessary skills and experience if these recommendations are to be successful in a dignified and mitigating future wrists then we must have a congress that reinforces safety for nasa we shouldn't have the individuals there all who are afraid to speak up we should have whistle blower protection and we should have a director who cares about safety and does not reject the congress interest in safety i hope that we will keep our eye through this international space station commission on safety even though its report is in to ensure that the individuals we sit on the space shuttle the work that we're doing in space has the element of safety to save lives and create the opportunity for men and women to live and work in space i ask my colleagues to support in two thousand and five to incorporate into office and she's reaffirming the safety procedures and in an end this amendment and we certainly have no objection that way except the amendment and compliment her on congressional record offered by mr upton of michigan pursuant to the order of the house of the day the gentleman of from michigan stopped on a member of a poll each will control five minutes the chair recognizes the gentleman from we don't intend to take very much of our time we've debated this amendment on each of the appropriation bills so thus far and we've been very fortunate to have the support of mr all the mr lewis and all of the several subcommittee chairman and ranking members i offer this with my friend and colleague mrs harman along with mr inglis and mr lipinski it is a bipartisan memet simply requiring that the federal government beginning october first purchase only energy star light bulbs  be a savings of hundreds of millions of dollars to the taxpayers over the course of the year and it is it is something that is enjoyed again wide bipartisan support i don't need to debate it further and i'm prepared to yield back the balance of my let me just help set a framework before i talk specifically about the amendment today we have a proximate two hundred billion dollar annual budget deficit we have a eight trillion dollars national debt we have a budget that we've been debating over the last several weeks and will complete the spending process of that next week but we have a budget of three trillion dollars annual budget we have an entitlement spending crisis looming when we think about what's going to happen the next ten to fifteen years relative to social security medicare medicaid we've got a crisis that we have to begin to deal with and today today the federal government spends approximately twenty three thousand dollars per household now with that as a framework i think it's fair to ask is government too big or too small yes that question the average and family my guess is when they think about those facts two hundred billion dollar deficit three trillion dollar annual budget a trillion dollar national debt and entitlement crisis that is looming and a federal government that spends twenty three thousand dollars per american household yes the average american family if government's too big my guess is they'd probably say yes all this amendment does is begin to take that first step that modest first step into getting our spending under control and it says this instead of in this appropriation bill instead of spending fifty three point five billion dollars let's just spend fifty two billion dollars which happens to be the amount that we spent last year so it's not a cut as our friends on the other side will most most assuredly say when it's their turn to speak it's not a cut it's simply level funding holding the line on spending it's a three  percent reduction from what's in the bill simply going to spend what we did last year that's not too much to ask when you think about the context we find ourselves in today in the united states of america and here's why it's important and i've said this every single time and again i wan to i tell every time i bring this amendment i always articulate to the to the chair of the subcommittee in the ranking member in the chair and ranking member of the full committee that you know i don't do this to be a pain i really believe we have to begin to focus on reducing spending and i appreciate the work that the appropriations committee does appreciate the work of the subcommittee but if we don't begin to get a handle on spending we're going to have problems economically in the future and the way it works is spending inevitably leads to more taxes and the american families already overtaxed that's why it's important we start to get a handle on spending so we can reduce the tax burden that the families across this country face mr chairman i would i would  amendment and with that i would reserve the balance of our time gentleman reserves the bounds of his time for purposes of jumping from new york for a clean time in opposition was term the gentleman recognized fifteen minutes the chairman with the violent crimes increasing for the first time in fifteen years with more pressure on the federal bureau of investigation less resources and less investments in keeping our community safe is not the answer cutting programs to the f b i cops on the streets and the meth programs is not the answer  our communities want safer streets they want to vigorous response against crime that's what this bill does and with that i reserve the balance of my time gentleman reserves the balance of his time the gentleman from ohio leadership in bringing this terribly needed a minute to the floor his diligence in offering this amendment on a number of these spending bills again although i wish we were debating other facets of the federal budget today i think it is very very important to eliminate once again where we stand as a nation on spending i was in a hearing earlier this morning in the financial services committee and in that committee chairman were talking about the possibility of a whole new federal wind storm insurance program and i'm not here to debate the merits of it brought to mind that this nation is facing a fiscal storm and it's a storm that we see off our shore but it is one that unfortunately this body continues to ignore it continues to ignore by growing the federal budget at a huge multiple over inflation growing the federal budget way beyond the growth of the family budget and ultimately it's families that have to pay for this hardworking american families that are trying to pay for their transportation programs trying to pay for their health care programs trying to pay for their education programs and so i have no doubt that every single dollar in this bill can be used for a good purpose there's not a doubt there but when do we look at what happens in the aggregate and we've had spending debates going on for weeks and weeks now and unfortunately they do become somewhat similar but there are very important points that still need to be illuminated mr chairman in this debate and again every single spending bill brought to the floor somebody can say well this this is a good idea but who goes back and looks at it in the aggregate whoever adds it all up in sees what we're doing to the least of these in our society those who do not vote in those who have yet to be born i'm speaking mr chairman about future future generations and so all this amendment is asking to do notwithstanding the language of the other side this this amendment seeks to cut nothing this amendment seeks to level find this particular appropriations bill and using the same funding last year that it will use this year and mr chairman there are many people many families all across america who would love the opportunity frankly to make it on the same income they had last year this year this year said next year and so somehow we're trying to be convinced that something terrible into kone and is going on frankly you know with a our friends from the other side of the aisle always accuse us of cutting something i  wish occasionally that might be true but all spending is not created equal and there needs to be priorities and there's no doubt that many items within this bill are a priority but i don't believe it's a priority to impose even a greater tax burden on the american people as the democrats seek to do and their single largest tax increase in history that shouldn't be a priority nor should it be a priority to pass on debt to future generations  which ultimately i believe this bill do it shouldn't be a priority to raid the social security trust fund which by definition if we're running a federal deficit then any excess of spending continues to raid the social security trust fund so all we're asking is either you're going to be on the road to fiscal responsibility and keep faith with future generations are you going to be on the road to fiscal responsibility and not keep fa and if you follow that road mr chairman here's what you're looking at now listen to the words of our federal reserve chairman ben bernanke you who said without quote early and meaningful action unquote to address growing government spending particularly in title meant quote the u s economy could be seriously weakened with future generations bearing much of the cost unquote those aren't my words mr chairman those are the words of the federal reserve chairman listen to scholars at the brookings institute widely known as a liberal institution no bastion of conservative thought quote the authors of this book believe that the nation's  situation is out of control and could do serious damage to the economy in coming decades sapping our national strength making it much more difficult to respond to unforeseen continue sees in passing on an unfair burden to future generations unquote and yet week after week after week we have spending bills coming to this law growing government way beyond the rate of inflation growing government way beyond the growth of the family budget and it's the family budget that has to pay for the federal budget and so here we have just one more chapter in this book if this school or responsibility now again i know there are many good programs in this bill but why were so many of the other bills costing billions and billions and billions and growing growing these budgets three four five six seven percent more than a languished year again too often people are focusing on one individual aspect of this budget and they're not focusing on the budget as a whole let's listen to the words of the controller general the chief ado sherry officer in america who said that the rising cost of government again particular entitlement spending is a quote fiscal cancer unquote fiscal cancer that threatens quote catastrophic consequences for our country and could bankrupt america again this year chairman these are my words these aren't the words of one lone member these are the words of the member from the fifth district of texas these are the words of the people who most know about the fiscal condition of this nation now the controller general has gone on to say  paraphrase that we're on the verge of being the very first generation in american history the very first generation in american history to leave the next generation with a lower standard of living chairman like many other on this floor and i'm in the next generation business i've got a five year old daughter and a three year old son and i am not indifferent as to leaving my children and the children america with a lower standard of living i can't sit idly by while this house week after week after week spends our children's future spins them into bankruptcy threatens to double their taxes that's the magnitude we're looking at doubling their taxes and so this is a very reasonable a minute frankly i wish the gentleman from ohio had done even more on his amendments but level funding it's all we're asking so we're asking mr chairman when you look at the consequences can we at least take a bill and get a little smarter a little wiser in spin the same amount of money next year that we did this year and frankly it's the future of our children and our grandchildren that are on the line and with that mr chairman i yield back the gentleman yield back in time to the gentleman know i feel back to this gentleman from ohio the gentleman from new york the chairman the gentleman said that we can afford to cut two or shave budgets for anti crime programs like cops and the gentleman did not support attempts to cut or save the ninety billion dollars in tax shelters that allow offshore companies to shelter their profits open up your boxes in bermuda so that they don't have to pay their fair share of taxes we invest a fraction of that ninety billion dollars tax shelter six hundred  ninety three million dollars to add two thousand eight hundred cops to the streets of neighborhoods we want to make neighborhood safer by adding more cops the gentleman wants to make corporate offshore profits safer that's a difference in priorities between our bill and theirs and i  lady from our district family from our district arisa from west liberty ohio small town ohio said you know when talking about spending talking about taxes talking about the growth of government talking about the fact we've got an eight trillion dollars national debt a three trillion dollar budget the government spends twenty three thousand dollars per household and all we're asking for in this legislation all we've been asking for each of these amendments is to fund government the same level we did last year which all kinds of families have to do just like this family in west liberty ohio we're in the middle class and we're the ones the tax hikes hit the hardest we're trying to put our kids through college can't government live within their means i mean pretty straightforward it's amazing how the american people get america if you as american people in this skin this framework all this spending all this debt all this deficit is it too much to ask to say you know what government just spend what you did before and the playbook from the other side never changes never changes as the gentleman from texas articulate we are going we want to spend what we spent last year in this in this appropriations bill not a cut we want to spend we did last year and yet the other side will say if we do that this guy's going to fall the world's going to and everything will be terrible oh my goodness we won't have cops on the street well that's just baloney we're going to spend exactly what we spent last year because if we don't the ramifications the consequences for future generations gentleman from texas pointed out are huge and it starts with the entitlement programs that everybody knows republicans democrats know everybody knows those are going to be problems in the future that's all this amendment does it's not direct tony in cuts it's not devastating it's not the end of the world it's not the sky is falling it's saying you know what instead of spending fifty three point five billion which is what this legislation wants to do let's spend fifty two billion exactly what we spent last year mr chairman that doesn't seem to be too much to ask when we're thinking about the context we find ourselves in and frankly when we're thinking about the competition we face today in the international marketplace as as the gentleman from texas pointed out our comptroller the head of ours as point out the problems we face it's critical that we begin to get a handle on that that's why we bring the and then  forward that's why it makes common sense and that's why or g s t and with that i would reserve the balance of our time gentleman was a balance of his time the gentleman from new york mr chairman of violent crimes increased three point six percent in the past two years for the first time in fifteen years point six percent increase in violent crimes the gentlemens response is to cut spending for police officers child abuse programs domestic violence programs and if you drug programs by three percent with that i yield thirty seconds the gentleman of ohio member of the committee i  second i would just like to make a couple points the gentleman from texas mentioned entitlements i think it's important for the members to to recall that it was the republican majority that passed a trillion dollars in spending on the medicare par program and had zero zero i'm making a point i only got thirty seconds one site zero ability for the secretary of health and human services to negotiate down drug prices to keep them under control and my good bill passed an increase of six or seven hundred dollars in the pell grant the trying to send their kids to school that will help and we cut student loan interest rates in half so that same family us to borrow money will have to back them and has expired four thousand dollars less over the course of the loan we're helping that family and i'm glad we can agree on time and a gentleman has expired the gentleman from ohio to inquire mr chairman how much time on our side has remaining the gentleman from ohio has to and i have met with you know down from new york has twelve minutes yield two minutes to the gentleman from georgia the gentleman from georgia has recognized the two men thank you and i want to thank you jim and for bringing this amendment it's interesting to hear about all the the sightings that the majority party mr chairman claim that they have saved and i'm interested to get to the debate on the farm bill so we can hear of all the savings that in it and  we'll see how the next tax increase is going to be explained as some type of all set or as they have done so well this whole hundred tenth congress is the smoke and mirror thing they do a great job with it and i believe when people do a good job they should be complimented i've never seen an allusion it's as good especially convincing people that they are actually getting something accomplished if we really want this congress really wants to get something accomplished will will pass the amendment for mr jordan because it's real savings to the taxpayers of one point six billion dollars now in a scheme of things and i never thought i would be up here long enough to say that that's a small amount of money compared to the man of money that we spin in congress but it is a reasonable savings and not only that but it's an important first stale it's an important first step the first time in the hundred tenth congress and really i think probably one of the first times up here that we've actually saved some money and it's nothing wrong with that and even though it's a small start it's a good start this bill is three point two billion dollars above last year or three and a little over three percent more than it was last year and a modest increase a three percent increase you know i think that we would do much better going back to last year's level and learning to live between that means mr chairman contract and keep coming up and they keep getting defeated and there's good reason for that particularly with this bill let me share some statistics with you mr chairman i lose them before violent crime is increasing in the united states today for the first time in fifteen years two thousand five bylane crimes increased two point three percent two thousand and six violent crimes increased another one point three percent from two thousand to two thousand and five mr chairman there were an additional one hundred thousand new meth users over the age of twelve over the age of twelve now there is a dangerous correlation because at the same time these violent crimes are increasing federal investments in state communities have been cut from two thousand and want to two thousand and six funding for local law enforcement grants was cut forty two percent this isn't just a cut in the rate of increase this is a wholesale cut in federal support for anti crime programs forty two percent from four point four billion to two point five billion and not only is crime going up as a result of these federal cuts but local taxes which in many cases are the most regressive form of taxation are going up as well because the fact of the matter is that when you cut federal law enforcement resources the criminals don't go away they stay on the streets they keep robbing banks they keep beating people up they keep stealing they keep conspiring and so while the federal government has abandoned its commitment to keeping our straight streets safe it's the local governments who are now responsible for trying to keep those streets safe and so all this federal court is is a transfer of the obligation to local taxpayers so what sounds like a cut on the federal level ends up costing taxpayers even more and more to protect their communities and mr chairman let's analyze some of these cuts while crime increases safe communities the small group of members who disagree with the with every republican on the appropriations committee who supported this bill had no problem supporting a ninety billion dollar tax shelter for the biggest offshore companies on earth to protect their profits we in this bill invest a fraction of that six hundred ninety three million to add two thousand eight hundred police officers to our streets to protect our neighborhoods the state criminal allien assistance program we can have differences on how to protect our borders we all want to keep our borders safe but if someone crosses our borders here illegally and then commits a felony or several misdemeanors and is arrested and incarcerated most of us believe that the federal government ought to assume the financial obligation for incarcerating those people the small group of members had no problem spending fourteen billion dollars on tax cuts for the biggest oil companies on earth in the history of profit making we invest a fraction of that four hundred five million to reimburse local taxpayers for the cost of the incarceration of criminal aliens what makes more sense to america the war on drugs we learned in iraq that you can't win a war when you underfund the troops well guess what mr chairman you can't win a war on drugs when you underfund cops on the streets this small group had no problem spending billions and billions of dollars on vice president cheney's no bid contracts we invest a fraction of that forty million dollars to fight illegal drugs with mobile enforcement teams not mobile enforcement teams in iraq mr chairman mobile enforcement teams here at home child exploit exploitation we fund ninety three additional positions and u s attorney's offices to fight child exploitation and enforce obscenity laws thirty eight new positions in u s attorneys offices to fight gang crimes gang crimes are proliferating gangs are a national problem they cross not only state borders they cross town lines and county lines and village lines it requires a national investment to stop these gangs from preying on our children we invest in stopping those gangs this small group says let's cut gang and force meant by three percent domestic violence we invest four hundred thirty million for the violence against women act for prosecutions the small group says we can protect the profits of big drug companies we can protect the profits of corporations that register themselves appeal boxes in bermuda but we have to shave the investment in protecting women from domestic violence and finally mr chairman and this is the real kicker to coin a phrase by my friend from ohio several days ago the war on terror the war on terror for the past seven years the f b i counterterrorist caseload has increased more than one hundred percent the f b i counterterrorist caseload has increased more than one hundred percent from eleven hundred fifty to nearly twenty four hundred how do you make the how do they make the argument mr chairman that is the counterterrorist caseload is going up one hundred percent we should shave resources by three percent of the f b i i think most americans  understand that they can't go out and investigate terrorists that's the job of the f b i we want the f b i to have those resources so if i can i won't be able to yield at this time i apologize if there is money for oil companies if there is money for offshore corporations if there is money for halliburton how is it that we can afford additional resources for the f b i in the global war on terror mr chairman i'll conclude by suggesting that this really is about priorities and this is the  debate we've had in the sponsors of this bill have legitimate philosophies niner stand their philosophies their philosophies are wrong they say government wants more of your money in and that you should decide how to spend it that's not true they spend the people's money on tax cuts for oil companies we want to invest in cops for neighborhoods they spent it on no bid contracts for big companies we want to spend it on investigators for the f b i they spent it on protecting the profits of offshore companies we want to invest in protecting the safety of our neighborhoods that is why mr chairman republicans and democrats were united on this bill in the appropriations committee every republican on the appropriations committee joined democrats in passing this bill because it was common sense the right investments the right priorities and that's why when this amendment is offered again on the floor for a vote it will follow the same course in the same fate as every similar a t before it it will be defeated not just by democrats but by democrats and republicans who understand that america would rather have their neighborhoods patrolled by more cops than have the offshore profits of companies that peel boxes  the committee will be in order for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia right now because chairman i have an amendment at the desk the talk will designate them in a moment offered by mr price of georgia to and to the order of the house of the day the gentleman in a little different vein and spirit that we've offered other appropriate fiscally responsible amendments for other appropriations bills but it's the it's similar but i urge my colleagues to listen closely because the nuance has changed greatly before i do begin though i want to make certain that any member listening or anybody who has heard the previous discussion and the  that the amendments that are offered by this group of fiscally responsible individuals can even get a majority of our own conference but at not true but there's a lot of untrue spoken on this floor for a significant  majority of the members of at least the republican side of the aisle clearly support fiscally responsible amendments i'm hoping and praying for the day that our friends on the other side join us in that i do agree with my  friend who spoke previously that this is about priorities it is indeed about priorities this amendment before us today would reduce the increase in the spending in this portion of the appropriations bills by seven hundred and fifty million dollars a year or seven point five billion dollars over ten years mr chairman i would ask that you remember that number seven point five billion dollars over ten years because it's there for a reason but before i get into the specific reason that i want to talk a little bit about the process and the disappointment that so many of us on this side of the aisle have in this process and so the disappointment that many folks who who have to be muted on the other side have in the process but there were grand promises of bipartisanship as we began this session of congress earlier this year and bipartisanship is the least that we have had on every single issue and i understand the beginning the new majority felt that they had to move forward with many of their issues and and that's appropriate that's appropriate that's there do given the results of last november however what we've seen recently has buried any any guise of bipartisanship and in fact the last two weeks have been astounding and actually point to more astounding activities over the next ten days the s chip bill the sta children's health insurance plan which was adopted in a bipartisan way ten years ago is up for reauthorization and now this new majority plans in a unilateral anti bipartisanship way to cut medicare to aid state bureaucracies cut medicare and give that money to state bureaucracies in an anti bipartisan way the flood insurance bill we've got in a committee right now that passed last year it never got through the senate passed the house last year it passed over four hundred individuals before and now we have in our committee today an anti bipartisan bill that belies any any attempt at bipartisanship by the other side and then the farm bil alluded to by my good friend from georgia just a little bit ago this farm bill that's going to be on the floor apparently tomorrow or today depending on when the majority decides to bring it came out of committee virtually unanimously virtually unanimously both sides  bipartisan and yet over the past twenty four hours what we have seen is an anti bipartisan bill that puts in that bill a tax increase of seven point five billion dollars mr chairman you member the seven point five billion that i mentioned before so this amendment before us today it is an amendment to reduce the increase from three point one percent over last year's bill to one point six percent so we take that reduction in the increase and would utilize seven hundred fifty million dollars here or seven point five billion dollars to attribute to the farm bill that would then make it so there wouldn't have to be any tax increases that my friends on the other side so love but there would have to be any tax increases for that portion of the farm bill this is a fiscally responsible way this is the kind of flexibility that i believe our constituents desire when they ask congress and they ask washington to be responsive to their needs to respect their pocketbook to make certain that they are able to keep more of their hard earned money and not not be subject to the kind of remarkable tax increases that we've seen by the other set out so i would encourage my colleagues to adopt this amendment utilize those extra monies that the majority is so adept at finding make it so that the farm bill needs no tax increases whatsoever and i reserve the balance of my time on reserve the balance of  time the gentleman from washington from count on you excuse me woman i rise to claim the time in opposition to amendment gemma's recognize fifteen minutes i thank the chairman and i'll be a brief at the outset intend to reserve our time for the conclusion of the debate but we're here again to really talk about what the priorities of the nation are in the competing philosophies of the bipartisan majority and the small minority that has taken to the floor here today the value of the bipartisan majority is to invest in this country to make sure that what we have been able to enjoy the struggle in the sacrifice that our parents and their parents made is tradition that we continue in the sense that we want to leave an america that is stronger and that is safer than the one we inherited and efforts like this to cut our investment in law enforcement to cut our investment in trying to keep our communities safe our police officer safe a very shortsighted now we all believe that the ballot that the budget has to be wrestled to the ground in the sense that over the last six years my friends in the republican majority  borrowed and spent into oblivion we now have a massive national debt as a result of that fiscal responsibility we've got a problem on our hands that we need to wrestle the ground and we are in the majority we have instant ago instituted pay as you go rules something that the prior majority of my friends in the g o p were unwilling to do that has been along the philosophy of when you're in a hole stop digging so we've stopped the digging at the same time we can't stop investing in our country we can't stop investing in our future we can't stop investing in the security of our neighborhoods and that's what this bill is about the cuts that my friends in the opposition are proposing here today have only one merit and that is the indiscriminate they cut the top priorities along with the lower priorities all the same time my friends in the not the minority party because frankly we have a great many republicans who have joined us all the republicans on the appropriations committee support the work product but the minority that's speaking here on the floor today isn't willing to do the hard work and to say this is a high priority we can't afford to cut it this is a lower priority maybe we can we can trim this  now they're not willing to do that they're willing to say let's cut everything equally essential as with the nonessentials and let's not raise the the revenue we need to support our law enforcement by ending corporate welfare they've been unwilling to do that these are some of the philosophical differences will hear during the debate on this amendment but this point i'm going to reserve the balance of my time and look for doing opportunity dress the house in a few minutes the gentleman reserves the balance of his time the gentleman from georgia is recognized thank you mr chairman i am somewhat amused by my friend's comments it brings to mind what i have come to describe this congress says and that is the orwellian democracy that we see day in and day  out the at the accusation is that this side of the aisle spent too much money so that side that was going to quote stop digging well there stop and dig in to the tune of three point one percent increase billions of dollars  so their response to don't spend that much is let's spend more let's spend more and that's where the orwellian democracy comes in and it's and the accusation from the other side that comes and says well you don't want to spend this you're going to cut this program you going to cut cops are going to we're going to cut programs that are vital to our nation it's kind of like having your child come to you and say i'd like to have an increase in mile island and say they were getting five dollars a week they wanted ten dollars a week and you settled on seven dollars and fifty cents a week and then your son or your daughter says hey you just cut my lounge back to fifty i didn't make any sense but that's the argument that's the argument on the other side so we endeavor to have fiscal responsibility we endeavor to be responsible with the hard earned tax money of the american worker and with that i'm pleased to yield two minutes to my good friend from virginia the deputy chief deputy whip mr cantor the gentleman from all the genny is recognized to and thank you and i thank the gentleman from georgia i'd like to just force respond raj in favor of this amendment and respond to some of the remarks that were made on the other side of the oem i think we can all agree that we must continue as a people to invest in our people to invest in theirs this country all of us all of us were elected by the constituents that we represent to leave an america stronger and more secure than the way we found it stronger and more secure for our children and our grandchildren the problem is here every time we get a chance every time we turn around we seem to be raising taxes there is no way that we can leave in america stronger or more secure if we somehow cut off the economic engine that allows us to continue to make the investments in arab people of this nation and in our security there are remarks made about the national debt that we are now experiencing well you know what the national debt frankly is one and a half percent of g d p and from all corners from the economist the former federal reserve chairman to the current federal reserve chairman that one and a half percent of g d p is a lot lower than it has been recently and it is due to the very forward thinking economic and tax policies that we have in place which reward risk based investment which frankly don't shun the notion that we should empower the families in the businesses of this country so that they can take care of themselves and you know what the revenues in this federal government are up beyond which that we've seen before that's the product of the economic policies that's our key to success and security of this country now as far as a pay as you go rules that the majority has adopted you know what that made that means never cut spending always raise taxes and that's why an additional thirty seconds on the right has on and there and that is why we are here opposing this because the bottom line here is what we're talking about is the difference between raising taxes and raising spending or somehow getting a hold of ourselves applying some physical discipline so that we can show the american people that we hear them when they say there's too has been said a couple times here today about money in people's pockets and i would suggest that it is under the leadership of the democrats and the republicans who have been great on the appropriations committee we are putting money back in the pockets of average american people only half of the people in my congressional district got a tax cut only half and the ones that got it only got a couple hundred dollars so when you look at the big tax cuts that supposedly went to people live in youngstown and akron ohio that was a couple hundred dollars and you compare that to what we're doing with the pell grants an increase of five or six hundred dollars that's going to people in my district so we're already four hundred dollars ahead of the tax cut that the republicans were so generous to give when you look at cut cutting student loan interest rates in half save and four thousand dollars over the course of a loan that  word additional meant saving four thousand dollars a minute over the course of the loan that's money in the pockets of people who live in most of our congressional districts and i'm thankful for the concern for the american families but i wish our friends on the other side at least most of them were around we tried to give them a pay raise and increase the minimum wage they're talking about taking money out of their pockets or trying to put money in their pockets that's what we're trying to do here and as the gentleman from new york made the point a few minutes ago we're funding twenty eight hundred cops we can't pass police and fire levies in my district because the cities just don't have the money and we don't have the local economy the federal government does have a responsibility to make our streets safer that's what this bill does that's what the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee have done and that's why this amendment needs to go down this is not the time to start putting police officers going to our streets to make our community safer so that we can grow our local economies and with that i yield back thank the gentleman i want to just make two quick points in response to my friend's argument that these are not real cuts these are somehow imaginary cuts and the illustration he gave of the allowance he gives his child two things one factual and one philosophical on the factual side my friends across the board cuts will mean very real out in my friend's home state of georgia things that law enforcement in georgia and around the country care a great deal about real cuts will talk about some of them we can't hide behind an across the board amendment and say we're not really cutting anything because you are basically what you're telling your child in the allowance hypothetical is we're going to cut how much we're going to spend on your education real cut we're going to cut how much we're going to spend on your health care a real cut let's hope you don't get sick one of my friends in the opposition in support of this same amendment last week said hey american families are just going to have to make the decision you know we can't afford to have each of our kids go to college maybe we'll have to choose one child who won't go to college well philosophically the bipartisan majority of this house doesn't accept that for america we believe every child who is bright enough to go to college ought to go to college the fact that his parents may be rich or poor should matter and we're willing to make the investments in our college to make sure that no parent has to say this child can go to college and this one can't because we're not willing to make the investment i reserve the balance of our time well reserves balance of this time jump from georg recognize thank mr chairman once again i'm amused by my the comments of my my good friends and colleagues on the other side the fact of the matter is that departments that run these programs that we're addressing right here asked for two point three billion dollars less than our good friends on the other side are proposing to spend which means that they believe that they can accomplish the goals that have been given to them with the two point three billion dollars less and they talk about all this wonderful caring that they have for families while the largest tax increase in the history of our nation that they passed in their budget about twenty seven hundred dollars per family is a peculiar way of showing your caring for the american family with that i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the the minority whip my good friend from missouri mr blunt the minority is recognized for two minutes i think my friend for yielding mr chairman i'm pleased to be here is part of this debate you know i continue to hear as this is these debates go on that somehow these increases are not real increases and i continue to be mystified by that i think if my good friend from george's amendment was approved and i voted for his cutting amendment on each of these bills if that a approve we'd still have an increase in this bill of a little over five percent now i don't know how that calculates out to not an increase of but i'm continuing to try to figure out how that's not an increase i do know that that increase of five percent anywhere that i talk to americans is an increase and i know more importantly in the course of today and tomorrow that what my friend from georgia is suggesting is that if we let this one this one appropriations bill grow by five percent as we move on later into the discussion of the farm bill we would have saved enough money in this one point four percent cut not to have a tax increase that puts the farm bill in jeopardy the farm bills a bill that i voted for in the past and hope to vote for this year but it's a bill doesn't have to include a tax increase but the seven and a half million dollars a seven half billion dollars over ten years that the farm bill needs could be gained right here if we'd save seven hundred fifty million dollars of the increase in this bill i just  my colleagues to look at what we're doing here realize that we're jeopardizing important things by moving forward in a way that spends more money than we have to spend this year most of these programs are good programs i was a college president for four years i believe in college education everybody having one i don't believe that the reality is as stark as our friends on the other side would suggest i believe a five percent increase use wisely would make all of these programs work effectively and for the american people and we be making the decision we need to make for the other things we need to do i support this amendment and i yield back the gentleman from california i my colleague from ohio at thirty seconds not a third effect i think the gentleman it's very interesting and we need to continue to point this out we had a we had a measure within the first hundred hours that we were here to cut fourteen billion from the oil company subsidies and my friends on the other side couldn't find the courage to vote for that but they want to do it on the back of these cops programs in our local neighborhoods ninety billion dollars worth of tax shelters didn't vote for that but yet they want to cut cops programs in our local communities they had the opportunity to stop funding these huge tax cuts and subsidies to the oil companies refused to do that because for feel of it and they are available and now they choose to do it on the the general from california i think the gentleman and a couple quick points of course we hear the the montreaux from my friends on the other side of this bill representing a tax increase when there's no tax increase in this bill we've now h same a statement applied to the farm bill there's no tax increase in the farm bill my friends seem to think that the corporate welfare that we provide if you cut corporate welfare that somehow we're in increasing taxes on average americans if we do away with offshore tax havens that we're somehow doing away with the income of ordinary americans but i think ordinary americans would rather have the investment in our law enforcement they'd rather have safe streets than safe  shelters overseas and one point i wanted to make with respect to a comment that my friend from georgia made he said the departments here aren't even asking for the resources we're providing them none of the agencies want the resources that they would be provided in this bill maybe my friend represents a very different district than my own but i have never had police officers from my city's a burbank glendale or pasadena come to me and say congressman we have too much money for cops we have too many cops on the street we don't want any of your help thank you but no thank you now maybe things are quite a bit better in georgia maybe there's no crime in georgia and maybe your police departments are saying we don't need vests we don't need cops we're doing great thank you but no thank you that's not what i'm hearing what i'm hearing is they've got greater responsibilities in the war on terror they've got higher gang violence they need the resources they need the people on patrol that's what i'm hearing and without reserve the balance of our time is our of the balance of his time the gentleman from georgia the chairman my main choir's to the amount of time remaining on each side the gentleman from georgia has three and a half minutes the gentleman from california has five and a half minutes thanks chairman at at this point i'm  chairman the c j s bill spends fifty three point six billion dollars this amendment would reduce that by one point four percent but it would still allow for an increase in the science justice and commerce spending with the passage of this amendment that's been characterized as a cut in the c j s budget this bill still increases by nearly a billion dollars compared to last year and let me be clear on what we're trying to do i think what the gentleman from georgia is trying to do here and that is we're trying to find a way to avoid having to raise taxes the way the democrats are planning to do in the farm bill later today i mean the democrat majority is is a is planning to bring a seven point five billion dollars tax increase to the floor of the congress in the context of the farm bill later today and we're just try and to take this opportunity to make a cut in a single year that if we did it over ten years we wouldn't have to raise taxes now that's being characterized as the work of a small minority versus a bipartisan majority at least they're not calling us a fringe this week well i think i think given that if the small majority is the people that want to pay for increases in spending with budget discipline in the bipartisan majority is the one that wants to pay for increases in spending by raising taxes and i'm happy to be part of the small majority that i happen to think speaks for the overwhelming majority of the american people who want this congress to live within its means who want this congress in a bipartisan way to make the tough choices to put our fiscal house in order i commend the gentleman from georgia i thank him for his vision i urge passage of the price amendment because if it passes it will lay a foundation where we will not have to raise taxes by seven point five billion dollars in the farm bill later today and i yield back the gentleman from california is recognize chairman i reserve the balance of our time and reserves about of his time john from georgia the gentleman from california the gentleman from california right now at five minutes thank you very much mr chairman i did not intend to speak on on this matter but the rhetoric has gotten my attention up that i thought i should share with the american people as well as my colleagues my early experience in public affairs never forget running for a school board and people were talking about the federal government beginning to get involved in education and i remember saying to those people let us be very very careful very careful about going downhill sam to finance our schools when traditionally that is the highest of state responsibilities and they cooperate with local districts to provide for our schools and control  uncle sam then gave only ten cents on the dollar for education and those who gave the ten cents wanted to tell us more and more what to do in our local school districts all these years later i must say it's like the fifty years later we continue to want to tell people what to do in our local schools and we're not going i'm nine cents on the dollar those who are talking about free gifts or people who are providing for educational avenues etc etc etc eventually the folks who are sending their children for school one way or  other pay for that education one way or another for you could in those days i'm not sure what the figure is now but in those days you could take every family that made one hundred thousand dollars or more and anything above that hundred thousand taxes  hundred percent and you could run the government for thirty days the people are not stupid they know it you're playing games with them suggesting oh uncle sam is a free lunch here some way the folks that you're talking are having to pay the bill in the final analysis regardless because all those rich people get taxed on one hundred percent and there they will not run your government more than thirty or sixty days and who pays for the rest of it and another point that is is very important in my view their rhetoric that suggests that the federal government should do everything centers around the reality that the federal government has a responsibility to provide for the national defense make an effort to provide security and freedom in the world and then make sure our local government our state governments are healthy they are not healthy if you so discourage industry that they leave the country in order to be able to get their work done and produce the products that we need those rich oil companies here talking about their leave in the country that the light bulbs were talking about earlier they're all made in china it's about time we recognize that uncle sam does not have every answer i'm going to vote no on this bill and spite of what the gentleman from california said earlier i had the privilege of being the ranking member on the committee but i'm going to be voting no because it's about two billion dollars over the president's budget request and the agencies around no they don't need as much money as you folks want to spend on how you go back announce my time gentleman yield back the balance of the time gentleman from wisconsin and jemma from wisconsin's recognize five minutes chairman we've had a game going on in this capital for the last six years it's called shift the shaft and nowhere is it more clear that in what has happened with law enforcement funding as i said yesterday we've had a kabuki dance going on in this congress for years what happens is each year the president comes up with a budget he's looking for things he can squeeze out of the budget to make room for tax cuts for millionaires and so what does he do he cuts the guts out of our assistance to local law enforcement and then we wonder why the crime rate has gone up the last two years he cuts the guts out of law enforcement and then each year the previously republican controlled congress comes in they restore about a third of those cuts they say oh what good boy is there we look at what we've done to help law enforcement and at the end of that time or a billion and a half dollars below where we were in two thousand and one in terms of our assistance to local law enforcement now maybe that makes sense to some folks it doesn't make sense to me not with the explosion of meth problems all over the country not with explosion and drug problems the prior speaker of the house had a big thing about going after drug production in colombia we're spending hundreds millions of dollars in colombia but we're not spending nearly enough money here at home to reduce the demand for those same drugs that are being produced in colombia and this a member it would cut that further this is the same crowd talk and is a crowd that didn't mind providing six hundred billion dollars in borrowed money in order to finance that misbegotten war in iraq it's the same crowd that is willing to provide fifty seven billion dollars in tax cuts to millionaires this year paid for with borrowed money but then they divert the public's attention from the cause of those of those on the coffee expenditures by saying oh we're going to focus on one or a two percent cut on law enforcement a one or two percent cut down the national science foundation so we can so we can get people to think that that's the problem that's causing the deficit and not our prophecy for the last few years now our friends on the republican side that i'll say oh we've got this terrible tax cut coming in the farm bill bellone what we're trying to do in the farm bill is to increase support for domestic nutrition programs so that in addition to having forty four million people in this country who are walking around without health insurance we don't also have a lot more kids walking around who are hungry and we're talking about paying for that not by raising taxes on middle class americans but by closing loopholes on offshore foreign corporations no i'm not at all surprised that the republican leadership cannot tell the difference between closing tax loopholes on special interests and raising taxes on middle class thing just cleared of smoke out of the room here and put some facts into discussion the clinton administration awarded the halliburton contract mr cheney only extended it the bush administration only expanded after trouble in the middle east broke out and you'll back about the gentleman from georgia young man from california i think the gentleman for his defense of the vice president and halliburton i'm sure the vice president has no connection no history with albert whatsoever and i'll reserve the balance of our time gemma that there is a corporation in this world that pays taxes that don't come from somewhere other than the back pockets of the american people or in a single corporation in this nation that doesn't pay taxes that where that money doesn't come from individuals corporations don't pay taxes that it's passed through it goes to the individual so to say that any increase in taxes on corporations doesn't affect the american people is ridiculous it's ridiculous to talk about the oil bill to talk about the oil companies that have their taxes quote increased all that they majority has done is driven us to greater reliance on foreign oil this bill this amendment would decrease the read the increase of spending in this portion of the appropriations bill by one point four percent seven hundred fifty million dollars a year seven point five billion dollars over ten years in order to cover what the majority says is the desire and the need to have a tax increase for the farm bill this is the kind of fiscally responsible spending and appropriations that the american people are demanding they aren't interested in a government that that is so large that it can take away every thing that they need they believe that they can make better decisions with their money than the government makes with their money and so week strongly urge strongly urge our colleagues to adopt this amendment to avoid a tax increase on the farm bill as the time has expired the gentleman from california i thank the gentleman for pointing out corporations don't pay taxes i don't think that's quite true but that certainly is the aim of my friend from georgia and my friends a majority have been working hard for that object for some time i'm happy to y seconds to my colleague from new york thirty six i thank you gentlemen i just want to shed some light on some of the rhetoric we've heard right from the committee report s t i field investigative resources used for criminal investigative matters have to creased twenty nine percent from nearly six thousand two hundred agents to four thousand four hundred agents over the same period the committee is concerned over the decline in f b i criminal investigative resources particularly in light of the recent announcement by the f b i that violent crime  communities across the nation murders robberies forcible rape sin aggravated assaults those for the second straight year why would we want to cut the f b i ninety million dollars when our time is increasing i thank the gentleman from california i thank the  gentleman i think the gentleman for pointing out the cuts to the f b i and other law enforcement that would be occasioned by this amendment and others that my friends are offering the cuts go deeper they crossed the border in terms of everything that the justice department does my friends amendment would cut funding for victims of child abuse my friends of men would cut funding for the cops program it would cut funding for violence against women victims of violence against women but let's let's hone in on a very specific cause my friend says well these aren't really cuts let me talk about one program specifically that my friends m m makes a very real cut to not artificial not orwellian not imaginary and that's bullet proof vests back in two thousand and three the attorney general announced a body armor safety initiative in response to the failure of bullet resistant vests one a particular worn by a police officer in pennsylvania was discovered that the xylem vests when they were old and used weren't stopping bullets the way they were supposed to and so the justice department started a program to replace these vests and the cops program funds an effort to provide vests for local police departments that program has been very successful in my friend's home state of georgia for example you can pick any city alpharetta city program bought forty new bulletproof vests for the police officers and now alpharetta city across georgia there were eleven hundred of these invest replace that needed to be replaced in the new cops program that we're funding here alpharetta city got twenty five new bulletproof vests cherokee county got two hundred ninety three bulletproof vests cobb county got five hundred sixty six bulletproof vests dekalb county got another two hundred forty ga in total just in this particular year i think two thousand and five got forty seven hundred eighty nine new bulletproof vests my friends amendment makes a real cut to the number of bulletproof vests we can provide cops not a decrease in the rate of increase but makes a real cut on my friends amendment the cops in georgia are going to get fewer bulletproof vests than they would get without it and that they got then they got last year now i can't go home to my district and tell the cop and burbank in pasadena glendale i cut their funding for their bulletproof vests but the indiscriminate nature of this amendment means that's exactly what it would do in my district my friends district in georgia my friend from colorado who has a meme and i'm sure for another cross the board cut for call in city colorado they got five s really city got fifty three bullet proof vests longmont city got twenty eight bulletproof vests colorado in this particular year got thirty nine hundred new vests these across the board cuts mean fewer bulletproof vests for cops in colorado my friends amendment from ohio with even bigger across the board cuts would be devastating in ohio ohio in this program got fifty two hundred new vests so what is that going to mean a six percent cut that means what several hundred fewer bulletproof vests well that may not mean much to us here but if you're one of those cops that can't get their vests replaced and that vest isn't going to work so well against one of those assault rifles and one of those other heavy caliber munitions they're facing out there on the street it means a heck of a lot and i don't know about my friend from georgia but i don't have the cops from my district coming to me and saying we've got more money than we need we don't need bulletproof vest we don't need in iraq public communications equipment a lot of the cops out in the county of los angeles can't talk to each other because their communications equipment won't talk to each other we fund that here my friends amendment cuts that here how can my my friends not in the bipartisan majority but in the minority that's expressed themselves here today say they're for law and order say they're standing behind the men and women in uniform and then make real cuts to what we provide or as my my chairman point sout if you don't just look at last year compared to last year where we didn't do very well by them either but you look at where we were no one the gentleman from west virginia's recognize five minutes mr i just want to amplify on the excellent debate the points that have been made here in opposition to this amendment facts are that we are in a period of rising crime the last two years we've experienced rising crime and we are looking at an amendment that talks about a across the board cut the first thing all the dunder stand with regard as a minute is that it's indiscriminate it doesn't look at what programs are being cut it doesn't talk about cutting this program more because it's less priority or that program less because it's a higher priority or excluding some programs from being cut because they are a tremendously high priority my colleague just talked about law enforcement and state and local law enforcement law enforcement under the previous the memo would have cut the justice department by some six hundred and eighty one million dollars this is a man that cuts the justice department by three hundred and thirty five million dollars those are real dollars and real cuts to law enforcement and that translates directly into support for local law enforcement those folks that are out on the street actually crime fighting crime in the streets what the federal government has done to support those folks in the past is give them resources as the gentleman just described so if you are the sheriff's department in rural america or you are the the chief of police in urban america or if you are local law enforcement coordinating you are hurt badly by this across the board amendment the last the memos forty five million dollars cut to state and local law enforcement and that means as the gentleman just eloquently described a large cud to our state and local law enforcement now let me i would like to read bring this down to another area of kut to emphasize how real these cuts are with regard to nasa we have acknowledged that nasa is not being funded at a level that allows it to meet its missions across the board this cut this one point four percent cut if you are at glenn research center or the ames research center out there listening to this amendment you need to understand that these cross the board cuts are really going to mean significant things to your institute that means you're going to have less resources and right now you're given a mission that you can't perform your research and your mission kennedy space center marshall space flight center the people who work at marshall or who live in the communities in the pena goddard space johnson space flight center in texas science this amendment would cut seventy nine point seven million dollars out of the science account we just trying to increase the science account so they would be able to do their missions aeronautics nine million out of exploration and johnson space flight center to be really tuned in the kennedy space flight center fifty four point nine million dollars a total mr chairman for nasa overall of two hundred forty six point seven million dollar cut from nasa and nasa is concerned and about that nasa says and let me read the consequence of these cuts is that nasa will not be able to make as affective or safe the transition to the new systems as originally planned there will likely be significant workforce impacts these budget reductions have ripple effects over many years do the hadley integrate nature of the shuttle and exploration systems many shuttle employees are at risk with these across the board cuts so mr chairman just another reason getting down to this system makes of why we should be against these across the board cuts and i really you know back the balance of my time gentleman appropriations made in this act are hereby reduced by seven hundred fifty million dollars that's not an across the board cut that allows the agencies to determine where best they are able to absorb a decrease in the increase that they would be provided by this underlying bill what we challenge with this one point four percent reduction in the increase is each of those agencies to find fourteen cents out of every ten dollars fourteen out of every ten dollars mr chairman i would suggest that that's what families do all across this nation every day so our priorities are the american family our priorities are the family and we take our responsibilities seriously to be fiscally eighteen further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from georgia will be without a jackson the clerk will report the amendment offered by mr king of iowa at the end of the bill before the short time i'll insert the following title seven additional general provisions section seven  two other appropriations bills and the section of the code that it addresses to seventy four a is the section that defines the those who are not lawful to work in the united states and it includes two categories of people  those who are unlawfully present and those who are lawfully present without work authorization and my amendment prohibits any of the funds that are appropriated under this act from being used to employ persons who  anoint that inspires me to come to this floor more than any other is a report that was released june of two thousand and six office of inspector general that it was a oh i g of the so security administration that identified that a number approximately eleven thousand employees more likely working for government seven federal agencies several seven state agencies in three local agencies under non work so security numbers and all the federal government needed to do was run their databases against each other the so security administration and the and the department of homeland security they could identify these employees this only includes a category that i've described is only includes those who are lawfully present but not authorized to work with there's another category of those that are not lawfully present that this amendment would address as well but the judge i would it would yield is a timely the this amendment as we understand is merely restatement of current law which already prohibits the employment of unauthorized aliens we don't read into it any imposing any new burden on those who are using funds appropriated under the act fully consistent with current legal obligations imposed on all employers regardless of whether or not they use such funds and we would accept the amendment mr chairman and entering reclaim my time i very familiar as we go through these appropriation bills this bill is two point two billion dollars over the president's request that's a percentage of four point two percent it's one point six billion dollars over last year's a male and with an increase of three point one percent over last dear mr chairman my amendment would take the increase from three point one percent to two point six percent you know so i thought a lot about this this is especially been on my mind today as we're getting ready to vote on the farm bill in the afternoon when i think about raising taxes to pay for these programs there's not anyone in here that's doubting the worthiness of the way we're spending dollars in this bill i personally have a son in law that's a police officer so when you talk to me about bulletproof vest that's something that i think about when i think about the young man that is married to my daughter in the the father of my three grandchildren so i want to say these are worthy things that we're spending these dollars on but we have to realize that there's not a finite supply and infinite rather supply of money that just falls out of the sky we have taxpayers that find all of these programs in a while the programs are worthy i support the increase i merely want to take the increase from three point one to two point six percent you know as we get ready to consider the farm bill today during the markup of the farm bill i offered an amendment in my amendment basically said that we would have a sense of congress that the programs in the farm bill would not be paid for by a tax increase unfortunately the chairman rule that my amendment was out of order and it was not germane yesterday while we had a discussion with the secretary of agriculture over the farm bill he said that perhaps mrs musgrave's amendment was the most germane of all the amendments because we're looking at an enormous tax increase to pay for the farm bill you know in the fourth district of colorado we have about two million cattle we're eighth in the country in total value of egg production we have an enormous dependence upon agriculture in our district the whole north eastern and southeastern part of the state depend on agriculture as the basis of their economy you know we were told all along during the farm bill discussion that we were not going to have a tax increase in fact if i may quote the chairman when i offered my amendment he said nobody's talking about a tax increase here now today we have the farm bill coming up on the floor and we have a tax increase you know i had to call the farm bureau today my friends at farm bureau talk to farmers union i talk to the week growers cattle corn growers telling the folks that now the rug has been pulled out from under us on this farm bill we had an agreement we no longer have an agreement we're looking at a tax increase and you know rural america not just the fourth district of colorado is looking in today to see what we do with the farm bill and i'm very disappointed that now we're looking at a tax increase and you know when we we think about the taxpayer out there just average americans you know they were clear up into april to pay their taxes now april thirtieth is tax freedom day i would like to have each young person that's getting ready to enter the workforce think about that you work all through january it works through february you work through march you work through april before you get to quit paying for government when you think about it americans work water to pay for government than they do for food clothing and housing combined you know we need to show some discipline here we're just a mere point five percent again increased spending for these were the needs that take it from three point one to two point six percent i reserve the balance of my time down among the gentleman reserves of time the gentleman from new york the chairman constant the constant repetition of the statement this is a real cut this is a real cut let's a real cut in a real big increase so if you want to describe it as a real cut you have to say a real cut in a real big increase or you're not telling the american people what's really going on here and there are a few areas of our budget that are discretionary spending and there are some areas of our budget that are not discretionary spending those that are on autopilot we can't do a lot about here in the appropriations process and yet those that are discretionary spending we can do something about yet the majority seems to be determined to continue to accelerate the increases in spending in the discretionary sections of our budget and it's like you're driven to girl this government no matter what the price to the taxpayers and so i've come to a realization here in the first six or seven months of this hundred tenth congress you guys really believe in what you do i didn't think so before i thought maybe there were some people that were a little cynical but i believe now you really believe in what you're doing i believe you really do want to grow this government i believe you want to raise taxes i believe you want to take the responsibilities off of all the people all the time and take it into a maternalistic socialistic government i now believe that you've convinced me and you've been constant and you have been repetitive and you have been consistent and persistent and driving this growth of government across this floor of congress one day the american people will rebel to this if they can get over there  to my time gentlemen now us back in time the gentleman from new york members are all requested to direct their remarks to the chair don't share me now we have been accused of supporting a socialistic government because we want to put more cops on the street because we want the f b i to have more resources to go after the terrorists who are trying to destroy democracy for that we are a socialist government mr chairman with that i yield as much time as may consume to the gentleman from ohio dum a from ohio is recognized i thank the gentleman and i also to think it's funny that we got the socialism talking points back out mr chairman dusted them off from one nine hundred ninety two and ninety three and now they're back out but this is exactly right the gentleman from new york this is about putting agents cops on the street this is about national security this is about protecting our country now i think it's important that we get a little bit into the details here in a couple of these programs that the general lady's amendment is going to cut and that the previous two amendments were going to cut too because i think it's easy for us to say well you're going to cut cops are going to cut the f b i and doesn't sound like a whole lot and  gentleman from new york stated earlier there's been a decrease in f b i criminal agents by twenty nine percent from sixty two hundred forty four hundred agents so what the committee did and all its wisdom in a bipartisan way said we need to hire more people and for what exact programs well why don't we take a look here national security field investigations is one of the programs that would be cut under this amendment now many of our friends on the other side say well what's the world going to end if we cut this by four point five percent is the world going to end if we cut this by a percentage the world going to end if we cut this by three percent let's look at exactly what you're cutting just in this one little program national security field investigations the committee want to hire two hundred forty five positions one hundred fifty agents ninety five support personnel to increase the level of field resources dedicated to national security investigations this amendment will cut agents from being on the street protecting the united states of america let's look at another one sure vaillant's this committee wants to hire another fifty people fifty percent since under the surveillance surveillance program to provide additional resources for the f b i to conduct surveillance is in support of priority national security investigations you think this isn't going to affect anything there's going to be less agents investigating there's going to be less agents listening to the terrorists who may already be in this country this amendment will ensure that these agents don't get in the field that they don't get hired and that they don't listen to what the terrorists are saying and hopefully protecting the united states of america from the next terrorist plot this is a dangerous amendment that puts this country's security in jeopardy i yield back to my room the gentleman from hanoi mr chairman before i reserve the balance of my time i would just remind the gentleman who accused us of being socialists that i think just about every republican including most very conservative members the reach of the appropriations committee supported this bill i don't believe that they would appreciate being called socialist because they believe in cops on the street and more resources for the f b i they are not socialist and say where do we slow the growth and how do we slow the growth and as we all know is we have learned from so many of our states that have balanced budget amendment that have to curtail the growth of the budget across the board reductions work they work and the reason they work is because you get to go in and and manage the departments get to manage where they want to make those reductions we all know you can make those half percent reductions and mr chairman they've been proven to work the thing that is so very interesting to me is that even if this were to pass making a half per cent reduction and saving the taxpayers two hundred sixty eight million dollars which is what mr musgrave is seeking to do you would still have an increase you would still have an increase in science science commerce justice spending that would be there but what we are seeking to do is rang in what the federal government spends i find you know we can sit here and argue about the particulars of budgeting we can talk about how baseline budgeting always sets us up for saying whatever is put on the table well as a cut but and we can talk about how you're zero based budgeting might be a better approach to the way the federal government goes about setting it budget but one thing we know is this that the liberal elites always want to come in and spend more they never get enough of the tax payers a dollar we are seeing that this is proving to be the hold on to your wallet congress and as i said last week when our friends across the aisle were calling us the fringe fringe does mean fiscal responsibility includes no government excess i yelled back at the gentleman from new mr chairman while while they talk about cutting the increase criminals keep increasing three point six percent increase in violent crimes we believe that at least we should keep pace with those criminals so that we can put him behind bars bring him to justice and with that i yield as much time as i may consume to the gentleman from ohio i think on a gentle hugs recognize i thank the gentleman mr chairman we had an opportunity within the first hundred days to cut fourteen billion dollars from going to the oil companies in the first hundred hours we supported it our friends on the other side rejected that approach they would rather take it out of security so i think it's important we go back my friend from tennessee said where do we slow the growth while we tried to slow it from going to the oil companies we tried to slow it from going to corporations who harbor in the themselves in these far off distant lands to avoid taxes our friends choose to take it out on security let's get into a couple more of these programs because sometimes the details hurt crimes against children which is a program we have we wanted in the committee wanted to have increase of fourteen positions to provide a coordinated investigative operational and intelligence effort to combat crimes against children and to address child abduction predators who sexually assault children and child prostitution there will not be fourteen positions to protect our children's if this amendment passes how about this one weapons of mass destruction directorate sounds like a pretty good idea post nine eleven in a bipartisan way it passed out of committee here's what this is going to do the committee wants to hire one hundred forty six positions twenty nine agents  support personnel to develop the essential essential baseline capabilities to build a dedicated weapons of mass destruction program designed to prevent prepare for and respond to the threat of weapons of mass destruction if this amendment passes we're going to have less agents trying to find bokes who are in our country trying to unleash weapons of mass destruction how about the data intercept an access program forty one position six agents thirty five support to provide the technical expertise training and necessary equipment to execute lawfully authorized electronic surveillance of data network communications facilities trying to protect us this bill has some essential components to it this committee went to great lengths to make sure mr chairman that they would make the proper investments this is very well thought out i think it's hard pressed to find any american who would read this and say now you know what now we should not hire that many agents we should give that money to the oil companies i don't think there's many americans that would say that one more one more before i  back render safe mission the r s m program nine positions three agents six support personnel to address the white house directive the white house directive giving the i the mission to respond to devices involving weapons of mass destruction within when the united states and its territories within the united states this is not about iraq this is not about afghanistan this is about funding nine positions in this one specific field people who are experts to keep this country safe i think the more we get into these programs the more ridiculous quite frankly mr chairman some of these amendment seem the american people would not support a point five percent this decrease in these programs not a one percent decrease in these programs not a three percent decrease in these programs these are essential and when you look at the money mr chairman that has been a rack on an bid no bid contracts no oversight provided at all when you look at the fourteen billion dollars we try to get off the oil companies that make sense get that money don't get it on the backs of f b i agents who are going to be operating surveillance operations here in the united states they will back down my from the your chairman i reserve the balance of my time and reserve the balance of his time generated from cal or colorado mr chairman i yield three minutes gentleman that was a wide receiver for the atlanta falcons its name was alex hawkins and one night he didn't come home he had had a history of maybe corrals and around and stay in a little bit too late but he didn't come home one night so he's not going to go or early  next mornin and why is it a hall where you've been he's at all well i got in kind of late last night didn't want to wake you up and i fell asleep outside in the hammock on the porch and she said alex we've been gone for a year and a look can a puzzle and he said well honey that's my story and i'm stickin to it and so that is for the other side is doing they've got a story and they're sticking to it now i want to give you mr chairman a math problem now other people that want to work this math problem can too mr chairman but i want to give you a math problem if you take fifty three point six billion and you multiply times point zero to five percent mr chairman will you get more than fifty three point six billion i think you will i think it'll be an increase over that number so what is a minimum does it gives an increase over last year spending now did the f b i come in in say we don't need any more money i doubt it so really and truly if you want to take the kana logic that the majority is taking because they can't do math very well then the f b i going to come in and said you know what we won't can binion dollars more well i can't give you that so in reality they're cutting the f b i after i'm the request that they made even though they're getting more money now this is fuzzy math i know and for mr chairman you young people that might be listening to this i hope you don't get confused i know all these speeches are somewhat mr chairman like out of a problem but we are asking this is an increase it is an increase over last year for these f b i agents and these police officers it is not a cut i don't know how else to explain it and you know i'm sure that as hawkins knew that his wife knew that he was line but that was his story in he's sticking to it the same thing goes for the majority party the sad part about this mr chairman is when we're all going to realize it's the truth and many of us realize it's the truth now don't have the kids when the hundred forty six positions and you cut that budget by point five one percent or three percent well we won't get into the details but you get less than one hundred forty six positions that my friend i better analogy would be the police officer goes to my friend and says congressman there was money in the budget for my bulletproof vest what happened to it i don't have my vest and the gym said well we do cut the money for your vest you're wearing it and the colorado thank you mr chairman i would like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from florida and john my from florida is recognized for to the minute thank you mr chairman i am a little confused by about this debate i'm not the most sophisticated person in the world but if you have an increase and then you decide to have to reduce the size of that increase it's still an increase you know and when you cut down to the chase look i think this is a question the american people is the federal government sol official so perfect that it cannot absorb a slight reduction in the size of the increase because it's so efficient that every single penny is used perfectly and therefore a reduction in the size of an increase oh is devastating because we have such a perfect federal government that we can't even reduce the size of the increase now again i'm not real sophisticated but back home if you get an increase and all of a sudden you or you say i wan percent increase and in your in if you have a real job a normal job like most americans and they go their bosses and they say hey i would like a five percent increase in my pay and the boss says i can give you a five percent i'm going to give you a four and a half percent cut in salary who is that an increase in salary but half a percent less than what you asked for and again if we thought that the federal government was so good sulfation so perfect that it can absorb that and then don't support this a but if you think that the federal government may be just a little bit imperfect they might waste just a teeny bit of money that maybe there's just a little bit of money that we could use elsewhere and then i would suggest i'm not you know i'm not against the rhetoric on the math but again if you think that the federal government could maybe absorb a little bit less of an increase and then this is a very modest decrease on the size of the employees i thank the  the gentleman from wisconsin the gentleman is recognized five minutes you know as chairman of the last comments i think demonstrate that this debate is in danger of descending into something that resembles a high school debate and we appear to be edging toward having a dictionary debate arguing about whether something is a cut or an increase with all due respect in an adult world that's not the issue in an adult world the question is what is the size of the problem you're trying to attack and here's our response to it sufficient and with all due respect to those on the other side of the who are objecting to this bipartisan product with all due respect we think we have a serious problem that requires a serious response in the area of law enforcement have seen our support for law enforcement grants dropped by one point six billion dollars since fiscal zero one that is a thirty percent almost a thirty six percent drop that is in the dictionary a problem that's a problem on the streets of every community in america we also see at the same time we have a rise in the crime rate which requires a response regardless of our dictionary definition and we also have an a an explosion of meth use have you ever seen how screwed up a kid can be aftermath has gotten done with him a god awful sight and i've seen plenty of it so what we're trying to do is to have an adequate response and the reason that we are having a significant increase in law enforcement funding this year is because we're trying to dig out from that hole that we've been put in since two thousand and one by these systematic reductions in law enforcement assistance at the same time that the crime rate is rising and then the second thing we're trying to do is to recognize that we're going to have a lot more people in this society in the next ten years we're going to have a lot more low paid workers all around the world from china to you name it competing with american workers for jobs and we've got two ways to combat that one is education and the other is technology and the only way we're going to stay on the cutting edge of technology is if we make much larger investments in the national science foundation politicians in both parties fall all over themselves talking about what they're going to do for national institutes of health but i don't hear many discussions about what we're going to do to provide support for the even more basic science research that is then used by everyone else in this society to determine what kind of a future we have without that investment in science our economy lags if our economy lags our jobs or lag if our jobs lag our wages lag and that means that we wind up with a huge family income deficit we wind up with a huge education opportunity deficit we wind up with a huge scientific knowledge deficit and that cripples our country's future and that's why we're not going to get engage in this silly little debate about whether something is that increase or a cut the portion is i doesn't have a good impact or a bad impact on america and this sponsor this remembers being sponsored by people who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing that's the difference between us the gentleman yield back the balance of his time generated from colorado thank you mr chairman you know i ponder much of what the gentleman has just said i certainly know about the scourge of methamphetamine in my district as i said before i have a son in law that i love dearly that's a policeman you know so please don't imply that mr chairman i hope the other side is not implying that we do not have concerns about these issues because we do another thing that i know having talked to many police officers one thing that they would really like to see is a family raising their children mom and dad caring for their children nurturing them and teaching them and trying to steer them away from the very destructive path of getting on things like methamphetamine and and just seeing their life spiral downward so you know what i'm standing up for today mr chairman i'm standing up for the american taxpayer and you know maybe we do need a dictionary and maybe we do need us to sorest maybe we need to talk about semantics but i want to say that we are looking at a situation here where the appetite is insatiable for increased spending it's insatiable there is a day of reckoning you know those charged my dear friends the blue dogs but outside their office now it's not a point eight trillion dollars it's eight point nine and growing there is a day of reckoning those tax payers that have to work till april thirtieth to get that tax freedom day i mean they're thinking about the spending in this nation no matter how worthy the cause we need spending restraint we need to get on a path of fiscal discipline and the american people understand that no matter how worthy the cause  spending is there is a limited amount of none of the dollars that the taxpayers can afford to pay so i'm hoping that we will move in the right direction and i say i hope that we can have support for th suggested her time she has a hard time has expired i thank the chairman and i will just make a brief point and then yield to the the gentleman from ohio with with the deepest respect to the gentlewoman  no one is implying that there is not concern by every member of this body for those who have drug problems for those whose lives are being ruined by math but you can't just wish these problems away somebody has got to take responsibility for working to end those problems and just like you can't wish them away you can beck that they are going to be dealt with by cutting investments in anti drug programs or even cutting the rate of increase if you want to use the other side's terms we put forty million dollars in this bill for mobile enforcement teams for anti drug programs not mobile enforcement teams in iraq mobile enforcement teams right here at home to help the gentlewoman's constituents with those problems to provide for a better future we're investing in that future you can't just wish these problems away you've got to respond to them and that's we're trying to do now is the other side made the argument that we could cut giveaways to big oil companies and cut off shore tax corporate giveaways and cut all this  corporate welfare and then cut these important criminal justice programs then their arguments would have more credibility their arguments lack credibility because they're saying we can afford all these corporate giveaways but we can't afford informant teams on drug abuse we can't afford more cops on the street while crime is increasing we can't afford counterterrorism initiatives an extra agents at the f b i while al qaeda is planning against us this is just a difference in priorities mr chairman we are strong on crime we also understand that if you can to be strong on crime you can't just say you've got to do it and frankly it takes investments to do it that's what this bill does and that's why every republican on the committee supported this bill when it was in the committee and that's why this amend it will be defeated by republicans and democrats alike and with that i yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from ohio and i i thank the gentleman and i just want to go through a little bit of the details here and some of the logic and some of the facts there's been an increase in crime there's been an increase in methamphetamine use so the committee said as mister or o b stated in ri in reaction to that we're trying to do the southwest border and methamphetamine and foresman program hire a positions for full time equivalents in order to attack the poly drug trafficking organizations located along the southwest border by increasing a s intelligence gathering detection monitoring and surveillance capabilities most of the methamphetamines coming into this into our country are made in california or mexico out west very close to the general eighty's district what this program does is it hires people to try to address this problem and basically there's been a da hiring freeze so without the increase we want to increase this we want to spend money invest in this program one because we will allow the d a to hire more agents to address this issue that is growing so you need to grow the agents that are going to address the issue but two this is going to save us money in the long run and when mr robey says you know the price of everything in the value of nothing that's what we're talking about why wouldn't we want to make this small investment to try to prevent the long term consequences of these young people with drug treatment with in prison with insurance claims this has a long term ripple effect that will call cost cost us ten times the amount of money and finally the general eighty said i hope you don't mean to say that we don't want to address this issue or this issue is an important us i think it's important to note that the president's budget when he said made it to the congress of the united states terminated this program he cut it completely he's zeroed it out so i hope our friends on capitol hill take a walk down pennsylvania avenue and let the president understand the kind of importance that this program has and ultimately the amount of money that this will save us and with that i yield back to my friends the gentleman yield back the star of all time has pursuant to the order of the house of the day the gentleman from california mr campbell and a member of polls each will control of five minute fifteen minutes the chair recognizes the gentleman from california thank you mr chairman you know in listening to all this discussion mr chairman i have to think that the taxpayers of america have to wonder what's going on here that in this bill there's been a proposal to say well we'll let we'll let these government agencies spend one hundred cents on the dollar one hundred percent of everything they had last year now it's terrible we can't do that then there was one in a hundred two percent of what they had last year no it's terrible we can't do that  then there's one in a hundred and two and a half percent of what they had last year no it's curable terrible they can't do that so here's one more try what this does is reduce the increase in spending by point zero zero zero five percent that is five one hundredth of a percent that leaves them with a a whole lot of money and a lot more of an increase almost the same increase they had last year now i'm sure mr chairman that the people of america are can't quite understand why people on the other side of the aisle why the majority democrats would have a problem with this and i can't understand it either so i think perhaps they don't understand what this is now this amendment would save the taxpayers twenty seven million dollars now that's real money twenty seven million dollars which will by which the deficit will not increase and we have a deficit and we're robbing the social security surplus and it's twenty seven million dollars we'd save the taxpayers but so i have five explanations five examples i'd like to give your to perhaps mr chairman help my friends on the other side of the aisle understand just what this proposal is to see if there's anything anything at all that they believe is possible to reduce spending is there any waste in government is there anything government can do for only one hundred  three percent of what they had last year first of all this does take the spending increase from three point three point one percent debate basically three point five percent the basically three point four five percent basically the change in the increase so that's number one number two it still increases spending in these departments by one point five seven four billion dollars over last year one point five seven four billion more you give a third example this is a hundred dollar bill this represents how much money the government is spending on these programs now here's three more dollars and five cents this represent since this bill as it's currently written the hundred dollars they had last year three more and five more sense here mr chairman is how much that how much the government would have to get by on with if this the men were to pass hundred dollars three dollars but not the five cents five cents on one hundred three dollars and somehow this is going to greatly damage programs and what we're doing and we get a fourth example the gentleman from ohio mentioned in the last  particular function that he said would have two hundred forty five agents under their bill as proposed if this a man were to pass how many agents would there be well there would still be two hundred forty five agents but you would have to tell one of those agents that they would only work a seven hour day instead of an eight hour day that that is the significance of this bill now my final example  we look at the entirety of this blue donkey and as a complete government program as proposed by my friends on the other side of the we have seen a proposal already to have ninety nine percent now when you look at them you may say well gosh they look almost the same and that's because they are almost the same and mr chairman i don't know if you or others can see the change we made but what we did was we tried to reduce about one percent of the total donkey surface area up in the year but nope that's been rejected so we said let's make it ninety nine point five percent of what you want to spin and still an increase over last year but what you want to spend a little more here still not much difference i think mr chairman to most people but no can't do that the last bill i proposed a quarter of a percent cut four percent could you get by a quarter percent less of an increase than what's been proposed and that was no also so now we're trying again five hundredth of one percent we try and do that graphically here i do have a blue mark in ninety nine point nine five percent of the increase that you want ninety nine point you can hardly tell the difference but if we do this on every every bill every bit of spending over the government we will eventually start to save money this is the way it works mr chairman the average american taxpayer understands that that if i put away ten dollars a week ten dollars a month eventually i'll have quite a bit of money but i have to have the discipline to do it and that's what we're trying to say here mr chairman we have a deficit we're robbing the social security surplus and one thing that is not in dispute is that we are heading for a fiscal train wreck within thirty years social security and medicare and medicaid alone will eat up one hundred percent of the taxes currently receive so what are we going to do are we going to double or triple taxes are we going to reform the or we're going to reform those systems reform government and start now now yet thirty years from now but if we don't start on it now the problem will be closer and bigger and closer and bigger and and we see mr chairman that if the other side is not willing to do this what will they do other than increase taxes now we see tax increases going on now we've seen a budget that includes either the largest or the second largest tax increase in american history and right now we're seeing taxes increase as proposed by the democrat majority on minority groups on smokers there a small minority group and then just this evening we'll probably have one  on one foreign companies who are setting up businesses and creating jobs in america now the other side i know says oh no that's not a tax increase and i'd like to read you a letter here this is a letter  from bart gordon who is a congressman from the sixth district of tennessee a democrat to the chairman of the ways and means committee and he says concerns have been raised by bridgestone america a company with the philippines in my district about the impact the proposed farm bill offset would have on them bridgestone is concerned that the thirty percent withholding tax imposed by the proposal would have a broad and negative effect upon its legitimate international business operations i understand the importance of ensuring that multinational companies are not able to abuse tax loopholes to avoid paying taxes but we must also be careful not to punish legitimate business practices and discourage born companies from insourcing operations in the united states concerns have also been raised about the effect this withholding tax will have on our international tax treaties that mr chairman is a democrat not a republican talking about this tax this withholding tax the potential impact on jobs in america and the potential impact on a great trade agreements we have with other countries that will affect the ability of american companies to do business overseas now it's quite a contrast mr  because that's what they're proposing the majority keeps proposing tax increase after tax increase after tax increase and they'll start on minority groups and they will move to everyone because they can't get it done without everyone and all we're asking here all we're asking year is five hundred ths of a percent one nickel on one hundred dollars on a slightly less increase so we can begin the process of spending less not taxing more i reserve the balance of my time german reserves about once of his time who seeks recognition gemma from new york the gentleman from california three minutes chairman issa had like to write you'll three minutes to the lady from north carolina again a lady from north carolina is recognized for three minutes i thank my colleague from california and i thank the chairman for the recognition i've been sitting here listening for a while to the debate on this bill and i've been struck by several issues that have come up that i think need to be  mentioned some of some of been mentioned before but some new ones i i'm often asked by school groups what's the difference between democrats and republicans and i say to them  very quick definition is democrats think they know how to spend your money better than you know how to spend your many republicans think that the less government we have the better off we are and the more money you're allowed to keep the better off this country will be and i think that this debate certainly exemplifies that and i agree with some of my colleagues who said before the appetite of the democrats is absolutely insatiable for increase spending they never met a program they didn't love to spend money for they would take every dime they will take every dime every penny from the american people that they can possibly take and spend it on programs they think are important they talk about investing government money the government never invested any money it spends money the private sector invest money in gets results i would challenge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle show me the results of the spending that you do and then maybe you can argue a little bit of an investment the other thing that i'm struck by is how much last year in this same debate that the democrats said the free spending president bush busting the budget doing all the spending and now they're coming here and defending programs that the president zeroed out because they were ineffective and they want to put the money back and that is the height of hypocrisy there is a limited amount of money that americans have but the democrats don't know that they want to take it all and it is true that the budget they passed earlier this year contains the largest or second largest tax increase in america and that to pay for their programs they're going to have to have more tax increase this amendment would save a small amount of money twenty seven million dollars but it's a step in the right direction we have got to start reining in spending and those of us who have come here in the last few years understand that those republicans do and we want to see the federal government more responsive to the american taxpayer less praful get and more interested in saving our freedom not in taking it away by taking away our money and reducing our in sizes those values of civility and tolerance and mutual understanding in our classrooms and doesn't try and separate people by democrats and republicans i hope that the next time a gentle woman goes into those schools and talks to those school children they ask her mr chairman what are you doing to keep us safe from al qaeda and the terrorists were planning against us that she will say to them my proudest moment young children is that i cut the f b i budget by point zero five percent while approving tax cuts of fourteen billion dollars to the biggest oil companies on earth i think those children would rather be investing in the f b i to keep them safe and giving away those billions and billions of dollars in tax cuts to the biggest oil companies in america with that i reserve the balance of my time gentleman reserves it's time to move to california may i inquire mr chairman as to how much time is remaining on both sides the gentleman from california has two and a half minutes remaining in the gentleman from from new york as thirteen and remaining i'll reserve the balance of my time german from german from new york texas mr hanson the gentleman from texas is recognized for two and one half minutes i thank the gentleman for yielding mr chairman this is obviously been a spirited debate by men and women on both sides of the who i respect but i do think if the american people are watching this debate and i'm i hope they are we need to dispose of one issue very clearly and that is there is indeed a dictionary over on that part of the floor and every amendment that was brought here today is either going to increase spending in this account or level fund but according to the logic of our friends on the other side of the out if you fund something at a lesser quantity than somebody else wants it then you have a draconian cut well if they're increasing this bill three point one percent well that's that's a cut below free point five percent that's a cut below four percent if all these programs are so good why did you cut them why didn't you increase it six percent why didn't you increase it eight percent so let's dispose of that argument right now again the only budget that's being cut here mr chairman is the family budget and the family budget is being cut as part of the single largest tax increase in american history contained in the democrats budget resolution which i know they try to run away from now they said earlier that that we know the cost of everything in the value of nothing maybe they need to know the value of hard earned paychecks in american families and so maybe they need to think about there's a pot of family in kaufman texas because when they put their tax increase on them let me tell you what there's a pot does have to say if taxes on my family increase that much this could serious affect and seriously affect my life my mortgage is adjustable and will most likely go up the taxes go up it would be devastating and i could face foreclosure they don't know the value of the paycheck to the brute her family and wills point no increase in taxes my family is one breath away from losing our home as it is those are the budgets that are being cut today mr chairman not only by the single largest tax increase in american history but they're about to bring a tax increase to fry to fund their farm bill by taxing jobs or saying somehow foreign companies are evil when they come to america and they invest and create jobs in my district among other districts so they've there's a real choice here increase the family budget or increase the federal budget we come down on the side of the family budget jim of new york that family in texas would feel if that family were asked do you think that we should continue to allow companies to earn the greatest profits in the history of any industry in the history of the world or do you think we ought to take some of those oil revenues and devote them to putting more cops on the street i think that family would say you know i'd be willing to pay a little less at the pump or have the company earn a little less at the pump if it meant pumping a little more that money into the f b i to keep me safe or for it meant another bulletproof vest for a police officer i think that family would say the record profits of that industry that we had a chance to actually take some of those resources and plow it into this country invest in this country i think that family in texas would say that means more to me than making sure that these companies enjoy corporate welfare and astounding profits now my friend says this is only a thirty one million dollar cut how much difference can that really make but my friend isn't willing to say where he would cut the money he says he wants to spread it around but he used the example of the f b i let's say we devoted this entire cut to the f b i it simply means that you have one f b i agent working a few less hours that is working maybe an eight hour day  five eight hour days they work for eight hour days in a seven hour day where i don't know how much they're paying f b i agents in my friend's part of the state i'm from different part of california i don't think the pay i'm all that much i think if you cut thirty one million dollars of the f b i you're cutting a lot of positions out of the f b i will my colleague from california you know my colleagues have already had fifteen minutes we're going to use a lot less of the answer your question i'm not yelling my time my colleague at fifteen minutes to to try to make his point  so i don't think cutting thirty one million dollars on the f b i makes sense and this gets back to the question that our chairman posed what is the need and are we devoting the resources that meet that need the need that i'm hearing the need that our homeland security committee is hearing the need that the nine eleven commission recognized is a need to make greater investments in the safety of our country that's the need that we're recognizing in this bill do we need those extra f b i agents yes i think we do do we need those extra cops on the beat yes i think they do i wish my friends in the opposition who fight so hard for our friends in the gun industry would fight halfassed hard for cops to have the vests that they need here in this debate on the house floor today i think we need to make these investments in our future i think we need to make these investments in our american family and i think that my colleagues in the minority here not the minority party because again this bill enjoys the support of the bipartisan majority but the minority viewpoint has expressed here today i think they need to ask what would these families choose if we gave them the real choice not between whether they invested in the f b i or they don't invest in the f b i but whether they invest in the f b i by ending corporate welfare for oil companies i think the answer would be yes i think the answer would be absolutely and i think the answer would be we want to invest in the country make it stronger make it safer give our children a chance to grow up in safer neighborhoods that's the answer i think that letter writer and others around the country would give and have given and that's you gentleman from new jersey in the channel just want to clarify that the my colleague's arguments from california were very fine arguments except they don't apply to this amendment this and then that does make a point zero zero zero five or thought five basis point five hundred percent reduction in the growth of each program equally across the board so it is five cents on one hundred dollars of everything appreciate the argument it's clear that our friends on the other side of the aisle believe that government cannot survive on this but they believe that all kinds of people companies entities can survive on a whole lot less than that with the taxes they want to increase it's a very clear distinction chairman between five hundred five cents to one hundred dollars across the board on every program which i think would be fine versus the the all the various tax proposals increase proposals that you have both on various minorities like smokers and foreign companies and in your budget on basically every taxpayer in america and i yield back to john from germany is back this time of new york the chairman bill thirty seconds to jump from california germany feeling again i would just point out that my friend hasn't shown any willingness to trim the profits of his friends in the oil industry by point zero zero zero zero zero zero zero five which would amount to probably about the same thirty one million dollars we're talking about here he's only willing to take that thirty million dollars out of our law enforcement efforts across the board but not out of oil industry profits and that's the difference in philosophy i think between my colleague and myself and i you know back to the gentleman mr chairman during this debate we have seen all sorts of charts and heard about all sorts of numbers and heard saw a display of dollars here the statistics that count mr chairman the past two years violent crimes in america are up three point six percent federal law enforcement grants have declined forty six percent so under republican leadership under their leadership mr chairman federal support for local law enforcement has already been cut forty six percent now we're saying we should cut it another point five hundred seven percent f b i counterterrorism casework is up one hundred percent meanwhile f b i investigative resources are down twenty nine percent so we have you mr chairman is more criminals on the streets and an attempt to reduce investments in cops on the streets but we have here mr chairman it is a bigger caseload of potential terrorists and the f b i and the f b i being told shave your budgets that's how far some ideologues will go mr chairman i can't imagine any american watching these proceedings and then hearing the news seeing and learning about the national intelligence estimate which says that al qaida is proliferating in regenerating and saying now is the time to cut the f b i budget or now is the time even to reduce increased investments in the f b i al qaeda is not cutting the rate of their increase mr chairman terrorists are not cutting the rate of their increases mr chairman this is not the time to begin cutting these budgets the other side is talking about specific reductions in the number of f agents on counterterrorism cases they are talking about a specific reduction in the number of deployments of cups on the street crime going up federal law enforcement france going down there's a correlation between the two and now we add insult to injury by saying let's cut it another point zero five percent or one five hundred ths of a percent want to close mr chairman by reminding the chairman and the american people through the chairman that this debate really isn't about one five hundredth of a percent it is about what priorities make sense to the american people fourteen billion dollar tax cuts are the biggest oil companies on earth or twenty eight hundred cops on the street ninety billion dollars in tax shelters for offshore companies that register their headquarters in bermuda to avoid paying their fair share of taxes here or more cops on the street i don't know about that the gentleman talked about a family in his district i don't know of any family in my district that gets to sit at their table their kitchen table with their accountant and be given the advice that they should register themselves at appeal box in bermuda to avoid paying their fair share of taxes in the united states you know what they want for their tax dollars cops on the street f b i agents protecting them that's what they want they don't have the right to just go off to bermuda register themselves at a p o box and not pay taxes we understand that every tax dollar has to be zealously safeguarded and that's what we do in this bill the difference between us is not one five hundredth of a percent the difference between us is ninety billion dollars they would rather spend that ninety billion dollars on those offshore companies with pillboxes in bermuda we would rather spend a fraction of that making sure that there are a cups on the street that kids are protected from meth that women are not don't have to deal with domestic violence that they could be prosecuted that the f b i has counterterrorist age yes that they have investigative resources because as i said before all the statistics bear it out crime is increasing terrorists are proliferating they are not cutting their budgets they are not cutting their numbers they're not even cutting their rate of increase and we should not turn our backs and allow them this advantage their advantage in the name of a one five hundredth of a percent cut in this budget this isn't substance this is politics and if it weren't so serious it would be silly we want cops on the street and counter terrorists with the f b i agents with the f b i that's what the american people want that's why every republican on the appropriations committee supported this bill and that is why at the end of this debate we go back to where we were at the beginning of this debate this is a small group of members a fringe group of members who say three percent not enough two percent not enough one percent not of going to go to one five hundred seven percent to make our case every single one of those amendments has been defeated in every single one of these bills because republicans and democrats in the mainstream know better we understand the pressures of the american people and that is why this amendment will face the same fate as all the other members before them it will be defeated and mr chairman let me make one other point with all due respect to my friends they have spent more taxpayer dollars prolonging this debate offering  t after amendment after amendment keeping this house in session when every single of these amendments was defeated then the one five hundredth of a percent cut that they're offering today i would suggest to the other side that they could save taxpayers a lot more money by doing these amendments once getting them over with let him get defeated as they always have and let this congress go on with the business of the american people in putting cops on the and investing resources in the f b i to keep them safe and with that  equally applied the arguments earlier that half of a percent cut five basis points of a cut as if that's some sort of a dry county a decision to be made the truth the matter is the committee the subcommittee had a fixed amount of money to work with and they chose to make some tradeoffs they chose to fund more here and less here more here and less there but none of those decisions that they made work catched in the terms of some sort of mean spiritedness and at the risk of prolonging the debate which i think is an important debate for us to have almost an offer of a mammoth that i know has a port of water which stands against that before i do that though i'd like to quote something from justice george sutherland with a lot of us heard earlier about the way tax planning is done used misused and it was used in a pejorative that only or you know big oil companies or other companies could use the code that we currently have in place that you and i and our colleagues put in place to to effect their tax affairs and that families don't get to do that well i would argue based on this quote the legal right and that's the right of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his or her taxes or altogether of void we put in place this code and if we don't like the way that's done then there are reforms to debate that and we ought to have that debate but let's don't denigrate people who are using the code we put in place to lower their tax liability and call that some sort of a pejorative this is a classic argument that you cannot throw enough money at any subject to fix it and that's what we're we're hearing from the other side that the more money you throw at it the more you're going to fix the problem and i don't necessarily agree with that my colleagues on the other side used the word take in reference to revenues from oil companies and that's exactly what they would intend to do they would take those revenues and spend them the way they would like to legitimate way of doing government i'll also argue that in the next two weeks we may have some sort of a conversation about an energy bill and during that timeframe we will argue viciously that there's not enough in reinvestment in sources of domestic sources of energy and those revenues taken from these mean ugly oil companies would otherwise go back into that reinvestment into into energy so as i mentioned  racine knows no bounds my minute a simple all of this great work has been done and bad work according to our colleagues on the other side are wasteful work hard enough on the other side to try to reduce spending in this bill is for not in addition to the ringing the feats that my colleagues that endure were they to be successful the rules of this house do not allow those cuts to actually be implemented if my colleague could actually win the argument that we could trim five cents out of a hundred dollars out of this budget whichever budget that money would still get spent the money the stays within the three zero to be allocation which is code for inside the beltway stuff but it would simply not get spent and so we spent hours and hours and hours down here debating trying to reduce the spending at a particular bill the harsh reality is that where we did win some of those amendments it would simply be a pirated victory because that money would still get spent my amendment sets a congress which say were we to win one of those arguments  that money that reduction in spending would actually go against the deficit or heaven forbid that we ever be in a surplus circumstance that money would increase the surplus so this is something i'm trying to point out each one of our  that we've got a goofy set of rules that only you and i understand only you and i appreciate and maybe only appropriators embrace that does not allow all of this hard to bait and work to really mean anything at the end of the day  colleagues characterization of our use of this debate time as wasteful in some way i think it's important for the american people to understand as they go about managing their affairs that we catch the terms junction you may withdraw you remember the amendment is withdrawn call designate the amendment and then that offer by mr garrett of new jersey pursuant to the order of the house today the gentleman from new jersey mr garrett in a member pose will each control five minutes the chair amendment then we are willing to accept it there we are reclaiming my time i don't appreciate the chairman's acceptance of the amendment i will just spend thirty seconds just for the edification of the membership  the conference as well what the memmott does this amendment harkens back to the days not too long ago actually the various federal government agencies one taking part in international conferences overseas w send upwards of seventy eighty ninety one hundred over one hundred members of their departments or agencies to these various conferences spending obviously an excessive amount of taxpayers dollars and as we've heard from both sides of the aisle and appropriate manner we are here to set priorities and i agree with that effort on both sides and that's is that exactly what is in them and does it says let's pick a reasonable number in this case it's fifty a limitation as a number of members of any agency to go on these international conferences forty one by mr up to the michigan and a member by mr jordan of ohio and a member by mr price of georgia in a mammoth by ms mrs musgrave of colorado and a member number thirty seven by mr campbell campbell of california the chair will reduce to two minutes the time for any electronic vote after the first vote in this series the unfinished business is the request for a vote for a recorded vote on a member number one by the gentleman from florida mr stearns on which further proceedings were postponed in which the nose prevail by voice vote the clerk will read designate the amendment and then number one planet in the congressional record offered by mr stern to florida where a quarter vote is been requested those in support of the request