Truth in Caller ID Act of 2006

Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday we had quite a discussion on this bill. There were efforts to move money from paying for the census, for example, to other areas of the bill or other priorities. There was a lot of talk about limited resources and the limited amount of money in this bill and the need to take money from one area to put into another.

I would submit that one area that we can take some money from that is overfunded, grossly overfunded, in this bill is in some of these earmarks. Now, I will maybe highlight 10 of them today, but there are literally hundreds in the bill that we could take the money from to fund our constitutional obligation, for example, to conduct the census every 10 years.

But I will start today with 250,000 for the Rochester, New York, Tooling and Machining Association for a workforce development program; that is an earmark. This amendment would strip that funding. The Rochester Tool and Machining Association is one chapter of a larger international tooling and machining association, which is the national representative of the custom precision manufacturing industry in the United States.

They maintain a legislative alert center on their Web site so their members can lobby Congress on issues that matter to them. They also retain a lobbying firm to advance their interests with the Federal Government. It would seem that they are doing yeoman's work for their members, as is their Rochester chapter. Their Rochester chapter offers technical training and education to its members.

They assert on their Web site that manufacturing job opportunities are not declining and that manufacturing accounts for 24 percent of the private sector jobs in New York State. They go on to claim that the size of the workforce is declining and that there are insufficient skilled workers to fill these available jobs, which I can only assume is what this earmark is for.

What we have here is simple supply and demand, not enough skilled workers for too many jobs, an equation that is normally balanced by the free market, until this earmark. For those who buy into the idea that it is the Federal Government's responsibility to plan and shape the supply and demands of our workforce, my objection to this earmark will not resonate with you.

But for those who have witnessed the profound failures of central planning in countries around the world during the 1970s and the 1980s, I hope that you will understand that this earmark is a mini-economic boost by a Federal, centralized government, to increase the supply of one industry's workers over another industry.

I would submit that if there is such a demand for skilled manufacturers, as the association claims, then wages will increase, and the workforce will adapt, and they will learn ways and skills necessary to earn those wages. Let the market decide which industries succeed or fail, not politicians in Washington.

I would like to hear the justification for the Federal function in this case, but then I ask, why are we picking winners and losers through the earmarking process? Why is this industry, this sector, these workers, more deserving than others? I don't think Congress should be picking favorites like this.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would simply say, again, we all say it is our job to represent our constituents, and it certainly is. But we are in a deficit situation. We have a massive deficit and a massive Federal debt.

What if every Member of Congress said, I am going to represent my constituents by getting every Federal dollar that I can back into my district, regardless of the deficit, regardless of the debt.

That is pretty much where we are at right now. When you had, I think last year was $27 billion in earmarks, where does it end? When do we say enough is enough? When do we say, I am not going to pick this industry over that one?

That workforce may be worthy of this kind of help, but what makes it more worthy than another one? Why do we just continue with the spoils system where if you happen to get with this group and they happen to be lucky enough to get your earmark, they get funded, but nobody else does? We simply can't continue this.

I urge support of the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am a big fan of Italian food. My district is home to a great Italian restaurant, Anzio's Landing. You can order many of your favorite dishes, good Italian bread, and there are many former New Yorkers in my district, and they know it well. But if the owner of this restaurant, whom I know well, if he approached me to get a Federal earmark to modernize his restaurant, I would have to tell him ``fuhgetaboudit.''

Today I am bringing this amendment to learn whether the rest of the House will agree with me on that premise. The bill before us today asks us to spend $150,000 in Federal taxpayer dollars to the Arthur Avenue Retail Market, an Italian grocery market in a neighborhood labeled Bronx's Little Italy. Over a dozen merchants currently reside in the market, including Joe Liberatore's Garden of Plenty, Peter's Meat Market and Mike's Deli, a two-generation family-owned business that sells antipasti, breads, meats, pasta, and imported cheeses. The market is also home to the La Casa Grande Tobacco Company, which offers hand- rolled cigars.

In 2004, the market received $300,000 in earmarked Federal dollars for renovations. The market received another $400,000 in Federal transportation appropriation dollars for a new parking facility in 2005. We are back.

In 1940, Mayor LaGuardia built an indoor Arthur Avenue Market to take street vendors out of the cold. This is where this originated.

In the 1980s, the merchants of the market formed a co-op and paid for renovations to that market. Now, there are long lines at the market on weekends to get great Italian bread, cheese and salami.

I would ask the sponsor of this amendment why close to $700,000 has been spent on this Italian grocery market and why another $150,000 in taxpayer funds is needed.

There is a lot of Federal prosciutto to bring back to the District, or that is, a lot of Federal prosciutto to bring back to the District for a private Italian grocery market. I think we need to slice off some of this appropriations bill. If there is a place to slice, this is certainly it.

What possible Federal purpose does this earmark serve? Does the taxpayer even get a free Italian cookie assortment? If we allow our tax money to go to this grocery market, what benefit is there for the Federal taxpayer? There are certainly plenty of private benefits, but what Federal benefit? How do we justify this?

I would argue that this is one cannoli the taxpayer doesn't want to take a bite out of.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for the invitation. I likely will take him up on it. Maybe I will learn to say ``prosciutto'' properly.

But we simply get back to the point, where does it end? Where do we stop favoring one group, one industry over another? It is mentioned that this is a city-owned facility. Those who are residing there, who have their markets there, already received that kind of subsidy apparently from the city.

Now we are going in addition and giving them further subsidy. $400,000 last year for a parking garage, $300,000 in 2004 for similar upgrades, $150,000 more today. My guess is that there are Italian eateries or restaurants or markets elsewhere in the city that are getting no subsidy at all. How is it fair to them? How is it fair to them to favor one?

And I would say the same if it were in my district. It is not fair to subsidize one and not the other, and that is where we are with this earmarking process.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, this earmark limitation amendment would prohibit $200,000 in Federal funds from being provided to the Oil Region Alliance of Business, Industry and Tourism.

Now, the mission of the Oil Region Alliance of Business, Industry and Tourism is to ``increase the prosperity and population of the Oil Region'' of Pennsylvania. The point of the alliance is to ``entice people to live, work, learn and play in the valley that changed the world.''

I am certain this is an important organization to the oil region. These folks are working to ensure that the region's future is important as was its past. I have no problem with that. I don't think anyone does. Being the site of the world's first successful oil well in 1859, this area has played a crucial role in the country's history.

My only question is, why should the Federal Government pay to develop this area's business and tourism? Why this area and not other areas?

In April of this year, Governor Rendell congratulated the Pennsylvania tourism industry for having a record-breaking year last year.

The $25 billion tourism industry sold more hotel rooms than ever before and attracted more than 130 million visitors in 2005, making Pennsylvania the fifth most visited State in the Nation. Statewide, tourism accounts for more than 400,000 jobs and is the Commonwealth's second largest industry.

I have said it before, and I will continue to say it: when the Federal Government hands out earmarks like this, we are picking winners and losers. We are encouraging people to visit and to provide tourism to this area. They have to come from somewhere else. Why aren't we subsidizing those whom they choose not to go to? Where does it end? Where do we stop? Why do we simply have a spoils system where one Member of Congress can say, I am going to benefit them but not others?

In this case, the oil region of Pennsylvania receives funding to attract businesses to locate in the region, to try to get families to move there and to stay, and to try to attract tourist dollars.

As I mentioned, there are businesses and families and tourist dollars that won't be heading to other areas of Pennsylvania or surrounding States or anywhere else in the country. Many other localities throughout the country would like to receive as many tourism dollars as possible, but we are favoring one with this earmark.

Simply put, we shouldn't be doing this. The Federal Government shouldn't be picking winners and losers like this.

Mr. Chairman, with that, I will reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would simply submit that every Member of Congress in 435 districts around the country can point to at least pockets in his or her district that need help, where there is high jobless rates or where there is high crime.

But where does it end? Where do we say, all right, we simply can't pass out earmarks like this and circumvent the normal authorization, appropriation, and oversight process? When does it become our job to say, all right, we are not going to go through that process and authorize these programs, appropriate and then have oversight. Instead, we are just going to slip an earmark in that we don't even know who sponsored until we offer it on the floor today. And if nobody was standing up here, we still wouldn't know.

There are hundreds and hundreds of earmarks in this bill that we wouldn't even know who is offering them or what they are for because the descriptions are often so vague as to what the earmark is supposed to fund.

So where does it end? Why can't every Member stand up and say, I have pockets in my district, if not my entire district, that need workforce development, that need facilities?

He mentioned my district has grown 40 percent in the past couple of years. It has. It has tremendous infrastructure needs. But if I were to come and say we need all the lists that he rattled off there, then the Treasury simply couldn't handle it.

We are put in this position to make decisions and to have priorities; and I would submit that when you have an earmarking process like that, we aren't going through it properly.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prevent any funding from going to the Fairplex Trade and Conference Center.

Fairplex is home to the Los Angeles County Fair, the largest county fair in the world. The fair is a great asset to California, contributing a major portion of the $11.6 million in State sales tax revenue generated by Fairplex and $176 million in spending.

The L.A. County Fair Association describes itself as self-supporting and boasts that it does not fall under the auspices of any county or State governmental body.

Surplus revenues that are generated by the fair and other activities are reinvested into the maintenance and development of the facility.

The association also states that Fairplex receives no government funding for the operation or maintenance of its facilities. However, Fairplex received $1 million in Federal funding for fiscal year 2006. If the money is not used for the operation or maintenance of this thriving independent facility, what is it used for?

Maybe the funding is intended for some other activities at the Fairplex, such as the Wally Parks NHRA Motor Sports Museum or the Frank Hawley Drag Racing School. Maybe these funds are for Fairplex Park, a major horse racing facility with a grandstand and air-conditioned clubhouse for satellite gambling.

There is no question that Fairplex delivers major economic benefits for L.A. County and the rest of California. But I do question, however, why the Federal Government is throwing money at an independent facility that generates over $334 million in economic activity nationwide. Fairplex does so well, in fact, that it donates more than $400,000 in cash and in kind to local organizations each year.

So why are we giving this earmark? That is the question.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for the gentlewoman and for the gentleman who spoke, and I appreciate their efforts on behalf of this initiative. But, again, I have to say, where does it end? Where does it end when we say, this group, this organization, this facility is worthy of Federal dollars, and another is not? It simply isn't fair to continue to give earmarks like this in this manner.

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

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

I would ask Members of this body, how would you define irony?

I define it as providing a Federal earmark money to the Bronx Council on the Arts, which is an entity that is advertising an event on its Web site called, Pay to Play.

Pay to Play, according to the Bronx Council's Web site is ``a multimedia exhibition ala Abramoff, Scanlon, Cunningham, Halliburton and on and on and on.'' The Web site states that ``artists are asked to offer a bribe to participate in the show that will be on display alongside selected work. Please note that special consideration will be given to work that addresses corruption, greed, scandal, cover-ups, failures of democracy, the transparent veneer of public interest that masks rampant self-interest, and such other things.''

I am not saying the earmark for Bronx Council of the Arts fits any of these categories, but I am saying that it is sadly ironic that we are funding artistic parodies of congressional earmarking with earmarks.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike funding for the Bronx Council for marketing local arts initiatives. My staff and I were befuddled as to what the Bronx Council originally was. It appears that a Bronx Council got money last year in the same section of the bill, but the earmark was called, ``$150,000 for the Bronx Council for the Arts for its Arts Cultural Corridor Project to promote local arts initiatives.''

So we went from Bronx Council on the Arts to just the Bronx Council. We dropped the ``Arts Cultural Corridor Project,'' and we are no longer promoting local arts, but we are marketing them. I call this the Earmark Protection Program, changing the names of earmarks to make them so vague that no one can recognize them and no amendment can be drafted to strike them.

We often have trouble when we are offering these earmarks. We are told by the Parliamentarian that it has to refer to a specific facility or a specific initiative, and these earmarks this year, many of the names have been changed to be more vague, and it is difficult to know what they actually fund. As mentioned a few weeks ago, we had earmarks to simply fund a facility without reference to what that facility was. It is difficult to have amendments that are actually ruled in order to challenge them because, as the Parliamentarians will tell you, to successfully challenge an earmark, it requires an assumption that the agency that funds the earmark is familiar with the project. Otherwise, we might be legislating on an appropriation bill, which is a violation of our rules. The incentive, therefore, for Members looking to protect earmarks is to become more vague or silent about the project's goals and the project's oversight.

I would submit that we should get used to more earmarks entering this protection program in the near future to prevent them from being stripped from appropriation bills. I would welcome an explanation as to what this earmark actually does.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume for a question, and I would like to yield to the gentleman to answer.

Is this the same council that received the earmark last year, just for my clarification?

I will do that. I thank the gentleman.

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

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

In last year's conference report on the SSJC appropriations bill, there was a $250,000 earmark for the JARI, which stands for Johnstown Area Regional Industries, Workforce Development Program. There was a separate $250,000 earmark for the JARI Small Business Technology Center. This year, there is a $500,000 earmark for the JARI Workforce Development Program and the Small Business Technology Center. We also found a separate $800,000 earmark for JARI for a Regional Business Incubator.

Aside from all other arguments that can be made against this kind of earmarking, I want to point out what appears to be a trend toward obfuscation in the language of earmarks. In drafting a limitation amendment to prevent funding to the JARI Regional Business Incubator, we used the earmark language exactly as it appears in the bill.

We then asked the Parliamentarians to review it to make sure it would be in order. We were informed that the ``region business incubator'' verbiage was too vague to be considered in order. So in drafting this amendment, we had no choice but to limit funding to JARI, period. The effect of this amendment would be to prohibit any funding from the bill going to the organization, whereas our initial intention was to limit the funding to the business incubator.

That is part of the problem we have here. All we have is the language in a report that is so vague or confusing that it is even difficult to draft an amendment to cover it.

Now I have no problem limiting any funding to the organization, let me tell you, but I also want to be clear that I have nothing against JARI. I wish the organization well in its efforts. I do, however, have a problem with the increasingly opaque process by which Congress hands out earmarks.

For the first half of this year, we debated ways to bring transparency to what we do here. When it comes to the earmarking process, Members have proposed a longer notice period before consideration of bills, making bills and reports more accessible, attaching Members' names to earmarks, compiling earmarks in tables, including earmarks in the text of legislation, and on and on and on. I think all these ideas are fine, and I have introduced my own proposal.

After a good deal of compromise, this House approved the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act last month. Yet here we are, just a few weeks later, and there has been no apparent effort to comply with the proposals that we made in the House and the entire House approved.

How can we explain this to our constituents? Was the lobbying and transparency legislation just for show? I certainly don't think it was, but it is starting to look that way to most Americans.

We need to demonstrate how serious we are about establishing transparency in Congress. We have made a strong effort, and there is nothing preventing us from making good on what we said. Waiting until this bill becomes law before we act would appear as though we are under compulsion to comply with the public demand for transparency. I think we need transparency now.

A small handful of our colleagues contend that we should not change the process until the other Chamber changes its process, that if we enact unilateral reforms in the House, we would shortchange ourselves.

Who is this about? Are we here to serve our country, the best interests of our country, or simply to look out for the interests of the House?

What are we waiting for? We are almost done with the appropriation process for the year, yet nothing has changed. Where are the names next to earmarks? Where is the transparency that we say that we want?

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I simply would like to point out that unless the gentleman who defended the earmark is the author of the earmark, and I don't believe that he is, this is an earmark in Pennsylvania. We still don't know who authored the earmark. There is nothing in the conference report that tells us, and we still don't know. Here we are about to vote on it, and we still don't know and we haven't had a defense of that earmark from the author of it, from the Member who authored it. There is something wrong with the process when this is what we are reduced to.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, the committee report for this bill contains an earmark for the Wisconsin Procurement Initiative, and my amendment would limit funding for this item.

The committee report for last year's SSJC appropriations bill did not contain a similar earmark, but the conference report on this bill did include an earmark for the Wisconsin Procurement Institute for the same amount.

Though it is impossible to know by reading the report, it appears that this earmark is destined for the same institution. Again, we simply don't know. We have insufficient information, yet we are going to provide the funding without even knowing, without anybody even asking the question, is it the same thing to give money to the initiative or the institute?

It appears that this is one of several earmarks that have been funded in multiple years with similar but increasingly vague verbiage in the committee report.

The Wisconsin Procurement Institute was founded in 1987 by Les Aspin, a former Congressman and Secretary of Defense. The institute says its purpose is to ``bridge the gap for Wisconsin companies interested in supplying their products and services to Federal, State and local agencies and prime contractors.'' The institute ``guides, trains and provides hands-on assistance to firms in developing government business and improving process and technical capabilities to access and compete in the government workplace.''

When I saw this earmark, it reminded me of the late-night commercials that you see from a fellow by the name of Matthew Lesko. He will stand up and run to the camera, and he has a suit with question marks all over it, and he has a car decorated the same way, and he will wave a book and say, ``There is millions and millions of government dollars just for you, and if you pay me $19.95, I will tell you how can get these contracts, how you can get this money, how you can get these scholarships, how you can get these grants, how you can get these loans.''

This seems to be a process similar to Matthew Lesko. You have an organization here whose job it is to secure projects from the Federal Government, and we are paying money to that organization to help them procure contracts from us. It just seems like a little double-dipping in that way. We are funding an organization whose purpose it is to help other organizations obtain Federal assistance, grants, contracts, et cetera.

According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the 2003 budget for the Wisconsin Procurement Institute was $340,000. This year's and last year's earmarks were for $400,000 each. It seems that we have doubled their budget, or their entire budget comes from the Federal Government. I am not sure which.

I am sure the Wisconsin Procurement Institute's budget is higher now than it was 3 years ago, but a significant portion must be funded by this earmark.

I certainly support the outsourcing of Federal functions that can be better performed by private companies, but there is something inherently wrong with funding an organization whose purpose it is to help others secure government funding. Just thinking about it makes your head spin.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, we have done it again. We have come here to talk about an earmark that I am sure will be approved by voice vote and then probably by roll call, and we still don't even know who sponsored it. We don't know if the institute is the same as the initiative. We don't know why the organization claims on its own Web site to have a budget of $340,000, yet has received earmarks in each of the past 2 years for $400,000 each.

It simply doesn't make sense. Are we exercising the proper oversight that we ought to? We said before, both sides

have said, the gentleman and ranking minority member have said we simply don't have the staff to police the kind of earmarking we are doing here. I readily agree. Yet we are continuing to do this. I don't know where we stop. I simply don't.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would prohibit $900,000 in Federal funds from being used by Fairmont State University in West Virginia for a small business initiative.

Fairmont State University is located in Fairmont, the county seat of Marion County, which has a population of 20,000 and is located in north central West Virginia. Similar to other earmarks I have challenged in this appropriations season, this earmark is vague in its description, offering no more than a general sketch of the purpose of the funding and making true oversight nearly impossible.

In addition, this is not the first earmark to benefit the school. In recent years, Fairmont State University and its partners have regularly benefited from earmarks in this appropriation bill.

For example, the 2005 Justice Department budget included a grant for nearly half a million dollars for the Fairmont State partner program looking at decoding criminal digital documents. Similarly, the 2006 SSJC appropriation bill included over $2 million in earmarks assisting the school's aviation program and aerospace curriculum.

And I guess the third time is the charm. We are likely to continue this trend in 2007 with an earmark for $900,000 for a small business development initiative.

In fact, according to some estimates, northern West Virginia has received more than $480 million in earmarks in various appropriation bills over the last 10 years.

This earmark illustrates the problem with earmarks. Year after year, we approve these vaguely described projects by the thousands. Not only do taxpayers not know how the money is being spent, the current earmark process makes those types of patterns, the same area benefiting time and time again at the taxpayers' expense, difficult if not impossible to detect.

My question is, where does it end? Where does Congress start to say enough is enough and add accountability and transparency to this runaway train that earmarks have become? If not with earmarks like this, then I do not know when.

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

Mr. Chairman, all of the descriptions of Arizona make it sound like Shangri-La, that everything is going so well in Arizona that we have no need for any help with the economy or any sector of the economy. That is simply not the case. We are experiencing rapid growth. There are a lot of infrastructure needs that come with that. We are experiencing transition.

I grew up in northeastern Arizona. There are tremendous problems there with drought and other issues.

But I would defy any Member of Congress to say that his district is not in need of something. But if we all said, all right, we are just going to get it all, get it all for our districts, circumvent the authorization appropriation oversight function that Congress has always had and simply say we are going to earmark it and use kind of a spoil system as to who gets the earmarks, then it is simply going to drain the Treasury, and it is not fair to anyone.

I have universities in my district. Many of them compete for educational grants, for research grants, for other grants that are typically available in this appropriation bill and others that are being depleted. Those accounts for research funds are being depleted by earmarks.

Later today I believe we will be voting on an amendment or some clarification of the TEA-LU bill to replenish a research account or some kind of research account on roads whose account was depleted because of earmarks. So people in Arizona or elsewhere are not going to receive the funding that would come by formula back to them, because of the gas taxes they paid in, because of all of the earmarking that is going on.

So this is a problem. It is not a fair system. It is not a transparent system. If it were a transparent system, we would have names next to the earmarks when they come to the floor. We would have the ability to challenge it at any step. You would have language that is such that a limitation amendment could not be ruled out of order.

This is not a fair process. We need to change it.

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

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, I understand your concerns, Mr. Farr. I agree there is a need to seek a long-term solution to the problems in the Klamath Basin and

appreciate your leadership on this issue. I commit, as we have spoken, to improve the levels of the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund in conference for restoration and also for recovery.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I think it is a good amendment. Hopefully, the FCC will take note of what Mr. Murphy is doing. I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill through page 89, line 9, be considered as read, printed in the Record, and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Chairman, I support the gentlewoman's amendment. I know the Veterans Corporation is working to get itself revitalized, and I hope we can have this thing authorized. I think the more effort that can be done would help us, particularly as we move into the outyears.

Mr. Chairman, I accept the gentlewoman's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman. She certainly has raised a very important issue. I pledge to explore this issue further.

It is my understanding that NASA anticipates, because they have a strong education program, building this program using the funding appropriated to the agency for education programs. I do recognize that the Dr. Mae C. Jemison Grant Program is a program charged to NASA, and we look forward to the launch of the program and the benefits that will result.

Thank you.

Sure.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I agree with the gentleman that the warnings provided by the Space Environment Center are important to protect their satellites and other space-based industries. And I will be happy to work with the gentleman as the bill moves forward through conference to try to find increased funding for the Space Environment Center.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say, Mr. Davis has convinced me of the merit of his argument. I would never object to him. Since it makes a lot of sense, I concede.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the gentleman's amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

I believe it is an appropriate issue to debate, but the appropriate forum for debate is with the authorizing committees and with an opportunity for both sides on the issue to present their cases.

Today's pending legislation is not a place for the debate, and I would hope that the authorizing committee would schedule hearings and bring forward a bill and let the House work its will. That is the way we do it. Authorizers hold hearings, look at the impact, come back, report out a bill, and let the committee and the House work its will.

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, I do make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill. Therefore, it violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states in pertinent part, an amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if it changes existing law. The amendment directly amends the existing law, and I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the gentlewoman from California that I agree that educational exchange initiatives are an important component of our hemispheric foreign policy.

The fact is, as you were speaking, I thought of my daughter Rebecca who was in an exchange program and actually taught down in Honduras, Tegucigalpa, for 2 years. The relationships, the friendships, and the opportunities she made were life changing. I think you make a very powerful point.

I appreciate the gentlewoman's intention in raising this issue, and I want to assure her that I will be mindful of this issue as this bill moves forward.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) and the other Members for a colloquy.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

I yield to the gentlewoman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank both you, Mr. Bilirakis, as well as Mr. Wexler and Mrs. Maloney of New York. It really does offer an opportunity. It is kind of an historic moment, in some respects, for this reconciliation opportunity.

So I support the efforts aimed at bringing a solution to the Cyprus issue and agree that new avenues should be explored. I really commend you for doing this. I share your concerns and really will be pleased to work with my colleagues to explore what might be done to gain support for this new joint initiative to someday bring peace and reconciliation to the area.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I will accept the amendment, but I just wanted to highlight how ludicrous it is, and I think the gentleman has pointed it out, but to have those requirements on Taiwan when China is spying against us. In this bill is funding for the FBI to keep the Chinese from spying against us.

There is no persecution in Taiwan. On Monday, we had a meeting with the Cardinal Kung Foundation, and they pointed out that there are now 40, 40 Catholic bishops and priests in jail in China. There are zero in jail in Taiwan. This is serious, and I am glad the gentleman offered this.

There are 4,000 to 6,000 evangelicals, house church leaders, men and women, in prison in China today. The latest figure as of Monday. There are zero in Taiwan. There are Buddhist monks and nuns in Tibet being persecuted, and President Hu was the one who put the policy together. It is against the law to have a picture of the Dalai Lama. But there are no Tibetan monks or nuns being persecuted in Taiwan.

Maybe we should have the Taiwan regulations apply to the embassy in Beijing and reverse it.

Lastly, just so people know this, there is great persecution against the Uighers, the Muslims in China. And to show you how close this comes to home, Mr. Lantos and my office worked to have Reba Kadeer released, she was in prison for 5 years, by agreeing to meet with a congressional delegation. She went through a difficult time. Five years in solitary confinement. She got out. Now there was a staff codel to meet with her kids 3 weeks ago, and they have now arrested her three children and they are in jail. One was beaten and pummeled.

The Chinese security police sent out agents to northern Virginia to spy on her, and they took the license plates down of their cars and their public security police.

So I think the only difference I have with the gentleman's amendment is that these restrictions that are on Taiwan should have been on the American embassy in Beijing. It is just the opposite. It is like that Simon and Garfunkel song, The Boxer: Man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.

There is tremendous growing persecution in China of the Catholic church. Some of these bishops are in their 80s. One, Bishop Su, has not been seen since 8 years ago. He gave Holy Communion to Congressman Chris Smith. I repeat: 4,000 to 6,000 evangelicals, Buddhist monks and nuns, and now the Uighers.

So I am glad the gentleman offered this amendment, and I urge it to be strongly passed.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois for her hard work to promote Internet safety.

Just recently, Congressman Kirk, who has been a leader on this, has raised this in our hearings a number of times.

Congressman Kirk and I urged the FTC to issue a national consumer alert to parents and children about the risk of sites like MySpace. I would say if any mother or father is listening, to have your children involved in MySpace is a mistake. So what I think you are trying to do and what Mr. Kirk is doing is very good.

I share the gentlewoman's concerns and commit to continue looking into the matter to ensure the FTC is devoting sufficient resources to fight Internet predators and protect children.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be read.

I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds).

I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano).

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

I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).

I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I yield to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan).

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, it has been 9 years since this country has adjusted the minimum wage. During that time, the food prices have gone up almost 25 percent. Health care costs overall have gone up over 40 percent. Insurance has almost doubled. Gasoline prices have doubled. Energy prices have gone out of sight, and yet people are still struggling along on the same minimum wage that they were paid 9 years ago.

To try to do something about that, we offered an amendment to the Labor-Health-Education-Social Services bill in the full committee. Every Democrat voted for that amendment, and so did seven Republicans. But after that happened and the amendment had passed, the Labor-Health- Education appropriations bill was blocked from consideration by the leadership of this House and by the Rules Committee.

Therefore, when this bill came before the full committee, we attempted once again to adjust the minimum wage in three increments of 70 cents each, because we believe that no one who works 40 hours a week ought to go home in poverty. We, this time, did not receive the support of those same seven Republicans. Five of them voted against us. The other two missed the vote, and so that amendment was lost.

We, therefore, asked the Rules Committee to make in order an amendment on this bill which would adjust that minimum wage, and that is what I am trying to do today.

I recognize that if the point of order is lodged against this amendment, that we will once again be blocked from our effort to provide an increase in the minimum wage, but I just want to say to those who say this is not the proper vehicle and we should try to do it on some other bill, that for 9 years we have been waiting for the majority party to find the right vehicle to accomplish this. And for 9 years, nothing has happened.

The issue comes down to this: Whose side are you on? Are you willing to help adjust that minimum wage upward or are you not? This is one effort to find out.

For those who think this is just a political or an academic exercise, I told the House on the debate on the rule that I recall, after my parents were divorced and my mother was trying to get along on the minimum wage, and I remember how it was to run out of money before you ran out of days on the calendar each month. So she would find some household item that she could take down to Etzkin's Pawn Shop and pawn to get the family through the week.

The outrage is that today that minimum wage has far less purchasing power than it did when she was earning

it years ago. I think that is an absolute disgrace.

The wealthiest 1 percent of people in this country have 33 percent of the Nation's wealth. The poorest 40 percent of the people in this country are struggling to hang on to 3 percent of the Nation's wealth. That kind of gap is wrong.

This is one of the few things the Congress can do to directly impact the size of that gap. I think we have an economic obligation. I think we have a moral obligation to make this happen, and I am not interested in playing jurisdictional dunghill niceties about which committee is supposed to handle this bill. This bill ought to be out on the floor. This amendment ought to pass.

I would ask that the majority party not offer a point of order against the amendment so that we can finally bring some justice to people who are struggling in the shadows of life, who are struggling on life's underside. We can make their lives just a little bit more pleasant by passing this amendment, and I would think that, given the fact that the Congress has just in this House determined to accept a COLA for itself, I would think that we would have significantly less embarrassment if we would recognize that it takes 4 months for someone working at the minimum wage to make the same amount of money that Congress will gain by way of a COLA. It is outrageous to adjust congressional COLAs and not adjust the minimum wage. So I would urge that no one lodge a point of order against this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I understand that the rules of the House normally indicate that this legislation would be handled by the authorizing committee, but I would note that on the appropriation conference report just several months ago, the majority leader in the Senate added 40 pages of authorizing language to the Defense bill, language which protected the pharmaceutical industry in this country from suit.

And it would seem to me that if it is legitimate for the majority leader of the Senate to do that, in order to protect a privileged industry in this country, that we could find a way in the House rules to protect the interests of the lowest-income wage earners in the country, but I must reluctantly concede the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, let me be very clear. The Wisconsin Procurement Institute was indeed organized originally by Les Aspin when he was chairman of the Armed Services Committee in this House. It is an organization that helps many new companies who are new to the procurement process figure out how the Federal procurement process works.

Instead of providing money to individual companies, this money is used to create an institute to educate all kinds of companies so that they can compete for Federal business, especially in the procurement area and most especially in the defense area.

I would make one simple point: Right now, large corporations have the resources and they have the experience to seek Federal business, but many quality companies do not because they are unfamiliar with how the Federal procurement process works.

There are a number of organizations who rank States in terms of how much Federal money they get each year. Wisconsin, Minnesota and Michigan always rank near the bottom. Ninety percent of the difference between them and the number one State in the Union in terms of Federal money occurs because of a difference in the number of Federal employees and because of differences in defense contracts.

The gentleman comes from the State which is the number six State in the Union in terms of getting money out of procurement. You have large companies, such as Raytheon, which produce huge numbers of missiles, so that gives you a lot of Federal procurement dollars.

You also have many talented electronic companies like General Dynamics, a huge company that also gets a large amount of Federal dollars. You have large military installations such as Fort Hauchuca, which contains the Army intelligence operation.

In Federal procurement, unfortunately, the way it usually works is ``Them what has gets more!'' This initiative, the Wisconsin Procurement Institute, which I fully confess that I and the other Members of the Wisconsin Delegation support, this initiative is to help other corporations who are not experienced in the ins and outs of Federal procurement policy, so that we can end the insider advantage that the gentleman's constituents have.

What we are trying to do is to open up the process so that you can enable a large number of companies to come in and compete. I make no apology whatsoever for that. Wisconsin has a right to expect that its corporations should be able to compete, and so does every other State in the Union.

I would simply ask the gentleman, do not begrudge the efforts of Wisconsin to close the gap between our State and yours. Your State gets $7 billion more in Federal procurement than mine does.

This operation is a small operation to try to enhance the ability of companies in our State to close that gap somewhat. We have chosen not to provide money directly to companies but instead to provide an ability for companies to learn how the procurement process works.

We also, under this process, have created a Web site which will enable Federal agencies to review the talents and the qualities of many of the companies in Wisconsin so that if they are looking for particular projects or products they know where to go to find them.

I think that what that will do in the end is help enhance competition, and it will help save taxpayers money by cutting some new companies in on the deal that so many large companies in the gentleman's State enjoy.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Arizona's use of certain ethnic words like ``cannoli'' and ``prosciutto'' indicate that he takes this more lightly than he should. This is a serious thing that he is trying to do here. I know he is on this mission to destroy every bit of dollar that is sent by Members of Congress.

Let me start off by saying that I am a firm believer that Members know the needs of their districts best, and I am proud to be on the floor today to talk about this project so important to the Bronx.

The Arthur Avenue Retail Market is one of the most prominent, well frequented and historic business locations in my district. It represents a little bit of Italy in the midst of the Bronx. This space serves as an incubator for food-related businesses.

It is, however, not a grocery store, but, instead, a building owned by the City of New York. I think that is important to note. These dollars don't go into these businessmen's pockets or businesses for that matter; it goes into a building owned by the City of New York.

In 1940, during the time of Mayor LaGuardia, Arthur Avenue Market, the first enclosed retail market in the Bronx, was built to house street vendors who were crowding the sidewalks of the borough's Belmont community. Today, it is a local landmark.

So let me be perfectly clear. This is not a privately owned real estate venture but a public market which gives many new merchants a starting point as they work towards full economic participation in the country. This is a place where merchants running their own small businesses sell specialty products to people from the surrounding areas to visitors from throughout the tristate area and to local restaurants. As you know, I represent the poorest congressional district in our country, which is located in the middle of the richest city on Earth.

However, this market is a bright spot, and it is vital to the economic success of the Bronx. It is a place where vendors and other small business owners can fully participate in our economy. This small amount of funding that is being highlighted today is for continued facility improvements and maintenance to keep this historic market running.

Specifically, this funding, which will be used for refurbishments of the market, will include electrical and plumbing upgrades. The Arthur Avenue Retail Market owned by the City of New York is responsible for the maintenance.

The purpose of the Small Business Administration is to assist our small businesses. This is exactly what this market does, help small businesses in the Bronx to flourish and grow.

So I would ask my colleague, Mr. Flake, where his outrage was when lending institutions and insurance companies were taking billions of dollars from the borough of the Bronx in the 1970s and early 1980s through redlining and other forms of disinvestment. Where was he when one of the few commercial locations remained viable in spite of that?

I would also like to take the occasion to personally invite the gentleman

from Arizona to come to the 16th District. You said you had one Italian restaurant in your district. I feel sorry for you. You should have more than one. I can take you all over the Bronx where you could see people hard at work.

Lastly, on a more serious note, I wish you would be as outraged about other things as you are about this one. You voted to rebuild areas of Iraq with markets, schools and everything else you can think of, and yet you would pick on something like this, which helps a small group of businessmen stay vital in the Bronx.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry Dr. Weldon is reluctantly rising.

But, first of all, I notice that three of the gentleman's 10 amendments are directed at New York. I do not know what you are angry about; the Diamondbacks beat the Yankees in the World Series, so you shouldn't be that upset. But the fact of life is that the more you get up on these, sir, the more I realize that you do not know what you are talking about because you seem to spend so much time on either the wording or how it appears when, in fact, you do very little to understand what it is.

The Bronx Council on the Arts is a private, nonprofit membership organization that has been in existence for over 40 years and is the official cultural agency of Bronx County. It is recognized nationally as a leading art services organization, serving a multicultural constituency of more than 1.2 million residents.

Now, I know that the big problem the gentleman from Arizona has is the word ``arts'' because there seems to be some belief by a lot of Members of Congress, or some, that we should not in any way be involved in promoting the arts, and if the arts express themselves in a way that we do not like, then we shouldn't even go close to them. So I wish that I could just always not call it something like the arts, but I do because that is what it is.

In this case the word ``arts'' is used in conjunction with the words ``small business.'' This funding belongs in the small business account because it will be used to grow our small businesses that have arts- related portfolios. It will specifically promote an Artisans Initiative which will facilitate business

development among local Bronx artisans, especially newly arrived immigrants, and help them establish their own small business. It will help with their skills development and assist their product marketing. It will also be used to train Bronx artists to market their skills and to develop business plans.

Small businesses devoted to the arts have an important role to play. For example, the Bronx Council on the Arts has had success in training the unemployed and underemployed residents of New York City as professional art handlers. Some have gone on to start their own small business as independent contractors.

Let me conclude by saying that I represent, as you know, the poorest congressional district in the Nation. I make no excuses about getting the Federal Government to earmark dollars into that district. Let me repeat that again: I make no excuses about the fact that I earmark dollars to go into the poorest congressional district in the Nation, which is situated in the richest city on Earth.

If the gentleman from Arizona wants to have an impact on our deficit, an impact on how we spend dollars, then let him stand up there the next time we are paying for the war in Iraq, a waste of money that is going to build all kinds of facilities in Iraq, a war based on lies told to this Congress. Then you stand up there and you cut at least 1 billion from the over $400 billion that we are spending in Iraq already. But I never saw you get up and complain about the fact that we are building arts facilities in Iraq, that we are building supermarkets in Iraq, that we are promoting basketball in Iraq, that we are promoting baseball in Iraq. You haven't said a word. But a couple hundred thousand dollars to one group of American citizens, that is a problem for you.

Yes. And I told you it was and I used the name that is appropriate for it. Call it a typographical error.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California for a colloquy with the chairman.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson- Lee).

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee) for a colloquy with the chairman.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Bean) for a colloquy with the chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I would simply point out that this organization operates in a part of the country that has suffered probably the most from government policies, particularly our trade policies, but also our environmental laws; and whatever arguments you could make for our, our free trade policies, they are in large part insensitive to the disproportionate negative impact they have on certain segments of our economy and certain geographical areas of our country.

The basic industry areas of the country where this organization operates

have suffered. It is one of those areas that has suffered disproportionately. The steel industry was a thriving industry there 20, 30 years ago. The Mon Valley, which is close to our area, is devastated and was practically the first steel industry to suffer. There is no steel industry in that area now.

In addition, environmental laws had negative impacts on the burning of fossil fuels. This general region was very prosperous producing the Nation's energy and has suffered greatly because of the impacts of environmental laws. I am not arguing the environmental law issue at all but just simply talking about the economic impact.

Well, these earmarks are contained in the Small Business Administration account, and that is the purpose of the Small Business Administration account, is to help small business. So the purpose of this funding is to look at workforce development, where there is tremendous unemployment as a result of trade laws, environmental laws, and government policy that have had a negative impact

This is self-help. This organization looks at workforce development, assisting in training needs for displaced workers, pursuing funding for mechanisms for training, assisting displaced workers, and working with the training facilities and the colleges and the universities to address those very difficult, midlife retraining challenges that the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program speaks to and that an organization like this can be very helpful in implementing.

The Incubator Project, is the other side of the coin. That is the development and diversification of small business. It is really pay me now or pay me later. As the previous gentleman from Pennsylvania said, you are either going to address the unemployment condition and try to retrain and try to get people back into the community, into the workforce through retraining, and at the same time promoting new industries, new small businesses for those people to work in, or you are going to be paying unemployment and you are going to be dealing with the issues of a deteriorating community.

This funding, which goes to all of those purposes, certainly is in keeping of the mission of the Small Business Administration.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. I appreciate the opportunity to speak in opposition to this amendment.

You know, it should be understood that a lot of those earmarks go to help those who are in the greatest need of help.

I am struck by the good fortune of the gentleman and his congressional district and his State, as recounted by the ranking member just a few moments ago. You are indeed very fortunate to have these large defense contractors, Raytheon and General Dynamics, and these large Federal installations like Fort Wachuka in your State. That is a real blessing.

It is particularly a blessing in an economy that marginalizes and that is not nurturing to certain sectors. But certainly I think the gentleman can understand that in the last 20, 25, 30 years, our economy, because of the increased internationalization of it, has been extremely harsh on certain segments and certain geographical areas, as I mentioned earlier.

Those areas that were steel manufacturing areas, those areas that were coal producing areas, those areas that were basically manufacturing, microcosms if you will, for rust belt America were particularly hard hit during this period; and the need in these areas is for economic diversification. And the gentleman may not have been engaged in that much, but this is a very difficult, hard thing to do.

Federal Government assistance, this appropriation, these earmarks, if you will, in the Small Business Administration go directly to help rejuvenate economies, creating a broader, a more flexible, a more dynamic economy through diversification.

It is not an easy process; and if you have not been involved with it, the gentleman probably is not sensitive to that as he might be. But current economic trends in these areas, in these kinds of areas indicate that the sectors that do have potential growth are the heritage, tourism, regional travel; and this program works with the West Virginia Department of Education Travel and Tourism to promote what is the fastest-growing segment of the economic base.

So that is the purpose of the earmark, and I strenuously oppose the gentleman's amendment.