Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Chairman, would it be appropriate under the rules in the UC that have been suggested that we divide the question so that Members of Congress can vote individually on whether to deny seniors coverage for the doughnut hole, to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions, to deny small businesses from getting the tax benefit in this bill, all the different things--would it be appropriate to divide the question that way so that all of the benefits that Americans get they can see individually where my Republican friends stand on them?

I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chair, I agree with the gentleman. His amendment is clearly in order. But I know this because if this were legislating on this bill, that would mean that they can legislate. They controlled the House and the Senate and the Presidency; they were unable to legislate. We've been here for 8 weeks; they're unable to legislate. It is impossible to believe he is legislating in this bill.

The point of order, if I may speak to it, suggests that the gentleman is legislating on an appropriations bill. I have watched those guys. They're incapable. There is no way this is legislating. So I believe the point of order should be struck down. It is impossible. After 8 weeks they haven't legislated. They had 8 years in the majority, and they didn't legislate. How can it possibly be, Mr. Chairman, that the point of order is correct?

The gentlelady from Connecticut is rarely incorrect, but if you think they're legislating, impossible, almost metaphysically impossible for the gentleman to legislate. He doesn't know how. How can we possibly have the legislating in this bill?

I think the gentleman is absolutely correct. Let us have this debate because if it is that moment, if lightning is striking, if it is chilly in hell, then maybe this is the moment we have been waiting for--the Republican majority is going to start legislating. Please, praise God, maybe this is the moment.

So I think the gentleman is correct. He is not legislating in this bill because it is impossible for them to do so because they simply don't know how.

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

Yes, I do.

Madam Chair, I make a point of order that the gentleman's amendment is not in order because it results in a net reduction of revenues to the Treasury, in violation of the rules of the House and in violation of the rules stipulated in this bill. I explain that in the following way:

As the gentleman surely knows, if his amendment is successful, the checks that are going to small businesses today, the tax breaks that they are getting to provide health care to their workers and the fact that there are no burdens on those small businesses means that they are going to have less money to spend, therefore less people they will be able to hire, a reduction in the amount of jobs, a reduction in the amount of revenue coming into the government, an increased burden on government services.

In fact, the gentleman would say that anyone that would be writing the check to give back to citizens, they can't do it. Anyone taking that check, bringing it to them can't any longer do it. Anyone cashing that check would be in violation of the law. This amendment says that anyone getting a tax break under this bill would have to give it back. That would provide a net reduction in the amount of economic activity and job creation in this country, and therefore his amendment is out of order.

I actually withdraw my point of order.

I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. Chairman, to the great relief, I'm sure, of all those assembled, I don't intend to take the full 5 minutes.

The amendment I propose is one that I think that both sides of the aisle will rally around. It's very simple. It limits any aid in this bill going to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Why we would be providing any aid to Saudi Arabia at all has been an eternal mystery to me, given their propensity to exporting terrorists, given that they had exported 15 of the 19 homicide bombers on September 11, given that just in December when the WikiLeaks came out, it was learned in a quote from the Secretary of State, ``It has been an ongoing challenge to persuade Saudi officials to treat terrorist funding as an important priority.'' Given that the Saudis have textbooks that say things like this in them. This is what they teach to their children:

``The Prophet said, The hour of judgment will not come until Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. O Muslim. O Servant of God. There is a Jew behind me. Come and kill him.'' They have textbooks that also lash out at Christians.

It is also important to note that in this House year after year, we've eliminated aid to the Saudis, only to have it come back. As you see on this chart, 2005--it was actually defeated that year--but every subsequent year, this House voted to ban aid to Saudi Arabia, and it comes rising back up like a Shakespearean specter. This language strikes the Presidential waiver, and says no more aid to Saudi Arabia.

I reserve the balance of my time

I simply say, with the greatest respect to Madam Chair, that we have spoken in this body repeatedly. The Saudis don't need our money. They've got plenty of their own money. It's the money that they use when they jack up gas prices and give us no help in trying to deal with them. It's the money that they use to export terrorism. They don't need any of our money.

I understand there is a Presidential waiver. This may come as a surprise that my friends now want to give the President that authority to override Congress. I think we should take it away and say no aid to Saudi Arabia.

I ask for a ``yes'' vote.

I yield back the balance of my time.

The gentleman from New York is on a roll, so he'll ask for Weiner amendment 101.

Thank you.

Once again, I have no intention of taking the full measure of my time. This is an amendment that has been discussed on this floor many times. Unfortunately, it keeps coming back. We provide subsidies believe it or not----

Thank you. I appreciate it. I'm going to be very brief. Just let me explain. This is an amendment that----

Now I would say to the ranking member, I'm from Queens. I'm from New York City. So I thought mohair was a guy named Moe who had long hair. But I now know that it is a subsidy that dates back to World War I when our uniforms were made with mohair and there was a strategic imperative to make sure we had enough. We provide a subsidy. This has not been used in military uniforms now for about 55 years.

Congressman Chaffetz and I have been agitating to try to eliminate this subsidy. There's still $1 million of funding going to about 12 farmers. No goats lost anything for the purpose of this picture. This is what a mohair looks like.

I would urge my colleagues to end this wasteful subsidy.

I yield to the chairman of the subcommittee.

Reclaiming my time, first of all, show some respect. They're goats. Second of all, and if you are referring to a press conference that went awry that I had where I perhaps might have been bitten by a goat, I will say this: I believe that there is nothing wrong with these animals. We want them to have as much hair as they need. And if you want to give them a haircut, you should do it with your own money. It shouldn't be on the taxpayers' dime.

So I urge a ``yes'' vote on the Wiener amendment.

Thank you.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chair, I ask to be heard on the point of order.

Through all of the talking and interrupting, the gentleman was addressing the point of order directly.

Madam Chair, the point of order alleges that, if Mr. Tonko's amendment is accepted, it will raise net budget authority in this line. In fact, as Mr. Tonko has said, if you will look at the net effect of reducing this line item, the net effect is to increase the amount of senior poverty, to increase the amount of seniors who are not getting Social Security checks on time and, therefore, raising the cost to society and ultimately raising the cost to the budget. In fact, unless you adopt the Tonko amendment, you will be agreeing not only to slash services to seniors but to increase the deficit by raising costs throughout the system.

It is directly on point, and it is important to understand that the points that Mr. Tonko is making about the quality of the service under Social Security impacts directly on whether or not this is net higher budget authority, which it is not. It saves money to endorse the Tonko amendment. This House should consider it on its merits, ``yes'' or ``no.'' This point of order should be ruled out of order.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

Madam Chair, the support for your last three points of order rulings against Mr. Tonko has been relying upon the Budget Committee chairman's advice to the Chair. The Budget Committee chairman is someone who advocates on behalf of the majority for privatizing Social Security.

To explain to the viewers and to this Chamber what that means, it is that he believes and the Republicans believe, if you take Social Security, which is a guaranteed program that can pay 100 percent of all of its benefits for at least 26 years, and if you invest a portion of that in the stock market, it is a better policy.

It is on that person's advice that you have been ruling on the last few occasions that Mr. Tonko is out of order in trying to preserve that system that we have.

If there is an important debate in the context of the American budget in the year 2011, it is the one that Mr. Tonko is trying to engage: It is privatizing Social Security, which is what this side of the aisle, Madam Chair, seeks to do, versus keeping this program the way it is-- the single most successful government program, arguably, in American history.

What Mr. Tonko and many of us are trying to do is to preserve that program. Let's have this debate on this

floor in an honest way. For months now, we've had this kind of strange shadow dance around the idea of the privatization of Social Security. Well, the chairman of the Budget Committee, not some fringe element of the Republican Party, has suggested in a book that they paraded around the country that they are going to offer the privatization of Social Security as the foundation for their budget.

Now, for the last three amendments, Mr. Tonko has been trying to engage that debate, and the Chair has said, in using the best judgment of the Budget Committee, it seems that his policies would increase the net budget authority in the bill.

Let's put that aside for a moment and have a real full-throated debate about whose side the different people in this Chamber are on with regard to this fundamental question of the security of the Social Security system. Let's review the bidding.

On one side, you have Democrats who have created, supported, and fought for the Social Security program ever since it was passed in 1933 and ever since the first check went out in 1935. We say it should be something that generation by generation is there for seniors. One group works; the seniors retire, and we support each other as part of that contract. It is fundamental to democratic values--I believe with a capital ``D'' but also with a small ``d.''

Then you have my Republican friends. They say, You know what? In watching the stock market, we think it would be a good idea to take a portion of that Social Security trust fund and sock it into stocks and equities and bonds. They make an argument that actually has an element of truth to it. They say, if you'd invested every dime of Social Security into the stock market since the beginning of the Social Security system, you would have had more money in it today, because they say, Look. The stock market has gone way up since 1933.

Yes, but as we all know, it didn't go like this (indicating). Let the stenographer note my hand going up. It went like this (indicating). Let the stenographer note a roller coaster shape.

So I ask: Do you want to be one of the seniors who retires in the dip of the roller coaster?

They apparently want to take that chance. My Republican friends want to take that chance. We Democrats say, No, this is not a program that seniors get wealthy on, but it's a safety net program--and it worked. It took, roughly, a 30 percent poverty level among seniors to the single digits that we have today.

Then they say, Oh, no, but it will never be there in the future.

The baby boomer generation, the biggest generation in American history. We've heard that one before. Huh-uh. The baby boomers had babies. Now they're the biggest generation in American history. Now they're paying in.

By the way, do you know what helps the Social Security program more than anything else? People working, people paying Social Security taxes, people on the job, which are all the things that they're cutting in this very same budget.

So, as Mr. Tonko tries to make that point and engage that argument, I see nothing but Members on this side of the aisle cowering under their desks and hiding behind Roberts Rules.

When the Chair makes her rulings, listen carefully. She says she is relying on the best judgment of the chairman of the Budget Committee. Now, I like the chairman of the Budget Committee. He is a fine man--his judgment, not so much. I think that we should have this conversation because, if there is a fundamental difference here, it is on Social Security and its future. We want it to be there.

So I say to people watching at this hour:

First of all, have a warm glass of milk. There might be other ways to get to sleep. I would say to you, think very carefully about what the budget debate is about. It's very easy to lose sight of page this, line that. What it is really about is a fundamental difference in philosophy.

On the Democratic side of this debate, we are saying let's try to build this country on a foundation of everyone having a safety net, of everyone having a basic opportunity, and none of us can really get too far ahead if we're leaving a whole bunch of people behind.

This debate is not new, and I will let someone else continue it.

Madam Chair, I move to strike the last word.

I'm a big fan of Mr. Whitfield, but he misses the big thing here; and that is that we're in the portion of this budget where the legislative branch is funded. Isn't this the opportunity to end the funding for the health care plans that so many Members of Congress get? So many Members of Congress get health care plans, like the 9 million Federal employees and their workers where they get a booklet twice a year with different choices. And since there's so many workers, they are aggregated together to be able to hold down costs for all of them. This is exactly what the new health care plan that is going into effect for the American people seeks to do.

Now, the Democrats have said let's extend that to all Americans. Let's give everyone that opportunity. And my Republican friends say, no, that's government-controlled health care. This is your chance. Don't blow it.

Mr. Whitfield is an important, prominent member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the most learned members of that committee. This is our chance to say, you know what, we're so against government- run health care that we want to get rid of the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan. This is your moment. This is the time. Let's do it. Come on. Let's put your money where your mouth is, Madam Chair.

I mean, the problem here is that if you think about what is going on, with all of the debate about health care and the Big Government-run health care plan, it's really not that. It's really taking the number of uninsured people, giving them subsidies and incentives to go out and get private insurance. And then, since more people are going to have it, all of our costs come down. The aggregation that goes on in insurance markets, the automobile insurance, for example, and Members of Congress take advantage of that.

Now, I should point out the mythology that there is some fancy health care plan. No. We're in the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan. We get this booklet every 6 months. We choose the plan that's best. It's like the exchange is going to be in 2013 and 2014.

So here it is. We're on the floor. This is your opportunity. And I respect Mr. Whitfield. I don't know much about this provision of what coal-powered plants there are here, but I do know that's here. Why don't you step up and say, We're opposed to government-run health care for Members of Congress?

You know, it's funny. There was actually a Member of Congress on the Republican side--and I forget his name, you will forgive me--who campaigned all summer and fall against what they call ObamaCare and how outrageous it is, and he is going to get to work on doing away with it. They had orientation for the new Members of Congress, and he stands up and says, When do I get my government health care plan?

And when we started looking and we started asking questions, it turned out that there are a lot of Members of Congress who railed against other people getting health coverage but really like that they get it. As they should. No one should give up their health care plan. People should get it.

There was even a member of the New York delegation, when asked about it, Are you going to take the government

health care plan since you campaigned so hard against it? And he said, Of course. What happens if I have an accident and I need health care? Where am I going to get it? Exactly.

The same is true for a citizen who works hard. And, by the way, of the uninsured, 75 percent of them have full-time jobs. It's not like they are slacking. They are hardworking Americans. And so the health care plan that we provided, like the Members of Congress, their staffs, and 9 million Federal employees have, says, you know what, the more of us are covered, the more we can control costs just like what the health care plan does.

And here it is, the moment has arrived in the bill, and the silence is deafening. You could probably save a few shekels doing that. Couldn't you, Mr. Honda? You could probably save a few dollars if you eliminated that. Maybe this is the time to do it. And instead, we are going to hear about an amendment.

And Mr. Whitfield may be right, I don't know. I will have to figure out how to vote on that. I'm not up on the coal-powered plants here. But it's certainly that opportunity. I would hope all of those people who deride government-funded, government-run health care can come down here. And while you're at it, I guess you are going to de-fund Medicare. I read that in the paper today. That's the next thing. Government-run health care. Well, this is kind of your moment to do it.

Be consistent. Be honest. What this is really about is that we took a plan that is basically founded on free-market principles and said, you know what, the employer-based model, we're going to try to have more people get employer-based insurance.

But if you are really honest and consistent, this is the moment in the bill that I would hope our Republican colleagues come down 5 minutes at a time and say, Let's get rid of that dastardly Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan that the legislative branch benefits from. Or at least come down and say, I'm taking it and here is why I'm contradicting what I said in the campaign. This is our time to do it, and I would hope we would.

Madam Chair, I have an amendment at the desk.

Madam Chair, this amendment is a simple one. It strikes funding for the United States Institute of Peace. I'm going to direct most of my remarks today to my colleagues on the Democratic side, because I think this does insist upon bipartisan support.

I think the United States Institute of Peace is a great organization. I think they do great work. If you're going to rise today to say continue funding them because of all the great things they do, you don't need to bother. I agree with you.

The simple question is: After spending $720 million in taxpayer funds adjusted for inflation since 1985 not through a grant program but through a congressional earmark that has been dropped in year after year, the taxpayers have built this glorious new building.

By the way, this one right here is the State Department. That does many of the same things.

I can tell you that the Council on Foreign Relations hasn't gotten $721 million, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, the Brookings Institute, Cato, Roosevelt Institute, Council on Hemisphere Affairs, or none of the nearly 151 peace study organizations at universities around the country.

I say to my friends on the Democratic side of the aisle, if for a moment we can focus on this, it is incumbent on all of us to also be seeing opportunities where we can find things in the budget that perhaps we can do without. Just like in the eighties when there were so many of the programs we felt important to us came under attack during the Reagan years, it sharpened our focus and it made us come up with better and better programs that dealt with some of the critique of our opponents. We need to do that now as well. The idea of weeding out government waste is a Democratic progressive ideal. We want to do that.

This is a very, very good program. But should we be spending $100 million of taxpayer money to build a think tank, a giant headquarters a stone's throw from the State Department? Should we be providing them money through grants from the Department of Defense or State Department? Maybe. They get those, too. But they get a direct congressional earmark that was dropped in in 1985 and hasn't had a single oversight hearing since.

It's a good program. It does worthy things. I got a copy of the talking points of the gentlelady from New York (Mrs. Lowey), one of my absolute heroes in this place, and it lists some of those great things they do. But the question has to be: In these fiscal times, is there nothing that we should be able to say, you know, maybe we should do without? Or, better yet, if you believe that giving an additional $40 million, let it go out in the form of grants. Let other institutes step up and try to get it. Let them apply. Let them make an application.

This is a moment that we progressives have to embrace. There's a lot of waste. They didn't get a lot of it, the other side of the aisle. And I think that we should be looking for opportunities to say maybe we can do things a little bit differently.

Let's remember how this got here, by the way. This got here when former Senator Stevens put a $100 million earmark in the bill in conference. It wasn't voted on here, wasn't voted on the Senate, and it plopped in. We deride those things all the time, and yet here it is, this glorious building. This building is remarkable. And I'll give you more. Apparently, Navy Hill, which is right nearby, the Defense Department is giving them some land there, too.

If we are going to engage in a debate and if you will yield on your time, I gladly will.

Yes, I will gladly yield.

Yes, certainly. He's right.

The question is not that but, rather, where in General Petraeus' letter did he say we should be funding it with a direct congressional earmark. No one says stop functioning. I want this building to be filled up with happy, peace-loving activists who are doing their job. I hope they do.

The question is very simple, I say to my colleague from Illinois, one of the foremost leaders of this House:

Why do we choose this particular think tank to bestow this direct congressional line item? I'm amenable to taking the $42 million and saying, let's see if they can use it at Cornell or the University of Illinois' Peace Institute or at the Cato Institute or--I was going to say a more conservative one just to mix it up a little bit.

The point that I'm making is, it's just why it has this status in the budget. It shouldn't. It had it once. It keeps it. It keeps it. It keeps it. It keeps it. Look at this. Have you been to the State Department recently? It doesn't look this good. Have you been to the Pentagon recently? It doesn't look this good. I mean, this is pretty darned good, and it's $100 million of U.S. taxpayer dollars. Go out and raise it like every other think tank.

General Petraeus is right. Let's keep the United States Institute of Peace, but let's stop paying for it in this way.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Will the gentleman yield?

The gentleman correctly points out some of the great things they're doing on behalf of the Department of Defense.

Is the gentleman aware that the United States Institute of Peace gets, in addition to the money that I've identified here, $135 million in transfer from DOD, USAID and the State Department? Is the gentleman aware that they already get grants to do that work and that the money that I am seeking to cut is above and beyond that work? Is the gentleman aware of that?

Does the gentleman not believe that the Council on Foreign Relations is good or the Foreign Policy Research Institute or the Brookings Institute or all of the other institutes that do similar work but that don't live in this gilded building and that don't do so with government?

I mean, the question is not whether they're good. It's whether they should have this wonted status that puts them primary among all think tanks that are doing very good work.

Will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate you yielding. Peace is not the job of the State Department? That is exactly----

Diplomacy and not towards making a grilled cheese sandwich; diplomacy towards making peace.

Look, we're parsing here. The fact of the matter is it's a nonprofit think tank that does a great job. Pursuing peace is a good thing. I don't believe Mr. Chaffetz and I are against pursuing peace.

The only question is, when we are apportioning Federal dollars in the budget, do we say to one institute that tries to foster peace, you're going to get money, and another, you're not? Do we say to one, you're going to get a building, and the other, you're not? Do we say, one, you're going to go through competitive grants; the other is not?

That's the only question. The idea there's only one--maybe Mr. Chaffetz can speak to this. The idea there's only one think tank pursuing peaceful outcomes, I believe, Mr. Jackson, you know that that's not the case.

If the gentleman would yield, I also think we need to change the way we think here. A lot of us are, like, why would you want to defund anything with peace in its name?

Will the gentleman yield?

I just want to make sure that it's clear what we're saying. I don't think anyone who supports this amendment believes they should cease to exist. You can go to their Web site. They also have the benefit of being a beneficiary of private funds that they raise in large amounts. They can raise money to continue their work. And it was Mr. Jackson who suggested that somehow no one else can do this work. The State Department has an Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction Stabilization. The Defense Department has an Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. These functions exist within the agencies. No one is saying it should not exist. It should exist, just not in this way.

You've got to understand, in the context of this CR, we have a binary choice: fund/don't fund. I agree, I would like there to be oversight since 1985 over this and to answer this question. To be very clear, you are not entirely correct. The money and the authorization to build the building came in the form of an earmark, a drop of $100 million by Senator Stevens that came from neither House, from neither committee. It just fell in there. And that was to build that building. We are catching up $780 million in.

Will the gentleman yield?

I just want to also make something else clear. You know, one of the ironies of the way the U.S. Institute of Peace operates is that they are also in the grant-making business with U.S. taxpayer dollars, about $50 million. They actually use this as a defense for their practice. They say, Oh, wait a minute, Congressman. We pass along some of our money to other institutions. We understand there are other people that do our business. That's not their job. That should be the job either of an agency that they're contracted with, the Department of Defense or State, or Congress.

Now we're saying that we need them to give money to other institutions. They, themselves, rebut what Mr. Jackson and what Mr. Berman were saying because they've identified universities and nonprofits.

The gentleman from Minnesota is exactly right, that there are institutions that do this. According to--this was just a very cursory search. 151 peace study programs are underway now in colleges around the United States. Just maybe one of them can do this as well. Maybe the competition will help some. Maybe a couple of them can work together to maybe figure out ways to do this same work. The presumption that we have here on this floor, that there's something magical about the U.S. Institute of Peace's ability to do it, is what the gentleman from Minnesota is referring to. I even heard that introduced in evidence. And if I went to the transcripts since 1985 of oversight hearings, I would have very little reading to do because we didn't have any. So what we're really relying upon is the benevolence of this organization to say, If you give us more than the $780 million we've gotten, we'll do good things with it.

The gentleman is exactly right.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to be heard on the point of order.

The intention of the rule that the chairman is referring to is to make sure we're not adding any additional spending. But in fact, by cutting the COPS program, you're actually adding an enormous amount of expenditure in the long run. And what the gentlelady is going to being doing by preserving COPS on the street, you have less crime, lower insurance rates, less costs for prevention. You wind up--COPS on the beat wind up saving money. They save money in another way. They save money because localities don't need to raise taxes to keep these cops on the street.

So I think the gentlelady's amendment is a net budget reducer, net budget saver. Sometimes we invest in things here that save money, and the gentlelady's amendment does that. So it's in compliance with the rule.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I proceed, I would make a unanimous consent request. There's a typographical error that should say $298 million, and it has only 5 zeros. So in the two places that that is stated, I ask unanimous consent to add the extra zero so it makes sense.

Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, this is to restore the COPS program and take money out of space. But before I do that, I really have to say I don't think this process is on the level. What are we doing here? We're figuring out which diminished amount we're going to take from to restore another diminished amount. This bill isn't going to become law. The President today said that he is going to veto this bill, as he should. It slashes funding on so many important things to our communities. I bet you most of the authors of the bill are praying that he vetoes this bill. But the fact is we're kind of in here playing this game. We're trying to take from one slashed account and move funds to another slashed account, but in the clear case of how the Republicans are swinging a meat ax rather than a scalpel--the COPS program, police officers, cops on the beat.

The COPS program has been a success not just because it's been a big- city program. You've got COPS over the first 10 years of the program in every single State. Every single community has had an increase because of police officers. And I thought being tough on crime was a Republican ideal. You slash this funding and what's going to wind up happening is your localities are going to have one of two choices: Lay off police officers or raise taxes some other way. It's going to be a net zero effect because they're going to want to keep these cops on the beat.

So where do we take the money to replace just the hiring component? We're not going to replace the whole program, just the hiring component. We're going to take it out of space exploration. I want to go see Mars, too, but I'd much rather have cops on the streets of Brooklyn and Queens. I want it for all of your districts as well.

But let's face a little something about this budget. It's an irresponsible budget you've put on the floor. I'm sure Mr. Dicks would agree it's irresponsible to slash air traffic controllers 20 percent. Who thinks that's a good idea? It's irresponsible to cut 1,500 cops on the street. Who thinks that's a great idea? It's irresponsible to say to middle class parents who are getting Pell Grants, Sorry, your kid can't go to college next year. Who thinks that's a good idea?

The President has said that he's going to veto this bill. Why don't we stop right now, roll it up, fold it up, go back and try to get this right? Let's try to come up with a commonsense budget. We know there are going to be cuts that are necessary. But to the COPS program?

We've got to understand here that these are going to require some tough choices. And I had a joking exchange with Mr. Dicks earlier, I think we can get more from Defense, I think we can get more from Agriculture. I get it. But, frankly speaking, I believe that there are some values that should transcend politics and transcend communities-- and one of them is how many police officers.

And not only are there a lot of cops going to these communities; let's look at what's happening. In Jackson, Mississippi, 347 cops, they had a 12 percent reduction in crime; Detroit, Michigan, 500 cops, a 7 percent reduction; Boston, Massachusetts, almost a 29 percent reduction in crime. This is a good law enforcement program.

So I will say on behalf of all my colleagues, and Congressman Grimm is supportive of this; Congressman DeFazio I think is here; Congressman Cohen is here; Congressman Pallone I know is interested in this; and we know Congresswoman Jackson Lee. Congressman Reichert on your side is interested. I can tell you this: If we asked every person to stand up who had

COPS hired in their district, every one of you would have to stand up. It's going to all 435 districts. So let's keep that program going.

Now, do I like the idea we have to take it from NASA space exploration? I don't know any of the crime statistics on Mars, and I'm interested, but it's a bad choice. If any of you like space exploration, so do I. In a way, I'm playing the game too. I'm taking from one place to give to another. But I do believe it's in the interest of all of us to try to set these priorities straight.

One of the things we can do is vote ``yes'' on the Weiner amendment and then do something else.

It's late. We've gone through this exercise for a while. Since it's really a Kabuki dance and since we know that this document isn't going to become law--the President has already said he's going to veto it, and we already know the American people are not going to sit back for a 20 percent reduction in air traffic controllers--how is it a Republican ideal to make the air traffic less safe? How is that a value that somehow drove this Congress?

That shouldn't be nor should it be that we reduce the number of police officers on the streets. That's not who we are as a country. It's not who we should be as a Congress. So I hope you support the Weiner amendment by taking from Mars and putting it in the streets of your district.

I think it's late. Let's fold up the rest of the bill. Let's go back. Let's have some bipartisan discussion, and let's try to figure out how to do this in a way that the President won't veto it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Weiner

Amendment No. 489: Page 203, line 23, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(increased by $501,500,000)''.

Page 204, line 4, after the first dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $25,385,000)''.

Page 204, line 5, after the first dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $25,385,000)''.

Page 204, line 6, after the first dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $168,723,000)''.

Page 204, line 7, after the first dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $168,723,000)''.

Page 204, line 8, after the first dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $298,000,000)''.

Page 206, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $501,500,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Weiner

Amendment No. 100: Page 321, line 7, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(reduced by $42,676,000)''.

Page 359, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $42,676,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Weiner

Amendment No. 101: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following new section:

Offered By: Mr. Weiner

Amendment No. 102: Page 195, line 6, strike ``in excess of

$112,000,000''.

Offered By: Mr. Weiner

Amendment No. 103: Page 220, line 18, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(increased by $14,900,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Weiner

Amendment No. 125: Page 203, line 23, after the dollar

amount, insert ``(increased by $298,000,00)''.

Page 204, line 8, after the first dollar amount, insert

``(increased by $298,000,00)''.

Page 206, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $298,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Weiner

Amendment No. 126: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Sec. II. None of the funds made available by this Act may

be used to provide assistance to Saudi Arabia.

Sec. II. None of the funds made available by this Act for

``International Military Education and Training'' may be used

for assistance for Saudi Arabia.

Sec. II. None of the funds made available by this Act for

``Nonproliferation, Anti-terrorism, Demining and Related

Programs'' may be used for assistance for Saudi Arabia.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, on the bill we're going to be considering shortly, the Presidential checkoff bill, there's a requirement under the rules that the amendments be printed in the Record. Is that Record available?

Further inquiry, does the Speaker have any guidance for the House on when that Record might be available so we can read what we're going to be considering in a matter of minutes?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Madam Speaker, we are seeing today that after 75 or so hours of markup, hundreds of hours of hearings, 16 months of long debate, thousands upon thousands of meetings and town halls, the Republicans come to Washington and don't know what they want to do in health care yet. My constituents should understand, and the Speaker should understand, that this resolution says, go back and figure out what we want to do.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would remind you that last year during the health care debate, the Republicans had a chance to offer an alternative. They didn't. Now they come to Washington and say, oh, let's have the committees go try to figure this all out. Yesterday they were the Party of No, and today they are the party of ``we don't know how to go.''

Who are these Republicans? After months and months and months of the national debate, you can go into any coffee shop, any church basement, just about any card game in this country and people have solid ideas about what they think about health care. But not the Republicans. They've got a resolution today that says, hey, committees, go try to figure this stuff out, it's complicated.

And by the way, I don't know, Madam Speaker, if I read it correctly, but I don't think there are any deadlines. I don't think there are any deadlines. I will eat this rostrum if they come back with legislation that actually accomplishes the things that they just repealed yesterday. It's not going to happen.

And this is the fundamental problem that I believe the majority party now has: they have the campaign slogans all down. I just heard the gentleman from Florida do one: ``unconstitutional.'' They have the campaign slogans locked. And I have to give them credit, they were successful with them. They came here, we're against, we're against, we're against. Well, now here it is. Unlike past Congresses that come in all geared up for the things they want to do, they're all geared up with a resolution saying, hey, go figure out what it is that we should do.

The American people deserve a lot better than this. They deserve comprehensive health care that saves them money. That's what was repealed yesterday.

I just want to respond to the distinguished chairman. The President did not say anything about this dastardly flawed bill. He said we should ``implement and improve.'' You say ``repeal and replace.'' You put that to a vote of the American people. Implement and improve is the way we build important legislation in this country.

I thank the ranking member of the Health Subcommittee and my colleagues.

You know, we're at about the halfway mark of this debate today. So I think it's time for us to kind of take a little review and also offer people listening at home kind of a viewer's guide to what they have heard and what they are likely to hear coming forward.

There are basically three formations of the argument by the Republicans:

First, they start by making stuff up. You kind of have to wonder if any of them actually read the bill: 137 new agencies--not true; new IRS agents--not true; death panels--not true; Members aren't covered--not true; no tort reform in it--not true.

You know, I want to just advise people watching at home playing that now popular drinking game of you take a shot whenever the Republicans say something that's not true, please assign a designated driver. This is going to be a long afternoon.

Then there are my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle that are basically pursuing the ``we don't really mean it'' strategy. My good friend, the new chairman, Mr. Upton, started his remarks with this long litany of things they are going to do in the new bill. They're going to have coverage for preexisting conditions. They're going to have help for the doughnut hole. They're going to make sure there are incentives for small businesses to offer insurance. You know what they call that, my colleagues? They call that the bill they're repealing. It sounds very strange, but they want to repeal the bill but they still want to give it a big hug and embrace as if they support the things.

And then, of course, there is the old fallback, and this is a particularly powerful one for the newer Members who are just joining us. It's kind of the bogyman strategy. You know, you pull those canards out of the sky: It's socialized medicine. Socialized medicine? Giving people incentives to go to private insurance companies? How is that socialized medicine? If that's the case, you all have socialized medicine.

Now, it's worth noting that this is the same Republican Party who last year in their budget alternative and this year in their campaign manifesto said, We want to end the Medicare program as we know it. I mean, they don't talk about it much, but that's their philosophy. And we have a fundamental disagreement about it. They say there is going to be a government takeover of health care. Really? Who's taking over what health care plan?

We're offering people tax incentives, small businesses tax incentives to go buy private insurance plans. You know, this was a proposal first made by Republicans that was adopted. We decided that that was the way to go.

But stay tuned, ladies and gentlemen. This is the sign of a philosophical division. You have one side that stands up for patients and for citizens and for businesses and the other side which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the health insurance industry.

But we've seen it. Whether they're making up things, whether they're creating bogymen, or whether they're saying, Well, no, we don't really mean it, this is a harbinger.

And I would say to Americans watching at home, think what side you're on. If you're in love with insurance companies and want them to succeed and you don't care about anything else, by all means, this is your team. These are your guys. But if you believe that we need to make sure that people get health insurance, that they're not passing along their bills to the taxpayers each and every single day, that you believe in programs like Social Security and Medicare, these are your guys.

This is kind of your half-time wrap-up for the debate that we're having here today. And those are the two sides. Ladies and gentlemen, pick your side.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I want my colleagues to understand, to say that you're not going to give them insurance, who do you think then pays for those uninsured? Who do you think then comes in and pays? It is your citizens in your towns, States, and cities. That's who pays for the uninsured and all of us who wind up footing the bill.

You talk about responsibility. What about the responsibility not to pass the bill along to everyone else?