SSI Extension for Elderly and Disabled Refugees Act

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

I thank the chairman, and I'll be brief at the outset and 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 and 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 and the sacrifice that our parents and their parents made, is a 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 officers safe, are very shortsighted.

Now, we all believe that the budget has to be wrestled to the ground in the sense that over the last 6 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 to the ground, and we are. In the majority we have instituted pay-as-you-go rules, something that the prior majority, my friends in the GOP, 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 they're indiscriminate. They cut the top priorities along with the lower priorities, all at 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 trim this here. No, they're not willing to do that. They're willing to say let's cut everything equally, the essentials with the non-essentials. And let's not raise 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 we'll hear during the debate on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to reserve the balance of my time and look forward to an opportunity to address the House in a few minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio.

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

I want to make just 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 friend's across-the-board cuts will mean very real, very direct, very incontrovertible cuts, less money now than the year before in many vital programs; not every program, but many vital programs including some I will point 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. We will talk about some of them.

We can't hide behind an across-the-board amendment and say, we are not really cutting anything, because you are. Basically what you are telling your child in the allowance hypothetical is we are going to cut how much we are going to spend on your education, a real cut. We are going to cut how much we are 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, American families are just going to have to make the decision, we can't afford to have each of our kids go to college. Maybe we will 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 shouldn't matter. And we are willing to make the investments in our colleges to make sure that no parent has to say this child can go to college and this one can't because we are not willing to make the investment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 30 seconds to my colleague from Ohio.

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

A couple quick points. Of course we hear the mantra from my friends on the other side of this bill's representing a tax increase when there is no tax increase in this bill. We have now heard the same statement applied to the farm bill. There is 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 are increasing taxes on average Americans; if we do away with offshore tax savings, that we are somehow doing away with the income of ordinary Americans. But I think ordinary Americans would rather have the investment in our law enforcement. They would 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 are 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 cities of 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 is no crime in Georgia, and maybe your police departments are saying, we don't need vests, we don't need cops, we are doing great, thank you, but no thank you.

That is not what I am hearing. What I am hearing is they have got greater responsibilities in the war on terror. They have got higher gang violence. They need the resources. They need the people on patrol. That is what I am hearing.

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

I thank the gentleman for his defense of the Vice President and Halliburton. I'm sure the Vice President has no connection, no history with Halliburton whatsoever.

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

I thank the gentleman for pointing out that 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 in the majority have been working hard for that object for some time.

I am happy to yield 30 seconds to my colleague from New York (Mr. Israel).

I thank the gentleman for pointing out the cuts to the FBI and other law enforcement that would be occasioned by this amendment and others that my friends are offering.

The cuts go deeper. They cross the board in terms of everything that the Justice Department does. My friend's amendment would cut funding for victims of child abuse. My friend's amendment would cut funding for the COPS program. It would cut funding for violence against women, victims of violence against women. But let's hone in on a very specific, because my friend says, well, these aren't really cuts. Let me talk about one program specifically that my friend's amendment makes a very real cut to, not artificial, not Orwellian, not imaginary, and that's bulletproof vests.

Back in 2003, the Attorney General announced the Body Armor Safety Initiative in response to the failure of bullet-resistant vests. One in particular worn by a police officer in Pennsylvania was discovered that the xylan 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.

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, he can pick any city, Alpharetta City, the program bought 40 new bulletproof vests for the police officers in Alpharetta City. Across Georgia, there were 1,100 of these xylan vests replaced that needed to be replaced.

In the new COPS program that we're funding here, Alpharetta City got 25 new bulletproof vests. Cherokee County got 293 bulletproof vests. Cobb County got 566 bulletproof vests. DeKalb County got another 240. Georgia, in total, just in this particular year, I think 2005, got 4,789 new bulletproof vests.

My friend's 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. Under my friend's amendment, the cops in Georgia are going to get fewer bulletproof vests than they would get without it and than they got last year.

Now, I can't go home to my district and tell the cops of Burbank, Pasadena and Glendale that I cut their funding for their bulletproof vests, but the indiscriminate nature of this amendment means that is exactly what it would do in my district, in my friend's district in Georgia.

My friend from Colorado, who has an amendment, I'm sure, for another across-the-board cut, Fort Collins, Colorado, they got five vests. Greeley City got 53 bulletproof vests. Longmont City got 28 bulletproof vests. Colorado, in this particular year, got 3,900 new vests. These across-the-board cuts mean fewer bulletproof vests for cops in Colorado.

My friend's amendment from Ohio, with even bigger across-the-board cuts, would be devastating in Ohio. Ohio, in this program, got 5,200 new vests. So what is that going to mean? A 6 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 vest replaced and that vest isn't going to work so well against one of those assault rifles or 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 vests. We don't need interoperable 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 friend's amendment cuts that here.

How can my friends, not on the bipartisan majority, but in the minority that has 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 chairman points out, if you don't just look at last year, compared to last year where we didn't do very well by them either, but if you look at where we were in 2001, we're going backwards, not forwards. We're not even at where we were 5 years ago.

This amendment is a mistake, and I urge my colleagues to reject it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say I enjoyed the Hawkins story, but I think if we were going to apply that analogy here, it would be this.

A police officer goes to you in your district office and says, Congressman, there was money in the budget for my bulletproof vest.

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

Mr. Chairman, I think the 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 gentleman said, well, we didn't cut the money for your vest; you're wearing it. But the officer says, I've got no vest on. And the Congressman says, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

It may be a good story, but it doesn't protect him from bullets.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank my colleague from Texas for reading a letter from constituents out in the State of Texas. But I wonder how that family in Texas would feel if that family were asked: Do you think that we should continue to allow oil 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 would be willing to pay a little less at the pump or have the oil company earn a little less at the pump if it meant pumping a little more of that money into the FBI to keep me safe, or if 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 $31 million cut. How much difference could that really make? But my friend isn't willing to say where he would cut the money. He wants to spread it around. But he used the example of the FBI. Let's say we devoted this entire cut to the FBI, and it simply means that you would have one FBI agent working a few less hours. Instead of working maybe an 8-hour day, 5 8-hour days, they would work 4 8-hour days and a 7-hour day. Well, I don't know how much they are paying FBI agents in my friend's part of the State; I am from a different part of California. I don't think they pay them all that much. I think if you cut $31 million out of the FBI, you are cutting a lot of positions out of the FBI.

My colleagues have already had 15 minutes.

I am not yielding my time. My colleague had 15 minutes to try to make his point.

So I don't think cutting $31 million out of the FBI 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 am hearing, the need that our Homeland Security Committee is hearing, the need that the 9/11 Commission recognized is the need to make greater investments in the safety of our country. That is the need that we are recognizing in this bill.

Do we need those extra FBI 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 half as hard for our cops to have the best 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 in the minority party, because, again, this bill enjoys the support of the bipartisan majority. But the minority viewpoint that is expressed here today, I think they need to ask: What would these families choose, if we give them the real choice, not between whether they invest in the FBI or they don't invest in the FBI, but whether they invest in the FBI 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 is the answer I think that letter writer and others around the country would give and have given, and that is why I urge this amendment to be defeated.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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 0.00000005, which would amount to probably about the same $31 million we are talking about here. He is only willing to take that $30 million out of our law enforcement efforts across the board, but not out of oil industry profits. And that is the difference in philosophy, I think, between my colleague and myself.

MR. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, during this debate we have seen all sorts of charts and heard about all sorts of numbers and saw a display of dollars. Here are the statistics that count, Mr. Chairman:

The past 2 years, violent crimes in America are up 3.6 percent. Federal law enforcement grants have declined 46 percent. So, under their leadership, Mr. Chairman, Federal support for local law enforcement has already been cut 46 percent; now we are saying we should cut it another five-hundredths of a percent.

FBI counterterrorism casework is up 100 percent. Meanwhile, FBI investigative resources are down 29 percent.

So what we have here, Mr. Chairman, is more criminals on the streets, and an attempt to reduce investments in cops on the streets. What we have here, Mr. Chairman, is a bigger caseload of potential terrorists, and the FBI being told, ``Shave your budgets.'' That is how far some ideologues will go, Mr. Chairman.

I can't imagine any American watching these proceedings, and then hearing the news, learning about the National Intelligence Estimate, which says that al Qaeda is proliferating and regenerating, and saying, ``Now is the time to cut the FBI budget,'' or, ``Now is the time even to reduce increased investments in the FBI.''

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 FBI agents on counterterrorism cases. They are talking about a specific reduction in the number of deployments of cops on the street; crime going up, Federal law enforcement grants going down. There is a correlation between the two. And now we add insult to injury by saying, let's cut it another 0.05 percent, or one-five-hundredths of a percent.

I 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-hundredths of a percent; it is about what priorities make sense to the American people: $14 billion tax cuts to the biggest oil companies on Earth, or 2,800 cops on the street; $90 billion 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?

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 a P.O. 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, FBI 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 jealously 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 $90 billion. They would rather spend that $90 billion on those offshore companies with P.O. boxes in Bermuda. We would rather spend a fraction of that making sure that there are cops on the street, that kids are protected from meth, that women don't have to deal with domestic violence, that they can be prosecuted, that the FBI has counter- terrorist agents, 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 are 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-terrorist agents with the FBI. 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 3 percent's not enough, 2 percent's not enough, 1 percent's not enough. We're going to go to one-five-hundredth of a percent to make our case.

Every single one of those amendments has been defeated on every single one of these bills because Republicans and Democrats in the mainstream know better. We understand the priorities of the American people. And

that is why this amendment will face the same fate as all the other amendments 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 amendment after amendment after amendment, keeping this House in session when every single one of these amendments was defeated, than 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 them get defeated as they always have, and let this Congress go on with the business of the American people and putting cops on the street and investing resources in the FBI to keep them safe.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, in July of 2007, H.R. 2608, bipartisan legislation, the SSI Extension for Elderly and Disabled Refugees Act, passed the House by unanimous voice vote. In early August, just over a month ago, the Senate finally passed an amended version of the bill by unanimous consent, and we are here today acting to accept the amended bill.

This bipartisan legislation increases the amount of time certain low income, disabled and aged immigrants can receive Supplemental Security Income benefits. Currently these individuals are eligible for these benefits during their first 7 years in the United States. This legislation would extend that period to 9 years, or even longer if the individual has a pending application for citizenship.

These individuals arrived and remain in the United States legally and also arrived for humanitarian reasons. They have fled persecution and suffering in their own countries, and include refugees, asylees, Cuban- Haitian entrants, Hmong tribesmen who fought on the side of the United States, victims of communist dictatorships and victims of trafficking from around the world. This legislation provides them additional eligibility to ensure that a lengthy citizenship application process does not inadvertently cause an elderly or disabled refugee to lose access to SSI benefits.

Because this expanded eligibility for low income, disabled and aged immigrants will be extended only through fiscal year 2011, a future Congress will need to review whether these provisions are working as intended and need to be extended. That future Congress can and should question whether refugees and others, who are playing by the rules and who apply for citizenship, have adequate and sufficient time to go through that process without losing access to SSI benefits.

To cover the cost of these additional benefits, the bill would reduce Federal income tax refunds to better recover unemployment benefit overpayments resulting from fraud. Tax refund offsets already occur for delinquent child support payments and certain other debts owed to the Federal Government. This change simply allows the current process to work in recovering certain unemployment benefit overpayments.

In addition to improving program integrity, this change will more than pay for the added SSI benefits provided by the bill, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

The Ways and Means Committee, and in particular the Income Security and Family Support Subcommittee on which I serve as ranking member, has long been active in developing legislation to combat fraud and abuse in unemployment and other benefits. I am pleased to see us continuing that effort with this legislation.

For example, in 2004, under the leadership of former Chairman Wally Herger, we passed a law to stop the illegal manipulation of State unemployment taxes. We also allowed State unemployment benefit programs to use current data on new hires to help prevent benefit overpayments.

This legislation builds on those efforts, and I am proud to support it. Even if it is not needed as a pay-for, this good government provision merits passage on its own.

This legislation is supported by a wide range of faith-based and other community groups, such as the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, Lutheran Social Services and Catholic Charities.

I would also like to recognize the efforts of my Ways and Means colleague, Representative Phil English of Pennsylvania, who has worked diligently to extend SSI benefits to this vulnerable immigrant group, including by introducing legislation to do so.

I urge all Members to join me in supporting this legislation today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 1 minute to the distinguished Republican leader of the House, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner).

Madam Speaker, I include for the Record a letter signed by a large number of organizations throughout the country in support of the legislation that we have before the House today.

June 28, 2007.

Dear Representative, Representing a diverse cross-section

of organizations from across the country, we write to you

today to ask that you support H.R.2608--the ``SSI Extension

for Elderly and Disabled Refugees Act.'' This bipartisan bill

is a critical lifeline to thousands of elderly and disabled

refugees who are about to lose, or have already lost, their

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits due to the

arbitrary seven-year time limit to which their eligibility is

limited.

This bill, introduced by Representatives Jim McDermott (D-

7th WA) and Jerry Weller (R-11th IL), Chair and Ranking

Member, respectively, of the Ways & Means Subcommittee on

Income Security and Family Support, will provide a two-year

extension of SSI eligibility for elderly and disabled

refugees, as well as a provision to cover those who lost

benefits prior to enactment of the legislation. The bill will

also ensure that refugees who are making efforts to become

citizens, but are caught up in the processing backlogs

through no fault of their own, are given additional time to

naturalize. H.R.2608 will provide vital relief to thousands

of refugees who have already fallen into extreme destitution.

The number of people who are losing their life-sustaining

SSI benefits, in large part due to delays in the immigration

system beyond their control, is climbing. The Social Security

Administration currently projects that 50,000 elderly and

disabled refugees will face extreme hardship and destitution

by 2012 due to the suspension of their SSI benefits. These

individuals fled persecution or torture in countries such as

Iran, Russia, Iraq, Vietnam and Somalia, and now are too

elderly or disabled to support themselves.

As more and more people begin to reach the end of their

seven-year eligibility period, the human impact of this

restrictive time limit has become increasingly dire and all

the more intolerable. Some will lose health insurance as

well, because SSI and Medicaid eligibility are typically

linked. Among those who have already lost SSI benefits is a

Jewish elderly couple from the former Soviet Union; the

husband is deaf and the wife suffers from heart disease.

However, this restriction does not affect only the elderly,

as illustrated by the case of a 16 year-old Iranian boy with

mental retardation, autism, seizures, and severe macrocephaly

who lost his SSI benefits and Medicaid health insurance due

to the seven-year time limit. These are only but two of the

thousands of heartbreaking stories that we will continue to

be confronted with unless Congress acts now to lengthen the

insufficient eligibility period for this extremely vulnerable

population.

The crisis is already upon us. Each and every month,

elderly and disabled refugees are losing their lifeline of

support. With the exception of West Virginia, no state is

left untouched by this arbitrary time limit. Some 4,500

people will lose their SSI benefits in fiscal year 2007

alone. This bill enjoys bipartisan support, builds on similar

proposals in recent Bush Administration budgets, and contains

a savings provision that will cover the modest cost of the

extension. Given the urgency of the situation and the life-

threatening consequences that these individuals face, we

strongly urge you to support the passage of H.R.2608 this

year. We are hopeful that Congress will act quickly and

decisively to prevent the unnecessary hardship that this

already-victimized population stands to suffer. Thank you for

your consideration.

Respectfully,

National

American Academy of HIV; American Association of Homes and

Services for the Aging; American Association of Jews from the

Former USSR, Inc; American Association of People with

Disabilities; American Federation of State, County and

Municipal Employees; American Friends Service Committee;

American Jewish Committee; American Network of Community

Options and Resources; American Occupational Therapy

Association; Americans for Democratic Action, Inc.; Asian

American Justice Center; Asian Americans for Equality;

Association of Jewish Family & Children's Agencies (AJFCA);

Boat People SOS; Break the Chain Campaign; Campaign for

Working Families; Catholic Charities USA; Center for Civil

Justice; Disability Navigators Inc.

EESA-Eastern European Service Agency; Gay Men's Health

Crisis; Hispanic Coalition; HIV Medicine Association;

HIVictorious, Inc.; Hmong National Development, Inc.;

Immigrant and Refugee Rights Program, Washington Lawyers'

Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs; Institute for

Peace and Justice; Institute for Social and Economic

Development (ISED); International AIDS Empowerment;

International District Housing Alliance; International Rescue

Committee; International Service Center; Jewish Council for

Public Affairs; Jubilee Campaign USA Inc.; Justice, Peace &

Integrity of Creation Office of the Wheaton Franciscans;

Living Room, Inc.; Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service

(LIRS); Lutheran Services in America; 9 to 5, National

Association of Working Women.

National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good

Shepherd; National Asian Pacific Center on Aging; National

Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community Development;

National Council of Jewish Women; National Council on Aging;

National Immigration Forum; National Immigration Law Center;

National Korean American Service & Education Consortium

(NAKASEC); National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty;

National Priorities Project; National Senior Citizens Law

Center; National Women's Law Center; NETWORK: A National

Catholic Social Justice Lobby; New Sudan Generation;

Northwest Health Law Advocates; Northwest Immigrant Rights

Project; Progressive Jewish Alliance; Religious Action Center

of Reform Judaism; RESULTS.

Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law; Sisters of

Mercy of the Americas; Southeast Asia Resource Action Center

(SEARAC); The AIDS Institute; The Arc of the United States;

The Coalition on Human Needs; The Leadership Conference of

Women Religious; The National Asian Pacific American Women's

Forum; The Women's Commission for Refugee Women and Children;

The Workmen's Circle/Arbeter Ring; U.S. Committee for

Refugees and Immigrants; Unitarian Universalist Association

of Congregations; United Cerebral Palsy; United Jewish

Communities; United Methodist Church, General Board of Church

and Society; USAction; Wider Opportunities for Women; Women

of Reform Judaism; Women of Reform Judaism; World Relief;

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Madam Speaker, we have no additional speakers, so I would be happy to briefly close.

H.R. 2608 is bipartisan legislation. It's legislation designed to help those who need help. As my chairman noted, those who, frankly, benefit from this legislation have been victims of tyranny. Those who fought on the wrong side and, in many cases, they fought on the side of the United States and were forced to flee their country, they're elderly, they're disabled, and, frankly, they're people that came here legally.

So I want to ask my colleagues to do exactly what we did when we voted on this legislation before, to vote with strong, unanimous, bipartisan support of this important legislation.

I also want to thank my chairman for working in a bipartisan way to move this important legislation to the floor, to work with our colleagues in the Senate and the past legislation, which will become law with this vote today.

Madam Speaker, I urge bipartisan support for this legislation. I thank my chairman for the opportunity to work with him on this important legislation.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

This bipartisan legislation that we are considering today, the SSI Extension for Elderly and Disabled Refugees Act, increases the amount of time that certain low-income disabled and aged immigrants can continue to receive Supplemental Security Income, SSI benefits, from 7 to 9 years. These are individuals legally allowed in the United States for humanitarian reasons after fleeing persecution and suffering in their own countries. The approximately 28,000 individuals assisted by this legislation include refugees, asylees and Cuban/Haitian entrants from around the world.

To gain access to permanent eligibility for SSI and all other benefits and freedoms afforded to Americans, legal refugees and asylees are eligible to become U.S. citizens through the naturalization process now administered by the Department of Homeland Security. However, as many Members have heard from constituents, this process does not always move forward in a timely manner for a number of reasons.

For instance, a letter I recently received from the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law in Illinois outlines a case in which an elderly Jewish refugee couple from the former Soviet Union working to become citizens encountered problems of lost paperwork and the need to have fingerprints retaken time and time again. A recent Washington Post story noted that as of March of 2007, this spring, nearly 1.3 million individuals were in the Department of Homeland Security citizenship application backlog, and 330,000 cases were in the FBI background check backlog.

Recognizing the likelihood of ongoing issues in the naturalization process, this legislation provides up to one extra year of eligibility, for a total of up to 10 years, for those refugees and asylees needing more time to complete the naturalization process. This is an important provision as it emphasizes the relative temporary nature of SSI eligibility for newly arrived legal refugees and asylees, while encouraging them to pursue citizenship so that they may fully participate in our Nation's democracy.

As with the other features of this legislation that relate to eligibility for SSI benefits, this provision is effective from fiscal year 2008 through 2010. So a future Congress must reexamine whether these provisions are working as intended, including providing refugees and related individuals who are playing by the rules and applying for citizenship, sufficient time to go through that process without losing access to these important benefits.

These additional SSI benefits are paid for through a provision that will reduce Federal income tax refunds to better recover unemployment benefit overpayments that resulted from fraud. Tax refund offsets already occur for delinquent child support payments and certain other debts owed to the Federal Government, and this simply allows the current process to work in recovering unemployment benefit overpayments.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates this permanent change will more than pay for the additional SSI benefits provided in this bill. This is sound policy and builds on proposals included in recent Bush administration budget proposals.

The Ways and Means Committee, and in particular the Income Security and Family Support Subcommittee, on which I serve as ranking member, has

long been active in developing legislation to combat fraud and abuse involving unemployment and other benefits. I'm pleased to see we are continuing that effort with this legislation.

For example, in 2004, under the leadership of former chairman Wally Herger, we passed provisions to stop the illegal manipulation of State unemployment taxes. We also allowed State unemployment plans to use information in the National Directory of New Hires to help prevent unemployment benefit overpayments. Today's legislation builds on those efforts, and I am proud to support it.

I would also note that this legislation is supported by a long list of faith-based and other community groups, including many who assist refugees in their efforts to become citizens. That list includes the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, Lutheran Social Services of America, and Catholic Charities USA, among many, many other groups.

I would also note I received a letter of support from the Social Security Administration endorsing this bipartisan bill, and I will include the letters of support in the Record.

Finally, I would also like to recognize the efforts of my friend and colleague, Representative Phil English of Pennsylvania who, among many others, has worked diligently to see that these sorts of changes occur, including by introducing bills to this same goal and effect.

I encourage all Members to join me in supporting this bipartisan legislation.

June 28, 2007.

Dear Representative, Representing a diverse cross-section

of organizations from across the country, we write to you

today to ask that you support H.R. 2608--the ``SSI Extension

for Elderly and Disabled Refugees Act.'' This bipartisan bill

is a critical lifeline to thousands of elderly and disabled

refugees who are about to lose, or have already lost, their

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits due to the

arbitrary seven-year time limit to which their eligibility is

limited.

This bill, introduced by Representatives Jim McDermott (D-

7th WA) and Jerry Weller (R-11th IL), Chair and Ranking

Member, respectively, of the Ways & Means Subcommittee on

Income Security and Family Support, will provide a two-year

extension of SSI eligibility for elderly and disabled

refugees, as well as a provision to cover those who lost

benefits prior to enactment of the legislation. The bill will

also ensure that refugees who are making efforts to become

citizens, but are caught up in the processing backlogs

through no fault of their own, are given additional time to

naturalize. H.R. 2608 will provide vital relief to thousands

of refugees who have already fallen into extreme destitution.

The number of people who are losing their life-sustaining

SSI benefits, in large part due to delays in the immigration

system beyond their control, is climbing. The Social Security

Administration currently projects that 50,000 elderly and

disabled refugees will face extreme hardship and destitution

by 2012 due to the suspension of their SSI benefits. These

individuals fled persecution or torture in countries such as

Iran, Russia, Iraq, Vietnam and Somalia, and now are too

elderly or disabled to support themselves.

As more and more people begin to reach the end of their

seven-year eligibility period, the human impact of this

restrictive time limit has become increasingly dire and all

the more intolerable. Some will lose health insurance as

well, because SSI and Medicaid eligibility are typically

linked. Among those who have already lost SSI benefits is a

Jewish elderly couple from the former Soviet Union; the

husband is deaf and the wife suffers from heart disease.

However, this restriction does not affect only the elderly,

as illustrated by the case of a 16-year-old Iranian boy with

mental retardation, autism, seizures, and severe macrocephaly

who lost his SSI benefits and Medicaid health insurance due

to the seven-year time limit. These are only but two of the

thousands of heartbreaking stories that we will continue to

be confronted with unless Congress acts now to lengthen the

insufficient eligibility period for this extremely vulnerable

population.

The crisis is already upon us. Each and every month,

elderly and disabled refugees are losing their lifeline of

support. With the exception of West Virginia, no state is

left untouched by this arbitrary time limit. Some 4,500

people will lose their SSI benefits in fiscal year 2007

alone. This bill enjoys bipartisan support, builds on similar

proposals in recent Bush Administration budgets, and contains

a savings provision that will cover the modest cost of the

extension. Given the urgency of the situation and the life-

threatening consequences that these individuals face, we

strongly urge you to support the passage of H.R. 2608 this

year. We are hopeful that Congress will act quickly and

decisively to prevent the unnecessary hardship that this

already-victimized population stands to suffer. Thank you for

your consideration.

Respectfully,

National

American Academy of HIV; American Association of Homes and

Services for the Aging; American Association of Jews from the

Former USSR, Inc; American Association of People with

Disabilities; American Federation of State, County and

Municipal Employees; American Friends Service Committee;

American Jewish Committee; American Network of Community

Options and Resources; American Occupational Therapy

Association; Americans for Democratic Action, Inc; Asian

American Justice Center; Asian Americans for Equality;

Association of Jewish Family & Children's Agencies (AJFCA);

Boat People SOS; Break the Chain Campaign; Campaign for

Working Families; Catholic Charities USA; Center for Civil

Justice; and Disability Navigators Inc.

EESA-Eastern European Service Agency; Gay Men's Health

Crisis; Hispanic Coalition; HIV Medicine Association;

HIVictorious, Inc.; Hmong National Development, Inc.;

Immigrant and Refugee Rights Program, Washington Lawyers'

Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs; Institute for

Peace and Justice; Institute for Social and Economic

Development (ISED); International AIDS Empowerment;

International District Housing Alliance; International Rescue

Committee; International Service Center; Jewish Council for

Public Affairs; Jubilee Campaign USA Inc; Justice, Peace &

Integrity of Creation Office of the Wheaton Franciscans;

Living Room, Inc; Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service

(LIRS); Lutheran Services in America; 9to5, National

Association of Working Women.

National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good

Shepherd; National Asian Pacific Center on Aging; National

Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community Development;

National Council of Jewish Women; National Council on Aging;

National Immigration Forum; National Immigration Law Center;

National Korean American Service & Education Consortium

(NAKASEC); National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty;

National Priorities Project; National Senior Citizens Law

Center; National Women's Law Center; NETWORK: A National

Catholic Social Justice Lobby; New Sudan Generation;

Northwest Health Law Advocates; Northwest Immigrant Rights

Project; Progressive Jewish Alliance; Religious Action Center

of Reform Judaism; and RESULTS.

Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law; Sisters of

Mercy of the Americas; Southeast Asia Resource Action Center

(SEARAC); The AIDS Institute; The Arc of the United States;

The Coalition on Human Needs; The Leadership Conference of

Women Religious; The National Asian Pacific American Women's

Forum; The Women's Commission for Refugee Women and Children;

The Workmen's Circle/Arbeter Ring; U.S. Committee for

Refugees and Immigrants; Unitarian Universalist Association

of Congregations; United Cerebral Palsy; United Jewish

Communities; United Methodist Church, General Board of Church

and Society; USAction; Wider Opportunities for Women; Women

of Reform Judaism; Women of Reform Judaism; World Relief; and

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), a member of the House Ways and Means Committee and someone who has led on this issue as a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

It has been said a couple times here today about money in people's pockets. And I would suggest that 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 who live in Youngstown and Akron, Ohio, that was a couple hundred dollars, and you compare that with what we are doing with the Pell Grants, an increase of $500 or $600, that is going to people in my district. So we are already $400 ahead of the tax cut that the Republicans were so generous to give.

When you look at cutting student loan interest rates in half, saving $4,000 over the course of a loan, that is money in the pockets of people who live in most of our congressional districts.

And I am thankful for the concern for the American families, but I wish our friends on the other side, at least most of them, were around when we tried to give them a pay raise and increase the minimum wage. They are talking about taking money out of their pockets. We are trying to put money in their pockets. That is what we are trying to do here.

And as the gentleman from New York made the point a few minutes ago, we are funding 2,800 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 is what this bill does. That is what the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee have done. And that is why this amendment needs to go down. This is not the time to start cutting police officers going to our streets to make our communities safer so that we can grow our local economies.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

It is very interesting and we need to continue to point this out: We had a measure within the first 100 hours we were here to cut $14 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, they 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 for fear of alienation, and now they choose to do it on the backs of these programs.

I think it is funny that we got the socialism talking points back out, Mr. Chairman. Dusted them from 1992 and 1993, and now they are back out. But this is exactly right, Mr. Israel. This is about putting agents, cops on the street. This is about national security. This is about protecting our country.

Now, I think it is important that we get a little bit into the details on a couple of these programs that the gentlelady's amendment is going to cut and that the previous two amendments were going to cut, too, because I think it is easy for us to say you are going to cut cops and cut the FBI. It doesn't sound like a whole lot.

But as the gentleman from New York stated earlier, there has been a decrease in FBI criminal agents by 29 percent from 6,200 to 4,400 agents. So what the committee did, in all its wisdom in a bipartisan way, said we need to hire more people. 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 of the aisle say, what, is the world going to end if we cut this by 0.5 percent? Is the

world going to end if we cut this by 1 percent? Is the world going to end if we cut this by 3 percent? Let's look at exactly what you're cutting. Just in this one little program, national security field investigations, the committee wants to hire 245 positions, 150 agents, 95 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, surveillance. This committee wants to hire another 50 people, 50 positions under the surveillance program to provide additional resources for the FBI to conduct surveillance in support of priority national security investigations. Do you think this isn't going to affect anything? There are going to be less agents investigating. There are going to be less agents listening to the terrorists who already may be in this country. This amendment will ensure that these agents don't get in the field, 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.

Mr. Chairman, we had an opportunity within the first 100 hours to cut $14 billion from going to the oil companies. We supported it. Our friends on the other side of the aisle rejected that approach; they would rather take it out of security. So I think it is important we go back.

My friend from Tennessee said where do we slow the growth. Well, we tried to slow it from going to the oil companies and we tried to slow it from going to corporations who harbor themselves in these far-off distant lands to avoid paying taxes. Our friends choose to take it out of security.

Let's look at a couple more of these programs because sometimes the details hurt. Crimes Against Children, which is a program we have, the committee wanted to have an increase of 14 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 14 positions to protect our children if this amendment passes.

How about this one, weapons of mass destruction directorate. Sounds like a pretty good idea post-9/11, and in a bipartisan way it passed out of committee. Here is what it will do. The committee wants to hire 146 positions, 29 agents, 69 support personnel, to develop the 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 are going to have less agents trying to find folks who are in our country trying to unleash weapons of mass destruction.

How about the Data Intercept and Access program; 41 positions, 6 agents, 35 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 that they would make the proper investments. This is very well thought out. I think we would be hard-pressed to find any American who would read this and say no, you know what, we should not hire that many agents. We should give that money to the oil companies. I don't think there are many Americans who would say that.

One more before I yield back. Render Safe Mission, the RSM program; nine positions, three agents, six support personnel to address the White House directive, the White House directive, giving the FBI the mission to respond to devices involving weapons of mass destruction within 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 some of these amendments seem. The American people would not support a 0.5 percent decrease in these programs, not a 1 percent decrease in these programs, not a 3 percent decrease in these programs. These are essential.

When you look at the money, Mr. Chairman, that has been wasted in Iraq on unbid, no-bid contracts, no oversight provided at all, when you look at the $14 billion we tried to get off the oil companies, that makes sense. Get that money. Don't get it on the backs of FBI agents who are going to be operating surveillance operations here in the United States.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to continue the math analogy and the math equation here.

What do you get if you have a weapons of mass destruction directorate program that has 146 positions, and you cut that budget by .5 percent or 3 percent? Well, we won't get into the details, but you get less than 146 positions. That is a cut.

What do you get if you cut the Render Safe Mission program that wants to hire nine people, and you cut that by 1 percent? You're going to get less than the nine people.

Stop cutting national security.

Mr. Chairman, 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 Mr. Obey stated, in reaction to that, we're trying to, we'll do the southwest border and methamphetamine enforcement program, hire eight positions, four full- time equivalents, in order to attack a poly-drug-trafficking organization located along the southwest border by increasing DEA's intelligence gathering, detection monitoring and surveillance capabilities. Most of the methamphetamines coming into our country are made in California or in Mexico, out West, very close to the gentlewoman's district.

What this program does is it hires people to try to address this problem, and basically there's been a DEA hiring freeze.

We want to increase this. We want to spend money, invest in this program, one, because we will allow the DEA 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. When Mr. Obey says the price of everything and 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, in prison, with insurance claims, this has a long-term ripple effect that will cost us 10 times the amount of money.

Finally, the gentlelady said, I hope you don't mean to say that we don't want to address this issue, or this issue isn't important to us. I think it's important to note that the President's budget, when he submitted it to the Congress of the United States, terminated this program. He cut it completely. He zeroed it out.

I hope our friends on Capitol Hill will 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 will save us.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

I thank the chairman, and I'm pleased to come to the floor today and offer this amendment. And it's a little different vein and spirit than we've offered other appropriate fiscally responsible amendments for other appropriations bills, but 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 assertion that the amendments that are offered by this group of fiscally responsible individuals can't even get a majority of our own conference, that's not true. But there's a lot of untruth 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 friends 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 $750 million a year, or $7.5 billion over 10 years. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that you remember that number, $7.5 billion over 10 years, because it's there for a reason.

But before I get into the specific reasons of 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 have to be muted on the other side have in the process.

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 virtually every single issue. And I understand at the beginning the new majority felt that they had to move forward with many of their issues, and that's appropriate. That's appropriate. That's their due, given the results of last November.

However, what we've seen recently has buried any guise of bipartisanship. And, in fact, the last 2 weeks have been astounding and actually point to more astounding activities over the next 10 days.

The SCHIP bill, the State Children's Health Insurance Plan, which was adopted in a bipartisan way 10 years ago, is up for reauthorization; and now this new majority plans in a unilateral and 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 the committee right now that passed last year never got through the Senate but passed the House last year. It passed, over 400 individuals to 4. And now we have in our committee today an anti-bipartisan bill that belies any attempt at bipartisanship by the other side.

And then the farm bill that was 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 of the aisle, bipartisan. And yet over the past 24 hours what we have seen is an anti-bipartisan bill that puts in that bill a tax increase of $7.5 billion.

Mr. Chairman, you remember the $7.5 billion that I mentioned before.

So this amendment before us today is an amendment to reduce the increase from 3.1 percent over last year's bill to 1.6 percent. So it would take that reduction in the increase and would utilize $750 million a year, or $7.5 billion 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 wouldn't 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 be subject to the kind of remarkable tax increases that we've seen by the other side of the aisle.

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.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I'm somewhat amused by my friend's comments. It brings to mind what I have come to describe this Congress as, and that is the Orwellian democracy that we see day in and day out. The accusation is that this side of the aisle spent too much money, so that side of the aisle is going to ``stop digging.'' Well, they're stopping digging to the tune of a 3.1 percent increase, billions of dollars of increase. So their response to don't spend that much is let's spend more. And that's where the Orwellian democracy comes in.

And the accusation from the other side that comes, that says, well, you don't want to spend this, you're going to cut this program, you're going to cut COPS, you'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 my allowance. And say they were getting $5 a week. They wanted $10 a week, and you settled on $7.50 a week, and then your son or your daughter says, hey, you just cut my allowance by $2.50. That doesn'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.

I'm pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to my good friend from Virginia, the chief deputy whip, Mr. Cantor.

Mr. Chairman, once again I am amused by the comments of my good friends and colleagues on the other side.

The fact of the matter is the departments that run these programs that we are addressing right here asked for $2.3 billion less than our good friends on the other side are proposing us to spend, which means that they believe they can accomplish the goals that have been given to them with $2.3 billion less.

And they talk about all this wonderful caring they have for families. Well, the largest tax increase in the history of our Nation that they passed in their budget, about $2,700 per family, is a peculiar way of showing you are caring for the American family.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the minority whip, my good friend from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. Chairman, at this point I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 15 seconds to my good friend from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time remains on each side?

Mr. Chairman, I do want to point out that there isn't a corporation in this world that pays taxes that don't come from somewhere other than the back pockets of the American people. There isn't a single corporation in this Nation that doesn't pay taxes where that money doesn't come from individuals.

Corporations don't pay taxes; 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 companies that have their taxes increased, all that the majority has done is driven us to greater reliance on foreign oil.

This amendment would decrease the increase of spending in this portion of the appropriations bill by 1.4 percent, $750 million a year, $7.5 billion over 10 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 is so large that it can take away everything that they need. They believe they can make better decisions with their money than the government makes with their money.

And so we strongly urge our colleagues to adopt this amendment to avoid a tax increase on the farm bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise and with all due respect would ask my colleagues to simply read the amendment. The amendment states, total appropriations made in this act are hereby reduced by $750 million. That is 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 1.4 percent reduction in the increase is for each of those agencies to find 14 cents out of every $10.

Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that is what families do all across this Nation every day. So our priorities are the American family. Our priorities are the American family. We take our responsibility seriously to keep it fiscally prudent and fiscally responsible.

Mr. Chairman, we believe this amendment moves us in that direction. We would urge our colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.