Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Religious Society of Friends upon the 100th anniversary of the Orange Grove Monthly Meeting of Friends in Pasadena, California.

The Orange Grove Monthly Meeting of Friends was founded in 1907 by a group of twenty Eastern Quakers who had moved to Pasadena. Quakers have played leading roles in working for peace and an end to war, promoting racial and gender equality, and supporting environmental and other social justice causes. After World War I, the Meeting members supported the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), which engaged in post war relief efforts in Western Europe and Russia, and also helped establish AFSC's Pacific Coast branch.

During World War II, the Meeting house served as a hostel for Japanese-Americans being sent to internment camps, and aid was sent to those already interned. The Meeting members provided hospitality and financial support to area conscientious objectors and their families, and after the end of the war, hosted families displaced by the war and its aftermath.

Meeting members have frequently led the way in civil rights and social justice movements. Meeting members took part in efforts to desegregate the Pasadena school system, participated in freedom rides in the South and attended the Selma, Alabama protests.

The Orange Grove Monthly Meeting of Friends founded educational institutions that provide a nurturing educational environment for children. Pacific Ackworth Friends School (1942) and Pacific Oaks School (1945) were established by Meeting parents. In 1961, Mara Moser, an Orange Grove Friends member, established Mothers' Club to support families of men in prison. Mothers' Club later evolved into a child development and family center serving low-income families.

Members of the Orange Grove Monthly Meeting of Friends are active participants in the community. Meeting members routinely provide dinner for the homeless at Union Station in Pasadena, participate in many prison visitation programs and allow the Meeting house to be used by local groups for activities such as a tutoring program for elementary school children.

It is my pleasure to honor the Orange Grove Friends Meeting of Pasadena on its 100th anniversary of dedicated service to the community. I ask all Members to join me in commending their efforts.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Pasadena Symphony, which will be celebrating its 80th anniversary on October 13, 2007--the beginning of the 2007-2008 season. Since 1928, the Pasadena Symphony has demonstrated musical talent, stable leadership, and remarkable service to the community.

In 1922, Will Rounds, Director of Instrumental Music in the Pasadena public school system and former member of the Los Angeles Philharmonic, initiated a movement for a local civic orchestra. The Pasadena Civic Orchestra Association was officially developed in 1928 by a group of civic-minded citizens and Reginald Bland, the orchestra's first director. Originally formed to promote free music of all forms to the public and to provide young aspiring musicians an opportunity to train through practical experience, the orchestra has transformed from a group of volunteer and student musicians into a nationally-recognized orchestra that has won worldwide acclaim.

Much of the symphony's success can be attributed to its stable leadership. Since its founding, the orchestra has had only four music directors. In 1936, Dr. Richard Lert began his 36 year tenure as director and established a scholarship fund for students who performed in the orchestra. With Dr. Lert at the helm, the orchestra's name was changed to the Pasadena Symphony Association in 1954; in 1955, the symphony became a founding member of the Los Angeles Symphony

League and was recognized with Metropolitan Status by the American Symphony Orchestra League in 1968. The Women's Committee, which recently celebrated its 50th anniversary, was formed in 1957 to assist with fundraising. From 1972 to 1984 the orchestra's reputation continued to grow under the leadership of Daniel Lewis. The orchestra received several national awards, including five American Society of Composers and Publishers awards for adventuresome programming. Mr. Lewis also oversaw the founding of the Pasadena Youth Symphony Orchestra which is considered one of the best youth orchestras in the world. Since 1984, Jorge Mester has brilliantly led the Pasadena Symphony Association, expanding the number of concerts per season and recording its first compact disc in 1994.

Beyond its musical achievements, the association admirably serves the community through educational outreach. Committed to making music accessible to the public, the symphony runs an admission-free Musical Circus for families with young children and offers Concerts and Lessons to Enrich Families (C.L.E.F.). Believing that music belongs in the classroom as well as the concert hall, the symphony partnered with Pasadena's public elementary schools to found Tempo!, a curriculum based program that has been recognized by the National Endowment for the Arts. Through the Mentor Program, in which middle and high school musicians can meet with Pasadena Symphony Association professionals and the Pasadena Youth Symphony Orchestra, the symphony fosters our next generation of musicians.

It is my great pleasure to honor the Pasadena Symphony Association on its 80th anniversary. I ask all members to join me in commending their efforts.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay special recognition to St. Robert Bellarmine Church upon the celebration of its 100th anniversary.

The church was founded as Holy Trinity Parish in 1907 by Father Edward Wright. In 1939, the church was remodeled and given its present name. The choice of 17th century Italian cardinal St. Robert Bellarmine as patron saint reflects the church's modern-day identity as a spiritual, educational and charitable institution. St. Robert Bellarmine embodied an ideal blend of spirituality, intellect, public service and charity. He would certainly be proud of Burbank's St. Robert Bellarmine Church, which throughout its 100 years has demonstrated a passionate commitment to these same ideals.

Today, St. Robert Bellarmine Catholic Church serves the spiritual, educational, and charitable needs of its community. Its elementary school, as well as Bellarmine Jefferson High School, offers a Christ- centered learning environment with a challenging curriculum that educates students both academically and morally, preparing them for a lifetime of service to both God and their communities.

In addition, St. Robert Bellarmine sponsors and facilitates service- oriented groups that serve the homeless, the sick, and others in need in the Burbank community and beyond by actively engaging in food drives and raising charitable funds. Many leaders of St. Robert Bellarmine have used their leadership as a means for serving the community. Monsignor Martin Cody Keating, for example, served the church for 37 years after his work as an Army chaplain in World War I. During his priesthood, he worked as an advocate for labor and war veterans' issues. The current Priests and staff continue this legacy of public service today.

I ask all Members to join me today in honoring St. Robert Bellarmine Church upon the celebration of its 100th anniversary. The entire community joins me in thanking the parishioners of St. Robert Bellarmine Church for their religious, educational, and charitable contributions to California's 29th Congressional District.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act. This is a landmark measure which touches on many aspects of our national health care system. It forestalls a potentially devastating cut to physician payments through Medicare that would imperil our senior's access to their doctors. It also expands assistance to our lowest income seniors so they get the help they need to afford life-saving medication.

But most important, the bill we are debating today will extend the life changing benefit of health insurance to five million more American children. That means five million parents who won't have to bring their child to the emergency room because they're running a fever. Five million parents who can take their child to a dentist if their teeth hurt. Five million parents who can take care of their children in a way we all take for granted--that when they're sick, they can go to the doctor.

SCHIP has been an incredible success story, extending the benefits of health care to six million children, about 750,000 in California

alone. These are children whose families have incomes that are too high to qualify for Medicaid, but who do not receive health insurance through their employment and can't afford it on their own. SCHIP is based on a simple premise: Insuring kids is the right thing to do. And it's much cheaper to insure a child, who is relatively healthy, than an adult or a senior citizen. The experience of the 10 years since SCHIP was originally created proves the wisdom of providing health insurance for children.

In addition to reauthorizing the program, this bill improves SCHIP by creating new incentives to seek out millions of children around the nation who are eligible but not enrolled. It includes a group of seven best practices, developed and implemented in states, that should be followed to get kids into the program and keep them there. That's the right approach. In the past, I've called for a simplified enrollment system so that families applying for a range of means-tested benefits, such as subsidized school lunches, can automatically apply for SCHIP. We accomplish that with this bill, and it will mean that more kids who are eligible will get enrolled and stay enrolled for a benefit that they are entitled.

The Committee on the Budget has certified that this legislation complies with the PAYGO rules we set earlier this year to ensure fiscal discipline. It pays for these important reforms to children's health and Medicare by an increase in the tax on cigarettes a provision that I hope will help discourage youth smoking. And it cuts back on subsidies to privately run Medicare plans. Contrary to the statements of the minority, we are not cutting one dime from Medicare. In fact, this bill today will extend the lifespan of the Medicare Trust Fund.

A vote for this bill is a vote for an America that takes care of its children. In the richest Nation in the history of the world, it is simply wrong that millions of children, our most vulnerable citizens, go without basic access to health care. With a ``yes'' vote, five million more children will enjoy the benefits of a healthy future and a real chance in life. I urge a ''yes'' vote.

Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

There really is a lot of common ground in this debate. My friends on the minority side of the aisle want to make sure that when one foreigner is talking to another on foreign soil, that doesn't need to go through a FISA court, and we agree.

The only real area of disagreement is when we make an effort to surveil a foreign suspect, and whether inadvertently or advertently we capture the conversations of Americans, should there be court supervision. If the programs expand and, in fact, we capture the conversations of thousands of Americans, should there be some court oversight of that?

I think on a bipartisan basis the Members of this body feel there should be. The courts should be involved, the Congress should be involved when we are talking about the surveillance of Americans on American soil, whether they were the target or the incidental effect of that surveillance. And I also think that if we got three Members from our side of the aisle and three Members from yours and sat down with the admiral, in about an hour, we could hammer this out.

We ought to do supervision when Americans are surveilled. This bill provides that, and I urge its passage.

Mr. Chairman, this is an important bill that funds many crucial priorities for this Nation. I offer my congratulations to the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. Mollohan, for crafting a bill that balances important investments in law enforcement and economic development with the need to maintain our Nation's scientific and technological leadership.

Nowhere has Chairman Mollohan shown more foresight and wisdom than in his decision to increase our national investment in NASA, which has been at the forefront of humanity's exploration of the cosmos for the past 39 years.

Earlier this year, I told NASA administrator Michael Griffin that I viewed the President's budget request for NASA as a floor and not a ceiling. That request, for $17.3 billion, was $1.4 billion below the congressionally authorized level and, in my view, shortchanged too much science on the one hand, while allowing no margin for error whatsoever in terms of human spaceflight.

This budget crunch at the space agency has been brewing for several years. To start, the costs resulting from Hurricane Katrina and the Space Shuttle Return-to Flight after the Columbia tragedy were never recouped by NASA. Second, several big-ticket and vital missions have exceeded cost estimates and, third, the addition of the Hubble Space Telescope servicing mission adds an additional funding burden to NASA.

At the same time, the FY 2007 Joint Resolution reduced NASA's human spaceflight program budget by $670 million, the practical effect of which will be at least a 6-month delay in the launch of the new Orion and Ares I, a delay that will increase the 4 year ``gap'' in American human spaceflight capability and increase our reliance on the Russians to launch and recover crew for the International Space Station.

And, Mr. Chairman, even as we speak, the People's Republic of China is working hard to become a dominant space power--both in the civilian sector and in the military use of space.

This budget crunch has brought us to a point of reckoning. Congress and this Nation are going to need to make some decisions about the value of space to our national life. I know that there is broad and deep support for NASA and its mission and I also believe that we should begin to ramp up the NASA budget to make our push back to the Moon a reality, while continuing to answer the great fundamental questions about our own planet and our place in the cosmos.

It is the area of space science that most concerns me and where I think that Chairman Mollohan has been especially responsive to the needs of America's scientific community. I have a special concern for space science as my colleague from California, Mr. Dreier, and I represent the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), which is the crown jewel of NASA's efforts to explore the solar system and the universe beyond.

One of the most exciting endeavors that NASA is engaged in is the search for the presence of planets around neighboring stars. NASA's search for planets and life beyond our solar system is having increasing and dramatic success with over 105 planets now discovered.

For years, JPL has been working on a planet hunter spacecraft and the Space Interferometry Mission program has successfully passed all its technological milestones and is thus ready for development. SIM is expected to examine 2000-3000 stars for planetary systems to fulfill a critical step in the search for Earth-like planets.

This mission has been supported by Congress in the last two years and by the Academy Decadal Astrophysics reports in 1990 and 2000. To this point NASA has spent approximately $300 million on the program. Unfortunately, the President's 2008 budget request for NASA drastically scaled back funding for the program--essentially putting it on ice. Thankfully, Chairman Mollohan has restored funding for SIM and directed NASA to proceed with development.

JPL has also been the epicenter of our efforts to explore Mars. The rovers Spirit and Opportunity have been exploring the Red Planet for the past 3\1/2\ years and next month the Mars Phoenix Lander will begin its journey to Mars. I am happy to report that the bill fully funds the Mars program, which allows for a new mission to be launched about every 2 years.

Finally, NASA does not currently have an outer planets mission in development and I am happy that the bill provides $10 million to begin work on such a mission.

Mr. Chairman, I know that many of my colleagues have expressed support today for NASA and its mission and have elaborated at length on the technological and other spinoffs from the space program. I would like to urge all of you to remember another crucial spinoff from the space program--international goodwill.

The United States is not universally loved around the world at the moment. However, one area in which our prestige remains undiminished is in space exploration. The ESA, the Canadians, the Japanese, the Indians and many others want to partner with us. Our space program also continues to generate enormous interest and enthusiasm worldwide. In the first 2 months after Spirit and Opportunity landed on Mars in January 2004, JPL's rover website registered almost 9 billion hits from around the world. At a time when America needs ways to communicate with a growing and increasingly younger global audience, our space program is an important public diplomacy asset.

I thank the Chairman and urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank Mr. Mack for his strong work on this issue and his protection of civil liberties in this regard and many others.

Most disturbingly, from my view, from the Inspector General's report was the fact that the FBI issued at least 739 exigent letters to obtain telephone toll records in violation of internal Justice Department guidelines.

These exigent letters are used in emergency situations when an attack can be imminent and information is required immediately. They said things like this: ``Due to exigent circumstances, it is requested the records for the attached list of phone numbers be provided. Subpoenas requesting this information have been submitted to the U.S. Attorney's Office, who will process and serve them as expeditiously as possible.''

The problem with these letters, in at least 739 cases there was no grand jury meeting. There were no subpoenas requested, and none would ever be delivered. And so here you have the prospect of the FBI going out to a phone company or other provider and saying, this is an emergency, we need this information, subpoenas to be forthcoming, and none were.

Now, as a telephone company, you get the FBI knocking on your door asking for records, saying, this is an emergency, someone's life may be at risk, we may be at risk of an attack, you're going to want to comply. And then after the fact, after the FBI discovered that it had issued all these letters erroneously, unlawfully, it then issues an NSL, National Security Letter, asking for the information that was provided for in these exigent letters, basically to cover up, to try to give a patina of legality over an illegal practice.

This is deeply disturbing, and my friend's amendment, that I was pleased to join him in cosponsoring, would prohibit the expenditure of funds on these exigent letters when the claim is made that a grand jury subpoena is forthcoming when there's no grand jury even impaneled on the issue.

We need to put a stop to this practice. I very much appreciate my colleague raising this issue. I'm proud to support it.

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.

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.

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

Yes, I do.

I thank the chairman of the committee for his superb work on

the bill and the chairman of the full committee, as well as the subcommittee.

I'm going to reserve the balance of my time, but I do want to acknowledge what the gentlelady has said before reserving the balance of our time, and that is, there is a deep philosophical difference between the Members of the minority party who are here today and those of us speaking in opposition to the amendment. And of course there's a philosophical difference between the Members that are here on the floor today and their fellow Republicans in committee who unanimously supported this bill, those Republicans on the committee and in the House as a whole who have made every effort to work with Democrats and find common ground in dealing with the fiscal challenges that we face, but also recognizing the need to invest in America as our parents' generation did and as their parents did.

Yes, there's a philosophical difference. We're facing a constrained fiscal environment. We've got to get our budget in balance. Some here on the floor tonight we'll hear say, well, we can afford to balance that budget by taking it out of funds for the elderly or taking it out of funds for the homeless, taking it out of funds that help serve Native Americans, taking it out of funds that would make our aircraft more safe.

That's a philosophical difference, I think, with a bipartisan majority of this House that thinks that those aren't the right places to find savings, that we ought to look elsewhere. We ought to look, for example, at the generous corporate welfare payments that we make at a time when the oil industry, for example, has not only had record profits of the year or record profits of the decade, but record profits in the entire history of the oil industry. And not just the history of the oil industry, but record profits of any corporation at any time in the history of the world.

Now, that corporate welfare, my friends on the philosophical other side of this issue don't want to touch. That's sacrosanct. They won't cut those historic profits by 6 percent, or by 1 percent or even by a half of one percent because that's contrary to the philosophy. But they're more than willing to cut those who are desperately in need. And that's where we do have the divide. It's what I will be addressing when I conclude the remarks on our side of the aisle.

But at this point, I will reserve the balance of our time.

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

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

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

Again, I thank the gentlewoman for offering the amendment to this bill, as she did to one of the prior bills, because it really does highlight the philosophical difference between the bipartisan majority of the House and the self-described ``fringe'' represented by the views we've heard tonight.

What is that philosophical division between the bipartisan majority and the Members that we have heard from this evening? Well, the bipartisan majority of this House believes that if we're going to ensure a stronger America, then we have to make an investment in that America. But we have to make the same kind of investment that our parents made and their parents so that we can enjoy the prosperity that we enjoy now; that we can't simply say, well, we're going to let our children and our grandchildren fend for themselves.

The bipartisan majority believes that that requires a responsible investment in our roads and our highways; a responsible investment in our aviation system; a responsible investment in our aviation security; a responsible investment in housing for the elderly, for the disabled, for those who are in need. That is a priority of the bipartisan majority. This is our philosophy.

Now, my friends expressing the minority view say, well, let's look at what the American family would do when the American family is facing budgetary pressures. So let's look at what the American family would do. My friends expressing the minority opinion tonight say they would set their priorities. Well, that's absolutely right, they would set their priorities, which means they wouldn't cut everything identically in their lives, which is just what the gentlewoman's amendment would do. It would cut everything across the board.

The American family, when they're facing a fiscal constraint, doesn't say, we're going to cut our medicine equally, we're going to cut our food equally, we're going to cut our essentials equally with how we cut cable TV, was one illustration given by my friends in the minority. No. They don't say we're going to cut the necessities the same amount we're going to cut the luxuries. They prioritize.

But my friends in the minority, with their across-the-board cuts, don't prioritize. And so they do make cuts, real cuts, not like my friend from Arizona claimed, which is, unfortunately, not correct. My friend from Arizona just claimed that nothing is really cut in the across-the-board amendment. But the reality is there are a great many things that are cut, real cuts, that don't have an increase in the bill sufficient to offset what the gentlewoman's amendment would cut.

So what are some of the real cuts the gentlewoman is proposing tonight? She is proposing real cuts to the number of critical safety staff in aviation, safety staff that deals with the Office of Flight Standard and Aircraft Certification. They would be real cuts. Not cuts in growth, but real cuts, fewer people doing the safety inspections for our aircraft. Is that what the American family would choose to do when they're faced with a fiscal constraint? Would they choose to cut things that have the effect of making their families less safe? I don't think that's where they would look for the cuts.

What other real cuts has the gentlewoman been advocating? She's advocating real cuts in emergency response training for hazardous material transportation. That's a real cut the gentlewoman is advocating.

She is also advocating cuts in Native American housing grants. Is the gentlewoman prepared to tell the Native Americans back in her State that she favors real cuts to their housing assistance? I will be willing to yield on that question if the gentlewoman is ready to say, not hide behind an across-the-board amendment, but is ready to say to the Native Americans in her State, I support real cuts to your housing.

I will yield if the gentlewoman would like to respond to that question. Is the gentlewoman prepared to say, yes, I'm advocating tonight real cuts to the American housing in my State?

I yield to the gentlewoman from Colorado.

Well, I yielded the time to the gentlewoman, but she did not answer the question. Evidently she wasn't willing to tell the Native American population in her home State she is proposing an amendment to cut their housing tonight. She is willing to hide behind an across-the-board amendment, but is not willing to tell them directly what the effect of that amendment is.

The gentlelady's amendment would also cut, in very real terms, homeless assistance grants.

Now, let's get back to that philosophical difference between the bipartisan majority and the minority here tonight. One of my colleagues, my colleague from New Jersey, said, well, the American family has to make tough choices. And maybe they need to make the choice that not all of their kids can go to college. Well, that's the philosophical view of the minority opinion we hear tonight. Maybe the American family needs to make the choice that not all of their kids can go to college.

Well, the philosophical view of the bipartisan majority is that every child in America that wants to go to college should have the ability to go to college, notwithstanding whether they are rich or poor. That's our philosophy. And that's why we increased support in the Labor-HHS bill which, again, the

gentlewoman wanted to cut, to help more kids go to college. That's our philosophy, that if we're going to look after the future of this country, we're going to have to invest in the future. That means investing in our kids. And that means not putting American parents in a position where they have to say this child goes to college, this child does not. That is not our philosophy. It may be the philosophy of the gentleman from New Jersey; it may be the philosophy of the minority on the floor here tonight. It is not the philosophy of the bipartisan majority of this House, nor the American people.

Now, some of my friends in the minority here tonight say, okay, 6 years of GOP rule; we ran the country into the ground financially, we admit it. But we weren't responsible, we few here on the floor tonight, because we were standing up at the time. Well, I have to say that when we could have used your voices, we didn't hear them. When we could have used your voices, for example, earlier this year to try to achieve savings in the expenditures on oil and gas, when people go to the pump and they're paying record amounts, when we wanted to try to take that and invest it in the country's future instead of investing it in oil company profits, the friends in the minority here tonight had nothing to say. None of them were on their feet saying, yes, this is the time where we must cut corporate welfare because we can't afford it. Let's cut it 1 percent across the board.

When our seniors are trying to buy medicine and can't afford it and we take action here to bring down the cost of that medicine and save the government money because we're living in a finite world, did our friends stand up and say, yes, we have to be fiscally responsible? We have to try to help those families who are working, both heads of household, and can't afford medicine, or those seniors who can't afford medicine, so we're going to stand up for them; we're going to cut those corporate subsidies and corporate welfare? No. They were silent. It's only when it comes to cutting homeless assistance, cutting assistance for the elderly, and even cutting support for additional safety inspections for aircraft that our friends in the minority here tonight are willing to stand up.

So, yes, there is great philosophical difference here tonight between the bipartisan majority that believes we have to invest in the future of this country, between the bipartisan majority that doesn't think a parent should have to decide which child can go to college and which child can't, not based on the merit of that child, not based on the academic ability of that child or the gifts of those children, but because they can't afford to send both children to college.

There is a philosophical difference between the bipartisan majority that says that is unacceptable in America, that is not the America we want to see in our future, and the philosophical views of the minority here tonight that say that's fine with us. We won't look elsewhere. We are willing to balance the budget on the backs of our kids and their kids, the homeless, the elderly and the others. Just stay away from corporate welfare because that is untouchable.

That is not the philosophy of the majority of this House. It will not carry the day when this amendment comes to a vote.

I urge my colleagues to join with the bipartisan majority and defeat these cuts to these vital services, and also to step up to the plate when we have the opportunities to reduce corporate welfare so that we can finance these essential services to let their voices be heard.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the centennial of Gene Autry's birth. Gene Autry was a great American patriot and hero, whose vision and spirit was characteristic of the American West that he came to represent.

Today also marks another momentous occasion, the Autry National Center's 20th Annual Gala. Twenty years ago, the Autry National Center held its first gala prior to the opening of the Gene Autry Museum of Western Heritage.

Gene Autry was born 100 years ago in Tioga, TX. He arrived in California and became famous as the ``singing cowboy.'' Gene, known for his innovation, revolutionized American cinema, pioneering the western musical. He is the only entertainer to date to have been awarded all five stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Gene Autry was also the first movie star to use television as a way of reaching his audience. It was through his music and his warm and winning smile that he connected with people. He conveyed a deep sense of patriotism, encouraging his audience, young and old, to be kind to one another and live by the high minded standards of conduct, ``The Cowboy Code,'' to which he held himself.

Gene Autry and his beloved horse Champion were always at the ready and eager to serve their country. Gene joined up with the Army Air Corps in 1942, earning the title of sergeant, flying fuel, ammunition, and arms over the Himalayas. After the war, Mr. Autry toured with a USO troupe in the South Pacific, bringing the familiar melody of home to the distantly stationed troops.

In 1988, Gene Autry, along with his wife Jackie Autry, founded the Gene Autry Museum of Western Heritage. In his lifetime Gene Autry was able to fulfill his dream of building a ``museum which would exhibit and interpret the heritage of the West and show how it influenced America and the world.''

In 2003, the Autry National Center was established, commemorating the American West through its three institutions, the Southwest Museum of the American Indian, the Museum of the American West, and the Institute for the Study of the American West. In keeping with the spirit of Gene Autry, the Autry National Center provides insight into the diverse tapestry of cultures and peoples that make up the American West. The success of the Autry National Center is largely due to Jackie Autry's unsurpassed dedication and devotion to the vision of her-late husband.

It is my pleasure to honor the centennial of Gene Autry's birth as well as the Autry National Center on its 20 years of service to the southern California community. I ask all members to join me in commending the Autry National Center.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 2630, the Campaign Expenditure Transparency Act. This is legislation that I introduced to my colleague, Representative Castle, in early June in order to ensure that Federal officer holders and candidates are not personally enriched from expenditure of campaign funds. I want to thank Mr. Castle, the majority leader, the chairman of this Committee on House Administration for working to bring this bill to the floor today.

Numerous Members of Congress employ their spouses and family members for campaign activity, and the vast majority of them do this work appropriately and ethically. Unfortunately, others have not, and this practice has shown the potential to foster corruption and invite abuse. I joined my colleague, Mr. Castle, in introducing this legislation because I believe it will help preserve the integrity of the institution and end the perception that office holders and candidates can benefit themselves financially from their campaigns or service.

The Campaign Expenditure Transparency Act would end the practice where Federal office holders and candidates employ their spouses in their

campaigns and financially benefit from contributions to the campaign. The bill also requires a separate disclosure to the FEC of all of the payments, including direct and indirect compensation which are made to immediate family members.

Specifically, H.R. 2630, as amended, would prohibit any Federal office holder or candidate from directly or indirectly compensating his or her spouse from any political committee he or she controls for services to the committee. This language was used to ensure that someone could not get around this prohibition by acting as a subcontractor or vendor to another individual or company receiving payments from the political committee.

Additionally, this would ensure that the legislation does not prevent a spouse from being employed by a company that provides a service to a political committee, unless the spouse's compensation is increased as a result of that business. For example, a spouse could be employed by a phone company that the campaign contracts with so long as the spouse's compensation is not increased based on that contract.

Similarly, a spouse that is a shareholder of a publicly traded company could receive dividends from that company notwithstanding the fact that a committee purchased services from that company.

The legislation also does not prohibit committees from paying for legitimate travel and campaign expenses that are incurred by a spouse, as long as the FEC has determined the expenses to be appropriate campaign expenditures. The bill recognizes that spouses are often properly involved in campaign activity and that committee funds can be used to reimburse appropriate expenses.

The Campaign Expenditure Transparency Act, as amended, stipulates that the penalty for violation of the provisions of the bill, if the candidate knew of the violation, would be imposed on the candidate and not on the committee. The amended version of the bill also clarifies the penalty is not a reimbursable expense by the committee.

The legislation has the strong support of a number of reform-oriented organizations, including Democracy 21, the Campaign Legal Center, League of Women Voters, Common Cause, Public Citizen, and U.S. PIRG.

I would also like to stress that many of our colleagues again have employed their spouses or immediate family members in their campaigns and have done so lawfully and ethically. Our family members are frequently our most trusted advisers and are willing to put in long hours for little compensation. However, we are aware of cases in which this practice has been abused, and it is for this reason that this legislation is regrettably necessary. Given the low public confidence in all public institutions at this point, this legislation is one important way to begin restoring the public's faith that elected officials are working in the public's interest and not in their own. I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

I want to take just a minute to address some of the comments that my friend from Texas has made.

First, of course, there is nothing in this legislation that would break up a good team. There is nothing in this legislation that prohibits spouses from working. And where, like most families these days, both members of the household need to work to support that family, there is nothing in this bill that would stop it.

It does provide that a spouse that has CPA skills or other skills employ those skills on someone else's behalf for compensation. They are more than welcome to provide those skills, as many of our spouses do, I think almost all of our spouses do, on a volunteer basis to help our campaigns. But the appearance of propriety, and in some cases the actual impropriety, of having spouses working on commissions where a percentage of everything the campaign raises effectively goes into the household of the office holder is one of the driving forces behind this legislation.

I should mention that in my colleague's own home State of Texas, the State legislature and the Governor have passed and signed legislation prohibiting this practice in Texas. So if you were running for the State legislature in Texas or you were an office holder in the State legislature in Texas, you would not be able to employ your spouse and pay your spouse out of campaign funds. That is a misdemeanor in Texas. So there are States that are really leading the way in terms of making sure that we avoid any appearance of impropriety. And I think that Congress, given the problems have been manifest in this institution as well, needs to follow the example of some of those forward-thinking States.

I thank the gentleman for yielding the time.

At this point, I am happy to yield to my colleague, Mr. Castle, the cosponsor of this legislation, for 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his support.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for his comments, but it is hard to avoid the irony of my colleague's objection that the bill is going too fast. For weeks now, we have been hearing the objection that the ethics reform measures in the House have been moving too slow; that we passed the lobbying reform bill in the House, that it hasn't gone through the Senate, we haven't gone through the conference committee. We are not progressing with the process of trying to clean up the institution.

It's going too slow. Well, today we're hearing the problem with this bill is it's going too fast. It seems like we can't get the speed exactly quite right. It's either too slow or too fast.

The reason that we're here today and moving quickly on this bill is that the bill was the subject of an amendment by my colleague in a separate bill introduced by a Republican Member, an amendment introduced by myself, a Democratic member on the Rules Committee. The bill itself was introduced by Members on both sides of the aisle. The subject matter is very straightforward. Should we pay spouses out of campaign funds, or should we not pay spouses out of campaign funds? Should we disclose whether family members are getting paid, or should we not disclose whether family members are getting paid out of campaign funds?

There is, I think, a fairly broad, almost unanimous agreement on the merits of the bill. Even my friend that just stood up to object to the bill says he agrees with the substance and the intent of the legislation. So it's a consensus work product, a bipartisan work product, and given the criticism that we haven't moved fast enough, we're trying to move fast. This is an effort to move fast, but also to move thoughtfully, and that's why we're here today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to address very quickly the comments by my friend, and then reserve the balance of our time. I don't have any remaining speakers.

I think that, if anything, there's a more compelling case here in Congress than there is in my friend's home State of Texas to enact a prohibition like the one contemplated in this bill. Texas may be in session only 180 days of the year. My guess is that the Texas members of the legislature are paid probably substantially less than we're paid in Congress, and the financial burden on those members of the legislature is probably, therefore, greater than the financial burden that we face. Whether they have to have a full-time campaign office or not probably depends on what kind of a district they're running in. If it's a very competitive district, then they probably pretty much have to be in campaign mode all the time. So if Texas can do it, where their members are paid less, where the financial pressures are probably greater, we should be able to do it here.

It's not often, I have to say, that I point to Texas as the example to follow, but when Texas gets it right, I'm more than happy to acknowledge it.

There is also, I think, a certain irony with my friend's argument that the Democratic majority promised an open government, and then here we're offering this bill, and we're moving quickly on this bill, and his stating opposition to a bill that is designed to bring transparency to the process.

I don't know how you can argue in favor of open government and be opposed to a bill that offers greater transparency. Part of the reason the present system is inadequate is people do pay family members, but there's no way for the public to know that they're family members because they may not have the same last name, or they may pay a business that is controlled by the family member. And so there's no transparency, and the public doesn't know that that money is really going to the family; that when the candidate is out there, or the officeholder, asking for contributions for their campaign, that a certain percentage, whether it's explicitly on a commission, or it's just by virtue of a paycheck, that a certain part of that money is going into either the candidate's own pocket or the officeholder's own pocket because it's going to their spouse, or it's going to their son- in-law who doesn't bear the same name, and people aren't aware that it's going to the candidate's son-in-law and daughter.

So this does bring about greater transparency. I think it's needed.

There are Members that have been very open also. And this is why we've gone to a prohibition vis-a-vis spouses. There are Members who have been very open about the fact that they pay their spouse on a commission for every dollar they bring into the campaign, and they make the same argument my friend makes, which is it's very out in the open. Everybody knows about it. People that contribute to my campaign know that a certain percentage of that is going to go to my spouse, and they make the same argument; it must be fine since people are aware of it.

But part of the problem is that people making the contributions are aware of it, and so they know that by giving an officeholder a contribution, they're also giving that officeholder a personal contribution through their spouse. And maybe that interest that wants to curry favor with that Member thinks, what better way than giving a contribution where I know actually a part of that's going to go directly into the pocket of the officeholder.

So that's part of the reason why we're here. And I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I'll close very briefly.

I appreciate the points that my colleague is making. There is a need for the transparency, even in the case of a spouse, particularly a spouse that may not carry the same last name as the officeholder.

But more particularly, if a spouse even has the same name, or a son with the same name sets up a company, the company doesn't bear the officeholder's name, there's no way for the public to know that that money is actually going to the family.

But more than that, you know, I think sometimes we get in the habit of thinking about how does this affect us; how does this affect our family; does this seem right to us, rather than how does the rest of the country view this. What does the rest of the country think about this? What does someone out in California or Texas or any of our 50 States think about this?

And I don't think they view it the same way we're discussing here today. I think they look at this and they say, gosh, when I send a contribution to this Presidential candidate or this Senate candidate or this congressional candidate, I expect that to go to the campaign. I don't expect that to go to their family. That's not right. And I don't think they would be moved by saying, well, you know, those officeholders, they often have a difficult financial situation themselves, and certainly many do. But I think that the public has the right to expect that when they support a campaign, when they support a candidate, that the funds go to the campaign, they don't go the candidate or their family. Or if they're going to go to the family, outside of the spouse, that there's very broad disclosure so that the public can make an informed decision about how they want to use their resources.

That's the purpose of the bill. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Again, I want to thank my colleagues Mr. Castle and Mr. Platts on the other side of the aisle. I want to thank our chairman and our majority leader and our Rules Committee Chair for their support, as well as the Speaker.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment but I thank the gentleman for offering it, because it reminds us of what this debate is really about. We are debating about whether we will invest in America's future. We are debating what kind of a Nation we expect to be.

My chairman, fellow committee members of both parties, and the vast majority of people around the country believe in America's future. We believe that America's best days are ahead of us. We believe that the American people can compete and succeed in the global economy, and that the most talented, industrious, and ingenious people on Earth are the American people. And we believe that, to ensure our bright future, we must invest in the American people today.

The America we see ahead of us is one where every child has the opportunity to go to college regardless of whether their parents did and regardless of whether they are rich or poor. They receive the best job training, develop the strongest skills, are empowered to create by laws that reward innovation, and have a government that is working for them, not against them, in foreign markets.

In the America we see, every child and their parents has access to decent health care, and no one working full time, playing by the rules and contributing to the prosperity of the country, has to become impoverished because of the catastrophic illness in the family. No parent should have to mourn the loss of a child it could not provide health care for, and no child should grow up in a home without one of its parents for lack of the same access to care.

For our parents' generation, this vision of America's future resembles their own fondest hopes. Our parents and their parents struggled so that we could enjoy a higher quality of living, better schools, better hospitals, and a safer world than what they knew. And, by and large, this greatest generation was successful. America is a better, more prosperous Nation because of their struggle.

But the generations that went before us did more than struggle; they also invested. They built schools, they built hospitals, they built our Armed Forces, and they invested in America's future. If America is to enjoy the same bright future we have in mind, that investment must go on.

Fortunately, this vision of an America where our best days are still ahead of us is a bipartisan vision. It crosses every economic, political, and generational line. We all want and believe that we can bring about a more secure and more prosperous future for our children and grandchildren. And we believe we can do so, must do so, in a fiscally responsible way by paying as we go.

Sure, there are some who do not share these values or who believe that we can achieve this bright tomorrow without any investment, without any contribution or sacrifice on our part. They are the ``get something for nothing'' crowd, the ``I got mine, you get yours'' crowd. They do not believe America needs our investment. And the future? Well, the future can take care of itself.

Some of these naysayers you will hear from today, some you have heard from already. Masquerading under a banner of fiscal prudence they will say, ``We cannot afford the investment.'' It is a masquerade. These are the same people, of course, who drove our national debt to the highest in history through a half decade of borrowing. And theirs was the worst form of borrowing; borrowing that led to no investment and, therefore, to no improvement in the Nation's foundation.

Our parents' generation had them, too, these masqueraders, the ``something for nothing'' crowd. But just kind of imagine what kind of an America we would live in today if our predecessors had followed their irresponsible siren song. We would still be traveling along dirt roads instead of highways, with crops rotting in the fields, long-term economic stagnation, a bleak presence, and an even bleaker future. We would, in sum, have become that Nation that Franklin Roosevelt so presciently warned against, a Nation with a substantial portion of its people ill-fed, ill-clothed, ill-housed, and insecure.

It is indeed fortuitous that these voices are few now and were few then, that the overwhelming bipartisan majority of committee members and Americans recognize that we have a responsibility to our Nation's future, and that responsibility requires sound investment.

In 10 years, 2.7 million more kids will be in K-12 schools, and America will be ready for them because we insist on it. In 10 years, 2.2 million more students will be in college, and our universities will be ready for them with a state-of-the-art education because we insist on it. In 10 years, the global economy will be even more extensive and American workers will be competing and winning because we will have invested in them. And, yes, it is because we are insisting on it now.

We believe in America's future. We believe our best days are ahead of us. And we share the belief that our parents had before us that we are responsible for that bright future, and that future requires investment.

Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I think I may have the gentleman's answer to where was the fringe when the giveaways to the oil

companies and the Halliburtons were taking place; why wasn't there an effort to cut those giveaways by 1 percent.

Those who wanted to cut those profits and those giveaways were not part of the fringe. The fringe we are talking about here today is the fringe that says we want those obscene oil company profits. We want those obscene profits for Halliburton. But we want to cut over $1 billion out of education, out of health care. That is the fringe we are talking about.

The overwhelming bipartisan majority of us want to balance the budget. We are working hard to do that. But we don't want to balance the budget on the backs of our kids and on the backs of those who need health care and on the backs of our workers who need training. And that, I think, is the fringe that we are talking about here today.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I wanted to take a moment to address the nature of the proposed amendment, and the amendment before it, and perhaps the amendment after it, the whole nature of the across-the-board amendments. Because I think the beauty of across-the-board amendments, in the eyes of the authors of those amendments, is that they're anonymous in their cuts; they're anonymous in the pain they distribute. They can go home to their district and say, oh, I'm not in favor of cutting education, I'm in favor of across-the-board cuts. Or I'm not in favor of cutting home heating oil for people, no, that would lack compassion, but I am for across-the-board cuts. What's a 1 percent cut? What's a half of 1 percent cut? Well, what it is is hundreds of millions of dollars taken out of education or out of home heating oil or out of health care or out of cancer research or out of special education.

So let's not take ourselves off the hook here. And I would be willing to yield to my colleague from Colorado.

Do you support cuts in home heating oil assistance? Are you ready to stand up here and say to your constituents, yes, I am for cutting home heating assistance? Do you support cuts in special education? Are you willing to say here today to your constituents that I support cuts in special education? I support cuts in abstinence programs. I support cuts in cancer research. Would you tell us if you support cuts in home heating assistance?

Reclaiming my time, I will be happy to yield if you will answer the question. The question is, do you support cutting home heating oil assistance? It's a yes or no question, it's not complicated. Do you support cutting heating home assistance for poor people? Yes, I support it?

Reclaiming my time. I'm not surprised that I can't get a yes or no answer. I'm not surprised that the gentlewoman is not willing to stand up and say, yes, I support cutting this because I have other priorities. Home heating oil, that's not one of them. Large oil industry profits, that's one of my priorities. Halliburton, that's one of my priorities. But cutting heating oil, that's not a priority, or cutting special ed.

Let me ask you another question; do you think that cuts in college education funding, higher education funding, can be done without cutting the number of kids who have access to college? Do you think we can cut funding from this bill for higher education funding without reducing the number of kids that can go to college?

And you say, it's just half a percent we're cutting from higher ed, or the increase in higher ed, or however you want to phrase it. But the cut is real that you're proposing. So what does that mean? 25,000 more kids can't go to college?

Is that a fair number? Well, maybe that is too much. Should we say 10,000 more American kids can't go to college because of your cut? Is that a fair number? Would you support that? Would you support your amendment if you knew that?

Announcement by the Chairman

Through the Chair, in my remaining time, I would ask the gentlewoman from Colorado whether she is willing to support her cuts if she knows that it will mean fewer children in Colorado can go to college.

I would be happy to yield for an answer to this question. Through the Chair, to my colleague from Colorado, if her cuts mean that fewer of her constituents in Colorado can go to college, is she still willing to propose those cuts?

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to address some of the arguments.

I wanted to say about my friends on the other side of the aisle because, in fact, my friends on the other side of the aisle in committee, the Republican Members, uniformly supported this bill and support this bill. So I have to say that I address these remarks to a minority of the minority, the self-applied fringe that we've been describing or talking to today.

The beginning of their argument was, well, we want across-the-board cuts, we don't really want to have to identify exactly what we're cutting. That's a little hard to sell back home, so we're going to do across-the-board cuts. That's a little more palatable.

We said, well, let's look at where we're cutting, and then the argument was, okay, they're not cuts. They're reductions in the increase.

So then we point out, well, actually you're giving the impression that everything's being increased. Everything is not being increased. Many things are being kept flat. So aren't we really cutting those things that are flat in the budget? And my friends in the minority of the minority said, yes, I guess that's right. I guess we are really making real cuts with these across-the-board proposals, but let's not really look at what we're cutting. That's not very attractive.

And my friend says, okay, so if we're making real cuts, is it really the end of the world if we're making real cuts? Well, I guess it depends on who you ask.

One of the things we're making a real cut to is the bone marrow program. Is that the end of the world for us here in Congress to make a real cut, in real dollar terms, to the bone marrow program? Well, it may not be to any of us at this moment, but for some child out there, it just may be the end of the world. For some parent of that child, some parent has to watch their child suffer with cancer, the inability to get a bone marrow transplant and the failure of research into bone marrow

transplants, it just might be the end of the world for that parent as well as that child.

What are the things that my friend would make real cuts to? He would make real cuts to scholarships for disadvantaged students. He would make real cuts for nurse education. Does my friend think we have more nurses than we need? He would make real cuts for emergency medical services for children. Again, is that the end of the world? Well, for one child it just might be.

He would make real cuts for organ transplantation, real cuts for the National Cord Blood Inventory. Is that the end of the world? Well, for some child, maybe not our children, it just might be.

We would make real cuts, under the gentleman's amendment, to children's mental health. Is that the end of the world? Well, for a child who ends up taking their own life, it just might be the end of the world.

It sounds a lot more palatable when we say, well, it's a 1 percent cut or it's a half a percent cut. Is that the end of the world? Well, for one child it just may be.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, when the President announced in January that he intended to escalate the number of American troops in Iraq, he sought to betray the increase in American combat forces as a necessary precondition for Iraq's government to make the political compromises necessary to prevent Iraq's civil war from spiraling completely out of control. In that speech, the President pledged to hold the Iraqi leadership accountable and to demand progress in two main areas: political reconciliation and security.

Now, more than 6 months later, it's unfortunate but also undeniable that little sustainable progress has been made on either front. Even as we speak, the administration is downplaying the significance of an interim report on the effect of the surge in Iraq.

On the security front, the heroism and sacrifices of American forces has caused a drop in sectarian killings, leading to an overall drop in the number of Iraqi deaths, but the reduction of Iraqi casualties has come with a horrific increase in the loss of our own troops. More than 600 Americans have been killed since January.

Moreover, as American troops leave cities that are quieted with their own blood, there is every indication that Iraqi troops will not be able to sustain the calm. If the past is any indicator, insurgents and militias are merely waiting for us to exhaust ourselves and move on before returning, and Iraqi security forces will be powerless to stop them.

When President Bush announced in January that he intended to escalate the number of American troops in Iraq, he sought to portray the increase in American combat forces as a necessary precondition for Iraq's government to make the political compromises necessary to prevent Iraq's civil war from spiraling completely out of control.

In that speech, the President pledged to hold the Iraqi leadership accountable and to demand progress in two main areas: political reconciliation and security.

Now more than six months later it is unfortunate, but also undeniable that little sustainable progress has been made on either front. Even as we speak, the Administration is downplaying the significance of an interim report on the effect of the ``surge'' in Iraq.

On reconciliation, the Iraqi Government has failed to meet any of the political benchmarks endorsed by the President in January and which this Congress mandated earlier this spring. These political goals are the best indicator of the prospects for reconciliation in Iraq and, tragically, all signs indicate that political reconciliation has been non-existent.

The Iraqi Parliament has yet to begin consideration of the oil law or an associated revenue-sharing law. Given the disparate geographical distribution of Iraq's oil reserves, these laws are essential if Iraq is to have any hope of remaining a united country.

More alarming, is the lack of progress in healing the Sunni-Shiite rift. Of greatest importance, is the need to reverse some of the more draconian edicts of the postwar de-Baathification orders promulgated by former Coalition Provisional Authority chief Paul Bremer. These decrees removed any incentive for Sunnis to participate in creating a better future for Iraq. Other laws--to disarm militias and to grant amnesty-- are still being formulated, and most observers believe that the prospect of disarming militias is so remote that it will not be possible in the foreseeable future.

On the security front, the heroism and sacrifice of American force have caused a decline in sectarian killings and suicide bombings, leading to an overall drop in the number of Iraqi civilian deaths. But the reduction of Iraqi casualties has come with a horrific increase in the loss of our own troops--more than 600 Americans have been killed since January.

Moreover, as American troops leave cities they have quieted with their own blood, there is every indication that Iraqi troops will not be able to sustain the calm. If the past is any indicator, insurgents and militias are merely waiting for us to exhaust ourselves and move

on before returning--and Iraqi security forces will be powerless to stop them.

There has been one very positive development--in al Anbar province, Sunni tribal leaders have decided that al Qaeda's indiscriminate killing makes them a bigger problem than we are, and they have taken up arms against our common foe. This alliance of American forces and former insurgents is desirable and should be encouraged elsewhere. But, like most marriages of convenience, it is not sustainable and cannot form the bedrock of a secure Iraq or reconciliation among Iraqi sects.

For almost two years, I have been calling for a change in our mission in Iraq--from policing a civil war to training, containment and counter-terrorism. This necessitates a responsible redeployment of our combat forces from Iraq, and I believe that this bill does an excellent job of providing a framework for that redeployment, while still giving our armed forces the flexibility that they need to respond to contingencies.

Iraq's future must be decided by the Iraqi people and that solution must come from political reconciliation. Every day that we maintain our forces in the crossfire between warring sects is another opportunity for hatreds to harden and radicals to consolidate their grip on Iraq's ethnic and sectarian communities. We should change our mission now, and begin the withdrawal of our combat forces.

In planning for the inevitable withdrawal, we must recognize that a poorly executed departure could result in an escalation of civil war violence as Iraqi sects compete for power. As we draw down our forces, we must make every effort to prevent a magnification of this catastrophic violence. In particular, we must not compound the error of the lack of pre-invasion planning, with an equally tragic failure to adequately anticipate the post-occupation environment.

Mr. Speaker, it is long past time to begin to end the war in Iraq. I support this bill and urge its passage by the House today.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Pasadena- Foothills Association of Realtors, (PFAR), which will be celebrating its 100th anniversary this year. For the past century, the Pasadena- Foothills Association of Realtors has remained committed to its members and to its community.

Founded in 1907 as the Pasadena Realty Board dedicated to ``promoting good fellowship and fair dealing within the industry,'' the association has grown in size from 26 members in 1908 to approximately 2400 members in 2007. In recent years, the Pasadena-Foothills Association of Realtors has not only met their original objectives but has surpassed them, taking on projects both inside and outside the world of real estate and demonstrating through generosity and service what a tremendous asset it is to the community.

The Pasadena-Foothills Association of Realtors is comprised of many remarkable individuals who have served admirably in their communities including Warren Dorn and Jo Heckman. In 1955, at age 36, Mr. Dorn became the youngest mayor in Pasadena history and in 1956 was elected to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. The first female President of the Association in 1960 and the first woman elected to the Board of Directors in 1975, Ms. Heckman moved seamlessly to the realm of public service by becoming Pasadena's first female Mayor in 1980.

In keeping with their public minded traditions, PFAR made a large charitable contribution of $2,100 to the Pasadena-Altadena Community Chest in 1957. Since then, the association and its members have been active participants in many organizations throughout the greater Pasadena area. In the 1980s, programs such as ``Thanksgiving Food to Needy Families,'' ``Christmas Tournament of Toys,'' and ``Adopt-A- School'' were implemented. In 1999, in response to requests made by local teachers, PFAR founded the program ``REALTORS for Music,'' donating boxes of sheet music and numerous instruments to public schools in the area. In 2002, the association sponsored a blood drive and also started the ``REALTORS for Reading'' program, which collected 2,000 books for area school libraries in its first year alone. In addition, PFAR raised $86,000 in 2004, over $100,000 in 2005 and $116,000 in 2006 for local charities from popular events such as the Taste of Pasadena Festival and the Wreath Auction.

It is my pleasure to honor the Pasadena-Foothills Association of Realtors on its 100th anniversary of dedicated service to the community. I ask all members to join me in commending their efforts.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Christopher Westhoff, Assistant City Attorney--Public Works General Counsel with the City of Los Angeles, California, who will become President of the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA).

Christopher Westhoff is an environmental champion for the City of Los Angeles, the State of California, and the Nation. He is an exceptional leader and public steward, dedicated to the improvement of Los Angeles' water quality and public health.

A former prosecutor with the Los Angeles City Attorney's office, Christopher has spent over 15 years serving as the General Counsel to the Board of Public Works. He has been the Public Works Department's legal counsel on environmental regulatory issues including wastewater treatment, air quality, and storm water management. He played a leadership role in guaranteeing clean and safe water for future generations of Californians by helping ensure the upgrade of the Hyperion Treatment Plant to full secondary treatment of its wastewater. Christopher helped to develop and defend policies that have helped clean up the Santa Monica Bay, and achieve 100 percent beneficial reuse of the city's biosolids. His negotiations in a landmark settlement agreement for Los Angeles' collection systems led to a reduction in sewer spills of more than 70 percent. Christopher also participated in the development and implementation of Proposition ``O'', which provided for $500 million in bonds for stormwater management improvements and green technologies.

In 1999, Mr. Westhoff was elected to NACWA's Board of Directors. He currently acts as the Association's Vice President and Chair of the Strategic Planning Committee. Later this month; Christopher will become NACWA's President. As the President of NACWA, he will build on its reputation as the leading advocate for responsible national policies that advance clean water and a healthy environment.

For his tireless commitment to ensuring that Los Angeles becomes an environmentally smart city, I ask all Members of Congress to join me in congratulating Christopher Westhoff on becoming President of the National Association of Clean Water Agencies.