Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, last night, we were informed over and over again by the other side of the aisle that we were supposed to follow what's become known as the Obey rule, O-b-e-y. Now, out west where I come from, that's pronounced ``obey.''

So I looked up in the dictionary to see what o-b-e-y means, and it's from middle English and old French, and it means to carry out or fulfill the command, order and instruction of, to carry out or comply with the command, or to behave obediently. That's the problem.

We have been told that we are supposed to obey, that is, behave obediently at the whim of the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations and their staff.

I was not elected to obey anybody here. I was elected here to represent the people of the Third Congressional District of California. That's what the debate was about last night. That's what the debate will be about today, and that's what the debate will be about for the rest of the appropriations cycle.

Mr. Speaker, we've heard from the perspective of those who have, unfortunately, suffered tremendous loss in gun violence. We've heard from those who are champions of the second amendment. We've heard from the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee.

I would like to bring the perspective of someone who was required to enforce the laws concerning guns in the State of California as Attorney General. Background checks in the State of California go through the California Department of Justice. We have, probably before the Federal law was passed, certain requirements or restrictions from those who ought not to have weapons that I think there is absolutely general agreement on.

Under current law, you cannot do that if you have illegally entered the country, renounced your citizenship, been committed to a mental institution, or been legally declared mentally defective and a danger to others, if you have received a dishonorable discharge from the military, or illegally used drugs or are addicted to illegal drugs.

I think virtually every American can agree that that makes sense. We agreed that that makes sense in California a long time ago.

But the background check is only as good as the information in the system. And while States such as mine can do a very good job with respect to their own records, a huge loophole exists if someone who has been declared mentally deficient in another State moves into your State and you don't have those records. If someone who has a disqualifying felony from another State comes into your State, you don't have those records. And so this allows more accurate information to assist all the States in doing the job that their people have agreed ought to be done. There's very little dispute on this.

For many years, the National Rifle Association has said they supported accurate background checks, so long as there was an ability for people to challenge them if, in fact, they're improperly in those records. And that is in current legislation, strengthened in this legislation.

Some of the States have had difficulty with respect to their funding. This assists in that regard.

It seems to me, this is a responsible way of responding to a serious problem. It is one which is not driven by the extremes. It is not driven by emotion. It is driven by conscious effort to try and find a reasonable response to a continuing problem.

I support this wholeheartedly. I congratulate those on both sides who have done such a good job of working to make sure that this bill came to the floor, and that it was not in some way sidetracked by extraneous arguments.

And so I congratulate the authors. I congratulate the members of the committee leadership, and I urge unanimous support of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure now to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Austin, Texas, the left- hander (Mr. McCaul).

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. This is a bipartisan bill. This goes across ideological lines. It goes across lines of organizations that in the past may not have worked together.

There were some comments on the floor with which I disagree. This is not open season on all the medical records of every American citizen. If you are adjudicated, you will find yourself in this system. And I think most Americans believe that if someone has been adjudicated with a mental defect which is a danger to society, they ought not to have a weapon.

There has been an effort to try to reach a reasonable compromise on how we deal with a very difficult situation dealing with veterans, where overreach in the past by the Veterans Administration has caused trouble with respect to those who ought not to be included in the system. But it doesn't automatically allow all these folks to come in. It is not an open door. They have to go through the system. They have to show that they ought not to be disabled from receiving a gun.

Whenever you talk about the second amendment, it seems to me it ought to be done with proper deference and proper respect for the Constitution. At the same time, this is not an unconstitutional deprivation of any right. The courts have been very clear that people can be denied the right to guns in these categories. We are not expanding the categories. As a matter of fact, we are creating in this legislation mechanisms to make it work better.

I can recall being on the floor in the 1980s when we were dealing with very tough debates on gun laws, and at that time the National Rifle Association's position was that they would support an instant background check system. The technology really wasn't there at that time. It really wasn't there. We are not totally there yet, but we are almost there in terms of instantaneous.

This is the kind of background check that we had hoped we could discuss on the floor back in the 1980s. It was sort of a dream, and some people thought it was a ruse at that time to stop legislation. Now it is a reality. It is something that can work, and this legislation makes it work better.

May I just reiterate: when I was the chief law enforcement officer of the State of California, we relied on the accuracy of the information contained in our records at the California Department of Justice. Similarly, the only way we could make sure that our laws work effectively and the Federal laws work effectively within our State is that we have proper information on adjudications from other States. And it is unfair to the citizens of my State to have people disabled from using firearms because they have been adjudicated legally with respect to a mental deficiency and yet others come in from other States, take up residence in our State, and because we don't have the records, they are allowed to have such weapons, which we believe to be a danger to society. So that is what this legislation does.

The other thing is, remember, there is an ability to challenge being placed on these lists, and that is enhanced in this legislation. There is, yes, funding that encourages the States to participate. But isn't that the way we would like it? We want the States to participate. We want the information to be accurate. We want to have a system that actually is accurate, informative, and instantaneously accessible by proper authorities.

So please remember we have not done something which puts Americans' medical records at risk unless you have committed a disqualifying crime or unless you have been adjudicated by a court for having a mental defect which would prove to be a danger to society.

I would ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

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

Mr. Chairman, aren't we supposed to alternate between sides?

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman who has just spoken has talked about dedication to homeland security by the members of the subcommittee and the full Appropriations Committee, and perhaps inadvertently suggested that others' concern about that does not rise to the same level. I would suggest if that is what the gentleman meant that he is wrong.

I think it is fair to say that all Members in this House were affected, both personally, professionally, and as Americans by the events of 9/11. I would suggest that while some of us may believe the sense of urgency is not maintained at all times with respect to the threat that faces us, there is in fact in much, if not everything we do, the sense of the background of the vicious attack on 9/11.

The gentleman talked about the Appropriations Committee and the appropriations subcommittee. I happen to be a member of the authorizing committee, the Homeland Security Committee. I believe we have acted in a bipartisan way.

But just to indicate a few differences between what is in this bill and what we have done in the past on a bipartisan basis or coming out of the Homeland Security Committee, the chemical protection regime that we established last year, after much discussion, after much debate and after much balancing is changed in this bill.

The border fence, which has been the subject of much debate, much attention, I happen to support it and proudly support it. I do not believe it is the panacea, but it is part of the solution. Many in the American public have wondered whether we meant what we said when we passed the legislation that authorized and appropriated funds for the border fence. They must have many more questions today, because in this bill it makes it more difficult to complete that task. Some would suggest it makes it impossible. Now, I happen to be a lawyer; I plead guilty. But if I wanted to have lawsuits to stop the fence, I would say hallelujah when I looked at this version of the law that is contained in this bill that is presented to us.

One of the gentlemen on the other side talked about detention facilities. I introduced the first piece of legislation that stopped the ``catch and release'' program followed by this administration and previous administrations dealing with OTMs, or ``other than Mexicans,'' caught on our southern border. One of the reasons why they were caught and released and told to come back in 60 or 90 days for their court appearance, and 94 percent of them never did, by the way, was because we didn't have sufficient detention facilities. So ICE has said in addition to those we own, we ought to see whether we can use privatized detention facilities. This bill makes it difficult, if not impossible, to do that.

So please don't tell us on the floor that some on that side of the aisle are more concerned about homeland security than we are.

This bill places restrictions on personnel management policies that have been adopted by the Homeland Security Department, recognizing the uniqueness of their mission.

So please don't tell us that those on that side of the aisle are more concerned about homeland security than are we.

Perhaps those on the other side of the aisle believe that the only way you show sincerity is by throwing more money at it. There is a difference. That is why the ranking member, the former chairman of this subcommittee, is going to offer an amendment to bring this back down to a level that can get passed. If you want a veto, as you did for 120 days with the question of supporting our troops, you can get it on this as well.

The former chairman, the current ranking member of the subcommittee, is going to offer an amendment that will make it more probable than not that this bill will be signed by the President. Yet, in an effort to show that you feel more on this issue by throwing more money at it, you are going to subject us to the same political routine that we just went through with respect to funding our troops. 120 days lost.

We have plenty of time to debate this bill and other bills on the floor. All we have to do is make sure we stay here and debate it.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, 28 years ago I first took to this floor as a newly elected Member of Congress from the State of California. At that time we were spending more than we were taking in.

At that time I was one of those who joined others, oftentimes, in voting against appropriation bills because we were not taking seriously enough the direction of the people that we represented to, yes, spend money where necessary, but get our financial house in order.

During those first 10 years I served in this House, many times I was on the short end of spending votes. I recall during the 8 years of Ronald Reagan supporting him oftentimes on vetoes. And we managed to bring some of the spending down that was presented to him on occasion, but we still didn't do a good enough job.

I left this House for 16 years, and when I returned, I thought maybe we would see another day. Well, I was doubly disappointed because my party, then being in power, was not doing that which I thought was necessary, again, to bring our financial house in order.

And as much as I worked hard to ensure that my party would retain the majority status in both Houses, the people spoke otherwise. And I thought maybe this would give us an opportunity to finally get our fiscal house in order, because I had watched as we had dropped the banner of fiscal responsibility. I had watched, during the election, my friends on the other side of the aisle picking it up and suggesting that if they were put in charge, they would do what we had promised to do in the past.

And alas, I thought that we had some suggestion that that might be the case as the majority party took over and, in adopting the rules, took the rules that we had on some reform of earmarks and actually built upon them, suggesting to all of us and to the public at large that we would, in fact, be more transparent; that we would, in fact, be more accountable; that we would, in fact, have greater responsibility for all Members individually, and in this body, collectively.

And then I look at the very first bill that is presented here for this fiscal year from the Appropriations Committee, and I must register deep disappointment. In the first instance, this is an important bill, the appropriations for Homeland Security. There is probably no other appropriation bill that is more worthy of consideration, except perhaps the DOD, because, fundamentally, we are responsible for providing the security of the people who send us here.

And yet, while the people tell us that is what they want us to do, they also suggest that we need to get our fiscal house in order.

So how do we balance that? It seems to me we have to be honest with ourselves. If we get rid of all waste, fraud and abuse, we still won't get our fiscal house in order.

We have to have the courage to look at important bills such as this bill and say, are we spending wisely? Is every dollar spent here necessary? Do we need to have a 13.6 increase over nonemergency appropriations from the previous fiscal year?

And I would suggest that unless we look carefully at bills such as these, which are the most important bills that we have before us, we will never do the people's work appropriately.

And I'd just ask, how is it that we say we are going to be more faithful to our commitment to the people, to give them a sense of responsibility, when we are told that we won't know what earmarks there are when we vote on the bill because they won't be there then, but they will somehow be dropped in in the conference report? I don't understand how that increases transparency.

Now, I was just a lowly English major, and so I'm burdened by looking at the dictionary. And transparency means that you see better; that you see through things; that it is more obvious to you, not obscured. And for the life of me, I can't understand, if I'm denied the list of appropriations that are going to be put into that bill at the time I'm voting for it, how that fits the simple dictionary definition of transparency. Perhaps I can be aided by the other side to explain this to me, because I cannot understand it.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

And I'm sorry some thought that after we spent 120 days getting to a single bill on spending for our troops, and after we spent Monday voting on important things such as changing the U.S. Code to recommend that people fly their flag on Father's Day, that

someone thinks allowing me to speak an extra minute is somehow offensive. I'm sorry that that is the kind of courtesy that is missing on this floor.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. And I would just like to conclude by saying this. If we truly want to get our house in order, Democrats and Republicans alike, we have to understand that it is when we're dealing precisely with those things that are most important that we find the courage to make sure that every dollar is spent wisely so that we can then move on to things such as waste, fraud and abuse. But unless we have the guts to do this, we're never going to get our fiscal house in order.

I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment. I support the idea of funding the Department of Homeland Security appropriately, but question whether a 13.6 percent increase over nonemergency appropriations in the previous fiscal year shows either that we have exercised that proper authority with respect to spending, and whether or not we have been discreet enough in our decisions.

And I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would feel compelled to support that type of approach.

And, Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman is criticized at that time for having a cut through his amendment, I would suggest that those of us who want to lose weight should follow that kind of argument. Because we could say, instead of gaining 50 pounds, we only gained 30 pounds, and, therefore, we managed to lose weight.

If the gentleman would yield, I will be proud to vote for your amendment to have a 7.1 percent increase, which, as I understand, is more than double the rate of inflation over the previous year.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Let's understand some first principles. Human dignity is not reserved for adult human beings. The premise of human rights protections is that they are not contingent on arbitrary criteria such as size or location.

Ethical considerations must be weighed in light of the advances being made using adult stem cells, including those derived from cord blood. As has been mentioned, those advances are substantiated by peer review studies confirming improvement in many types of cancers, cerebral palsy, sickle cell anemia, paralyzing injuries, autoimmune diseases, metabolic disorders, neural degenerative diseases and heart damage.

This is consistent with the second principle of the Nuremberg Code, the directives for experimental human subject research, which are published at the Web site of NIH.

The principle reads simply, ``The experiment should be as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.''

Or as President Clinton's National Bioethics Advisory Commission said, ``In our judgment, the derivation of stem cells from embryos remaining following infertility treatments is justifiable only if no less morally problematic alternatives are available for advancing research.''

Well, we know they are. We talked about, before the House debating the bill earlier this year, the study published in Nature Biotechnology Journal, finding that amniotic fluids contain cells that can be cloned to produce stem cells to behave like embryonic stem cells.

We had today's article referring to the Nature Journal, publishing a study, showing that normal skin cells can be reprogrammed into an embryonic state in mice.

Instead of embracing this, we hear from the gentlewoman from Colorado, her words, shockingly, another scientific result reported yesterday. They seem to always come up whenever we're debating the bill. They are because that's what science is doing.

Vote this bill down.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard sentiments from the other side of the aisle about the vote that is going to take place today. I would like to throw a few facts on the table.

One, the President asked us 110 days ago for this support; 110 days. Nothing has changed with his request, the need for the support of the troops, from then until now, except we have gone through political exercises to try and limit the ability of the President and, more importantly, his commanders in the field, from doing what they think is best.

I have heard it said that we need a new policy. We have a new policy. I have heard it said, we need a new military commander. We have a new military commander. I have heard it said, we need new tactics. We have new tactics.

The problem is, as the President has presented this, as we put this into effect, all we hear is, no, no, no, and no. That is not a policy; that is a denial. That does not support the troops. Unfortunately, it makes it more difficult for them.

Let's remember as we vote to support our troops, we could have done this and should have done this 110 days ago.

Mr. Speaker, as we sit here and listen to this debate, both on this rule and on the 1-minutes that went before us, one thing is passing strange. I heard my friends on the other side of the aisle complain or lament that the problem with this bill is that it does not hold the President in check. We're dealing with a wartime supplemental. I thought the purpose of that is to hold the enemy in check, not hold the President of the United States in check.

I heard another Member of the other side of the aisle say, Republicans now, you understand, you own this war. Are we trying to make a political statement, or are we trying to help our troops? Are we trying to do some political dance, or are we trying to stand behind our troops?

I heard from the other side of the aisle, you Republicans are continuing this war. The enemy is continuing this war. Have we lost sight on what it is we're supposed to be talking about here? Have we lost sight on what it is that our troops are thinking about? Is this something where we define somebody other than the enemy on the field as the enemy?

We now have heard from the distinguished lady from New York that the surge has failed. She has joined others, including those in the other body from that side of the aisle, who have made the determination, not that this policy will fail, not that it cannot succeed, but they have now declared, as she has said, that the surge has failed. Perhaps she should talk to General Petraeus. Perhaps she should talk to our military leaders in the field. I don't question her sincerity, but I would suggest that perhaps General Petraeus has a better idea about what the circumstances on the ground are. Has he declared victory? No. Has he said he believes that victory is achievable? Yes. Has he told that to our troops time and time again? Yes. Has he quoted the gentlelady from New York to say to our troops, as I send you out on this mission, understand that the surge has already failed? No, he has not. No, he has not.

We hear repeated on this floor, we need a change in mission. We need a

change in policy. We need a change in leadership.

You have a new Secretary of Defense. You have a new military commander. You have a new mission on the field. And yet as it begins to unfold, what do you say? What do we hear said on this floor by those who ask for those things? Not, let's see if it works, the President has listened to us, we have the best of the best, the best warrior leader we have in our country who has come up with this plan, who has put his imprimatur on this plan, who tells us and tells the troops this plan is a plan for victory.

But no. What do we hear? ``The surge has failed,'' we hear uttered on this floor. ``The surge has failed.'' If you believe it has failed, then why have we been fooling around with all of these other things? Why don't you just have an up-or-down vote, get us off this funding completely, tell the troops the only thing to do is to take them home?

But what have we heard from the other side? They say, we don't have the votes to do that, so we are going to have death by a thousand cuts. That is why it has taken us 110 days plus, because of the strategy to somehow do by indirection what the Constitution won't allow you to do by direction.

We have heard it again and again and again from the other side of the aisle. Their dictionary begins with ``F'' and the word ``fail,'' and it ends with the word ``lost.'' You will not find in their lexicon the words ``victory'' and ``win.'' You will find only ``failure'' and ``loss.'' And not that we will fail, but we have heard the pronouncement from the majority on this floor today we have already lost. That is the message they are sending by their vote today, and they have told us what it is with an exclamation point.

Troops in the field, we sent you on a mission that is a mission to fail, and it has already failed. What a terrible message to send to our troops. We should reject that notion. We should support our troops. We should support this funding. And we should stop trying to play the ``gotcha'' game here on the floor of this House.

Mr. Speaker, I come to this floor reluctantly to oppose this rule. Why? Because it does everything that we ought not to do with respect to the committee process here.

Now, if some people outside this Chamber wonder why the committee process is important or if it is important at all, well, if you look at the 9/11 Commission recommendations, one of the important recommendations they made was to have a single point of responsibility, a single point of oversight in this House for the Homeland Security Department. The very reason we created the Homeland Security Department from about 22 other agencies and Departments was for the purpose of consolidating and giving direction to our response to a new threat to this country. In like manner, here in the House of Representatives, the recommendation by the 9/11 Commission was that we have a primary committee to do that. And that is the Committee on Homeland Security.

We have endeavored to work on a bipartisan basis. When we were in control 2 years ago, we did that. And now when the Democrats are in control, they are doing that. We had vigorous and open debate. We had a number of amendments adopted on the Republican side so that we pass this bill out of committee unanimously, not a dissenting vote. And we recognized that we were putting aside partisan differences to work for the best interest of this country.

So now we come to the floor, and 50 percent of that bill has been ripped out by the manager's amendment. It just happens to be that 50 percent is virtually all the product of Republican amendments that were adopted in committee on a bipartisan basis. And then they make in order about 22 amendments but not amendments that go to putting back into the bill what we put in there on a bipartisan basis. And virtually, not all, but most of the amendments in order are from Members who are not members of this committee.

So you say, why is this being done? And we understand we are genuflecting to the jurisdictional disputes argued by already existing committees. So what we have done is, rather than following what the 9/ 11 Commission has said, we have made a worse situation. We not only have the already existing committees that the Homeland Security Department has to report to. They now report to us as well.

Now, is this the efficient way? Is this the way you act when you are dealing with a serious problem? This ought to rise above all partisanship and all kinds of nonsense about jurisdiction of committees. I don't know how we can go home to our constituents and say, oh, yes, we got rid of that stuff that was really good that gave us an advantage in this war on terror because we were concerned about another committee that used to have jurisdiction.

Last year one of the things we heard was just do the right thing and adopt all the 9/11 Commission recommendations. Adopting this rule flies in the face of that. We ought to understand that.

We ought to vote down this rule, bring back the bill as it came out of the committee on a bipartisan basis, and then go forward on a bipartisan basis for the best for the American people.

I thank the chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the underlying bill, but oppose the manager's amendment that will be presented basically as the alternative to the bipartisan work product that came out of the committee on a 29-0 vote, I believe. Not a single dissenting vote, Democrat or Republican, was recorded in the committee after we had gone through long debate not only on the base bill as it was presented to us, but numerous amendments presented by both Republicans and Democrats.

9/11 is the seminal moment of this century. It changed the world in which we live. One would hope that it would change the manner in which we work in this House. In many ways, that has occurred with respect to the bipartisan approach that has been utilized in the committee itself. We recall that in the last Congress, we managed to pass the SAFE Ports bill, a bipartisan product, all the way from subcommittee to full committee to the floor to working out the conference with the Senate. Essentially there wasn't too much to work out; they adopted our provisions. And then, on to the President of the United States to sign it. That showed that we can work in a changed world with a changed approach in this House. That is why today is so disappointing.

We have a completed product coming out of the committee, a 29-0 vote, with numerous amendments adopted after full consideration by both Democrats and Republicans, and yet a large portion of that will be stripped out with the manager's amendment to be presented by the chairman of this committee.

I do not question the motivation of my chairman. In fact, I want to believe in my heart that he would rather not tear his own bill apart. I believe he would like to have the whole thing

here. Why? Because we believe it is a better bill that actually goes further to protect America.

Some heard on this floor Mr. Reichert from our committee, a distinguished member of our committee, the former sheriff of King County in the State of Washington, concerned about the lack of interoperability that reigns across this land. Mr. King has spoken on the floor about the tragic consequences of a failure of interoperability on 9/11. Others in law enforcement throughout this country talked about it. We approved $1 billion a year ago. In this bill we actually allow greater flexibility so that first responders can utilize this money to make interoperability a fact, and yet that is stricken from this bill if we adopt the manager's amendment.

There are any number of other things that are involved here. One of them that seems to me to be extremely important, and we have held hearings on this, is strengthening maritime alien smuggling laws by denying alien smugglers the use of maritime routes and enhancing penalties for alien smuggling; taken out.

Also, the 9/11 Commission has made it very, very clear that business as usual is not acceptable, and that means in this Congress, and suggests that we should reorganize ourselves so that we have a prime committee that deals with these matters, not because it is a matter of jurisdictional pride, but because of a greater efficiency, a greater oversight, a greater responsibility, a greater accountability and having us mirror the new arrangement that exists in the executive branch.

And so we express a sense of Congress to do this, to carry out that important recommendation of the 9/11 Commission; stripped out by the manager's amendment. There is no real good argument why it should be stripped out except it is.

There is a pilot program for mobile biometrics identification of apprehended aliens at sea and authorizing $10 million for the program. We discussed this. There is a need. There is a vulnerability we have with respect to aliens at sea, and yet we strip it out of here.

I don't believe there is any good argument that you're going to hear on the floor for adopting the manager's amendment, because they have to point to those things that are stripped out to suggest why they're bad, why they don't enhance our security.

I recall when the majority leader came to the floor a year ago, or a little over a year ago and congratulated us on our bipartisan approach for the SAFE Ports bill. I wish he could come to the floor again. If you listened to his words carefully, he said, ``The committee has given us a good bipartisan bill.''

I agree with the majority leader. Let's keep the bipartisan bill. Let's pass it. Let's defeat the manager's amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule.

Let's understand what this is. This is a closed rule suggesting that this is a perfect bill. This is anything but a perfect bill. People ought to understand that we are denied the opportunity to present a single amendment on this floor, and let me explain to my colleagues the single amendment I wish to bring to the floor.

This bill defines hate crimes to include a number of different subjects. One of them is a crime committed against someone where the hate was motivated by hatred for their sexual orientation. ``Sexual orientation'' appears as an undefined term in the bill.

I offered a simple amendment to define sexual orientation as it is noted in the U.S. Code, the only specific reference to a definition in the U.S. Code, which is a note that is a footnote in the statute which directs the Sentencing Commission to take into consideration hate motivation when they want to enhance penalties. There is no statutory definition of it, however, with respect to the crime itself. And that note refers to sexual orientation simply as consensual homosexual or heterosexual conduct.

Now, why would they not allow us to have that simple amendment, which when we discussed it in committee, I was told that is what they meant the bill to be? The chairman of the committee said to me it sounded like a reasonable amendment because that's exactly what they intended it to be. So why don't we have the opportunity to offer this amendment on the floor? I do not know.

And why would I be concerned about a failure for us to define this term? Because if you use the term ``sexual orientation'' and use the definition found in the dictionary of those two words, it means any orientation of sexual conduct. Now, why would I be concerned, being a former attorney general of the

State of California and having served in this Congress now for seven terms representing my State? Because I recall some 20 years ago when a debate ensued in my then-existing district in Palos Verdes, California, where the local chapter of NAMBLA, which is the North American Man/Boy Love Association, NAMBLA, and the dispute was that they wanted to have their local chapter meetings at the local library. Some of you may have seen their banners in certain parades that take place in San Francisco, where NAMBLA, instead of hiding, proudly proclaims their position of ``sexual orientation.'' They argue, for instance, that we are denying children their right to have sexual expression with adults and that somehow we are hampering their development.

I am not making this up, my colleagues. This is a fact. And under a nondefined term of ``sexual orientation,'' that very well may be included.

I could give you other examples, but that is a current example. And in order to make sure that that kind of activity is not enshrined in the law and given special protection, I asked for this simple amendment. And when I was in debate in the committee, I was told by the chairman that it made ample sense and we ought to work to do that.

So then I go before the distinguished Committee on Rules, make this presentation, have no argument against it, and yet am denied the simple opportunity to offer that.

So the question is why? If you don't want to extend this definition, if you don't want to have this free play out there in the legal atmosphere, why do you deny me the opportunity to present this simple amendment? Is there a hidden agenda here? Is there something we don't know? Are we flying under false flags here? What are we doing?

This is more, my colleagues, than just a dispute between the majority versus the minority on the Rules Committee. This is more than just hampering the minority. This is a question of simple definition which goes to a crucial question in our society today.

So my concern, my colleagues, is not fanciful. It is not made up. It is not something that may happen in the future. This is based on an experience that I have seen for 20-plus years in my home State. And yet when I asked to have this considered, I was told that it made eminent sense, we basically hear a great silence. A great silence.

Now, we can have games here in the House of Representatives, majority versus minority, but when it affects the lives of our constituents, when it affects in a very real way a serious social question in our society, it seems to me we ought to rise above this kind of nonsense, and we ought to at least give the Members the opportunity to consider it.

Maybe the Members don't agree with me. Maybe the Members think we ought to expand this definition. But at least we ought to have the chance to debate it.

Last time I checked, we're not under a time clock here that requires us to leave. We could consider this.

So I would ask my colleagues to please vote down this rule. Allow us to bring forward a rule that allows consideration of these and other amendments.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, hate crimes are a serious issue. That's why 45 out of the 50 States have laws against them. That's why we have an already existing Federal law where there is a Federal interest involved.

Unfortunately, this bill is not necessary or is not drawn appropriately for any specific Federal problem. Some 20 years ago, I remember supporting the gentleman from Massachusetts against an effort by a Member on my side of the aisle to remove homosexuals from protection under the Hate Crimes Act at the time, that is the Hate Crimes Statistics Act. That went to the definition.

I am concerned about the definition in this bill. I mentioned this during the rule. In this rule there is no definition of sexual orientation, which becomes a protected class in the sense of enhanced penalty or a new crime for protection for such a victim.

We asked whether we would put the definition that is noted in the statute that goes to the sentencing commission in the bill. In fact, many on the committee said that I had a good idea. Yet, I was denied the opportunity in committee and in the Rules Committee to present that.

So, therefore, we have no definition of sexual orientation. I wanted the simple definition that's recognized in the note to the sentencing commission, which limits it to homosexual or heterosexual conduct. So, now we have an undefined term of sexual orientation.

Why am I concerned about it? Because I come from the State of California, where, for the past 20 years, we have had a problem dealing with an organization called NAMBLA, North American Man/Boy Love Association. They march in parades. They asserted the right, under the first amendment, to be able to hold their meetings in the local chapter in a library in my district. That's a sexual orientation.

Without limiting the definition, as I asked us to do, we open up the potential for creating a new protected class. I do not understand why the majority refused to allow us a serious amendment to just define what this is and get rid of this problem.

We were told, look at the statute. It defines it. We found out it didn't. It said it does it by reference. We went to it. The only reference is to a note to the sentencing commission. It is not defined.

If this is not taken care of, this bill, I know it's not the intent, but it becomes essentially a NAMBLA Protection Act, because it allows that sort of conduct or any other sexual orientation to be considered because there is a lack of definition.

Why you didn't allow it, I don't know. But you didn't allow it. On that grounds alone, this bill ought not to go forward.

This bill needs to be reviewed, it needs to be amended, it needs to be perfected. It doesn't do what it claims it does. It has an expansion beyond all that anybody would support. At least in the committee they told me they didn't support it.

They said they would take care of it. They didn't take care of it. I asked for a simple amendment in the Rules Committee. We were denied a simple amendment. I don't know why you are doing this, but it is a failure of this bill and will probably defeat this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this is a serious issue, and people ought to recognize it's a serious issue.

There is something called hate crimes. And in the past, the Supreme Court has looked at issues to try and differentiate between mere speech and speech connected with conduct and how you articulate a law in a proper way that does not offend the first amendment, which allows terrible speech. One of the prices of our democracy and one of the prices of this society is to allow terrible speech, not to say you accept it, but to allow it.

And so the Supreme Court has carefully reviewed hate crime legislation. When I was attorney general of California, we issued an amicus brief before the Supreme Court to support one version of the hate crime legislation in one State that was similar to ours in California. We declined to do it in another State. And in that one in which we declined to do it, the Supreme Court found that it was afoul of the law.

That's why I think it's very, very important how we carefully construct a hate crimes bill. The underlying premise of this bill is that we should extend the already existing Federal hate crimes legislation, which has a Federal nexus, based on the individual victim or victims being involved in a protected Federal activity.

This bill goes beyond that and suggests that the constitutional nexus with Federal activity is that hate directed against the particular protected classes here somehow restricts interstate commerce. And I would just suggest that the findings in the bill did not have evidence to back it up. And I think there may very well be a constitutional attack that is successful in the Court on that. That's why we are concerned about the way this is written.

Second, there are those who suggest that we will not have the concern become a reality expressed by some on this floor and by some outside this floor that this somehow will chill free speech. The suggestion is we've carefully crafted the legislation so that's not to be the case.

I would just direct our attention to another section of the bill which calls for participation by the Federal Government in the investigation and prosecution of crimes at the State level which delineates the definition of hate crimes in the first two paragraphs but, in the third paragraph says, or any other hate crime established by State law. So what we are doing is extending it beyond the carefully constructed definitions that we have in this bill, considering the constitutional questions and extended it far beyond that. That is another legitimate concern about this bill.

And so I would just say that I hope we don't get totally involved in the argument that there are no hate crimes and they, therefore, never should be involved in our criminal justice system, versus that they are the worst of all crimes, or they are so essentially different from others that those who are subjected to attacks because of a random attitude by the perpetrator, or for reasons outside the protected class, somehow don't have the sufficiency of interest or the sufficiency of importance to be included.

Hate crimes exist in our society. Hate crimes are to be condemned in our society. As I said before, that's why 45 States have done so, most of them successfully in negotiating the shows of constitutional concern that are created by the first amendment. And therefore, one might suggest that we need to review this in far greater detail than we've been allowed thus far.

Madam Speaker, we come to this floor as representatives of our constituents, of the American people. And I am astonished to hear some of the comments on this floor. We can disagree in terms of policies. We can disagree in terms of decisions, but to go from that to suggest lies, to suggest deception, to have a distinguished Member on the other side of the aisle say this past weekend that we ought to consider impeachment of the President, this declaration of defeat from the Democrats that is sent to the President's desk today ought to be vetoed by this President.

General Petraeus was here last week presenting to us his view of what's happening. And, frankly, I think General Petraeus has a better idea what we need to do than any other erstwhile general sitting here in the halls of Congress.

We can only have one Commander in Chief. We had a unanimous decision in the Senate to send General Petraeus there and yet, now you are trying to undercut his mission by this Democratic declaration of defeat.

Let us have the President veto it as soon as possible.

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on behalf of our departed colleague, Juanita Millender-McDonald, with whom I only had the privilege of serving for the last 3 years, but who was an office mate, had the office just down the hall from me my first 2 years back here this time around; and then I had the proud honor of serving on House Administration with her.

More than that, she represented a portion of my hometown of Long Beach, and we would often talk about our mutual interests in some of the people and institutions there, particularly my love for Long Beach Memorial Hospital in my hometown.

In every conversation I had with her, in every dealing I had with her, she was very gracious, very generous of spirit, always upbeat. I was surprised to hear of her illness and surprised to hear of her passing because in every conversation I had with her, she never gave an indication that she was in pain or suffering or in any way challenged by this illness.

She seemed to radiate a fulfillment in being in this House and the work she did. I know she was very proud of the people she represented, her constituents, and I know she was proud of the communities she represented. And I know she was proud of the firsts she represented, both here in the Congress and in the California legislature.

This place is a tough place. We battle oftentimes over ideas and we battle over ideology, and yet the human aspect of this place is forgotten by many who look out or look upon us from the outside, but it is always here. And I always enjoyed every encounter I had with Juanita. She was a pleasure to work with. She was someone who took great pride in our State of California, and I think she will be someone who will be sorely missed in this House.

It is my pleasure to stand here and say good-bye, Juanita. I enjoyed working with you. You will be missed.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Republican substitute. There is a clear difference between the two proposals on the table.

The Democratic plan, despite the protestations of its proponents, does, in fact, contain the largest tax increase in American history. We have heard time and again their referring to the language that is in their bill which talks about tax cuts. But I would suggest their tax cut promises are written with invisible ink. They talk about how they want to do it, but there is no means by the way they will do it. And they also promise to have a balanced budget and yet, without the tax increases inherent in their proposal, they cannot reach it. We have no tax increases, period. None in this budget.

In the Democratic budget, they include a $22 billion increase in nondefense spending above the President's request, on top of the $22 billion of unrequested spending in the supplemental and $6 billion in the omnibus.

Our budget includes a freeze on nondefense, nonsecurity spending, while providing additional funds for veterans, for the war on terrorism, for Community Development Block Grants, for NIH, and Science and Technology.

In entitlements, they criticize us for attempting to look at entitlements and to bring across savings. We admit we attempt to do that, because we recognize the obligation we have as stewards of the people's money and stewards of the future of our children and grandchildren.

So come out here and criticize us for attempting to look at these entitlement programs to begin, just to begin, to get the courage to deal with what we know we have to deal with.

Now, our budgets can either be made so flimsy that they will fly away in the wind, or they can actually have some weight to them so that we begin the tough process, and it is a tough process, of dealing with reform of entitlements so that we do the job that is expected of us by our constituents and, more importantly, by our children and our grandchildren.

I rise in strong support of this substitute by the Republicans.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I must disappoint you. I have no charts. I was in this body a number of years before and then left and came back; and, frankly, I have never seen such a war of charts as we have on the Budget Committee. They are instructive. But facts really matter.

Dandy Don Meredith, the famous philosopher on Monday Night Football, once said, ``If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, then every day would be Christmas day.'' And that really describes the Democrats' commitment towards not raising taxes. They say it as a matter of policy, but in terms of actually doing it, they not only wouldn't put it in but they resisted every amendment we brought forward.

And they like to talk about, well, let's go back to the last few years; let's see what happened back here and what has happened with the Republicans.

I came to this House in 1979, one of the last times the Democrats had control of the White House, control of the House, control of the Senate, and they were talking about budgets then and they were coming forward with their proposals. And what did we have then? We had something called stagflation. We had inflation raging at 13.5 percent, the prime lending rate was 15.3 percent, the unemployment rate was 7.1 percent. Of course, the top marginal rate was 70 percent. They were resisting tax cuts.

We came in and said it might make sense, when President Reagan came in, to reduce marginal rates, to reduce the impact of taxes on the American people, not only because it was fair to them but because the real genius of our economy is the production of jobs in the private sector.

And I would like to ask them, what do they think would happen if we go back to their same old days, one of the last times we had, for an extended period of time, the Democrats controlling the Senate, the Democrats controlling the House, and what they want to do in 2 years is control the White House as well.

If we move in that direction, we may very well get back to the times of Jimmy Carter when you did all those things, and the worst impact was not on tax rates, was not on inflation, it was on jobs. Jobs. Economists were telling us at that time, following your prescription, that we couldn't have a sustainable rate of unemployment below 6.5 percent. We now have it at 4.5 percent, 4.6 percent. That is the greatest social welfare program we have ever had in this country, jobs to American citizens.

And I understand how you have greater faith in the Federal Government, have greater faith in government at all levels to create jobs than do we, but the facts speak for themselves.

Looking at your particular proposal with the tax increases it has, it would not only affect the wealthy, it would affect in my home State of California 12,839,000 people at an average increase of $3,331.

Now, you may not want to admit to it, but your increases in spending, your refusal to do anything about the increases in mandatory discretionary spending that are taking place during the lifetime of this budget that you present, and your claim that somehow you don't raise taxes but you magically come up with a balanced budget, it just doesn't add up. It is like that movie, The Illusionist. It may sound good, it may look good, but, you know, you go behind the curtain, and there is nothing there.

Now, if you can explain to us how economics would allow you to raise spending, refuse any cuts, refuse to even bring down the rate of spending, and you don't increase taxes but you have a balanced budget, God bless you. Bring your charts out. We would love to see it.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good day in some respects, and that is that we have this bill on the floor, H.R. 1401, the Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007. It follows up on work that we began in the last Congress on a bipartisan basis.

I would say the committee acted on a bipartisan basis all the way through. It is a shame, however, that bipartisanship stops at the edge of the Rules Committee. When we made an attempt to ask for reasonable amendments in this regard from members of the committee of jurisdiction, the Homeland Security Committee, we were rejected.

I might just talk about the one amendment that I had asked to be considered dealing with whistleblower protection. The bill has in it now a provision which is extraordinary in its breadth and which is unique in its application of criminal law. People wonder why we would be concerned about this when we all agree we ought to allow whistleblowers, when acting properly, to expose wrongdoing.

The problem is we are in an area dealing with security, and this would allow an employee to make an individualized determination, without further review or even perhaps without all the relevant information, to disclose classified information. We ought to be concerned about that. My amendment would have dealt with that.

For some reason now in the manager's amendment we are going to exempt these criminal penalties for many Federal employees, but we are going to

impose them on State and local employees, criminal penalties and punitive damage awards. So we are going to have a situation in terms of sensitive information that might be revealed by an employee and therefore action taken against that employee, and the government unable to respond to that, because under this whistleblower protection law, there will not be the ability for the government to talk about protecting basically state secrets.

What we are talking about here are areas of sensitive information. This goes along with the gentlewoman from Florida's amendment to try and protect sensitive information. Both of those amendments were rejected.

I would hope that Members would vote down this rule so we might have a chance to do our job and at the same time protect sensitive information.