Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the bill just considered.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank my colleague from Virginia who's been a tremendous supporter and assistance on this piece of legislation.

I rise in strong support of H.R. 1199, the Drug Endangered Children's Act. And let me also thank, as well as my colleague from Virginia, my colleague, Mr. Conyers, who's the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who also assisted us in bringing this legislation to the floor. I appreciate both their efforts on behalf of our Nation's children.

Drug trafficking and abuse have a devastating impact on the children of this country and contribute to domestic violence, abuse and neglect. According to a recent study, Health and Human Services has said that over 1.6 million children live in a home where at least one parent abuses illicit drugs, including cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin or prescription drugs.

In my district in the central valley of California, I have seen the harmful effects of methamphetamine on children's lives. While visiting schools in my area, I've been told by teachers and administrators and, frankly, by the students themselves, that a significant portion of the students have a parent or relative who abuses methamphetamine. Sadly, I know that I'm not alone, as similar stories could be told in other parts the country where illicit drugs are prevalent.

I'm particularly concerned about the impact of this drug epidemic and what it's having on our foster care system. According to the National Association of Counties, 40 percent of child welfare officials nationwide report an increase in child welfare cases caused by methamphetamine.

This issue strikes close to home for me. In my home county of Merced, California, between 67 and 75 percent of foster care cases are methamphetamine-related.

As a father of two adopted children, I have seen firsthand the damaging impact of drug abuse on the foster care system.

Ladies and gentlemen, we must do more to help these children in need. Methamphetamine is an extremely dangerous drug for children not only because meth addicts are more likely to abuse and abandon their children but also because meth-addicted parents often set up meth labs in their homes. These labs are highly toxic and susceptible to fire and explosions and therefore place innocent children in physical danger. In my district, children have been found at labs with burns from spilled ingredients from the methamphetamine production process. In addition, there is a high risk of lasting health damage from toxic fume inhalation. Tragically, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, children are found present at 20 percent of all meth labs that are seized.

H.R. 1199, the Drug Endangered Children Act, will address the challenges facing children abandoned, neglected, or abused by parents addicted to illicit drugs. The legislation would authorize the Department of Justice to make $20 million in grants available for drug- endangered children for fiscal years 2008 and 2009. The grants are designed to improve coordination among law enforcement, prosecutors, children protection services, social service agencies, and health care providers to help transition drug-endangered children into safe residential environments.

The Drug Endangered Children program would build on the successful Federal, State, and local partnerships of the COPS program and the Edward Byrne Memorial Grant program. By funding coordination across jurisdictions and among several different types of government agencies, the Drug Endangered Children program would foster cooperative efforts to address the needs of children affected by drug abuse. These grants would leverage the Federal Government's investment by offering an incentive for local government to invest their own money in confronting this important problem.

It's time to pass this vital piece of legislation. The 1.6 million children across this country impacted by parental drug abuse need our help. Let us help these children by passing the Drug Endangered Children Act and rid ourselves of the scourge of drug abuse.

I urge my colleagues to vote for H.R. 1199.

Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.

I rise in support of this amendment, Madam Chairman. And I wish to begin by thanking Chairman Frank for bringing this much-needed legislation to the floor, and for all his efforts to help the reeling housing industry in my area, and the country in general.

As we have heard from countless media reports, we are facing a growing mortgage crisis. Sadly, I represent an area that is particularly hard hit by this crisis. The community of Stockton has acquired the distinction of having the highest foreclosure rate of any U.S. city in the country, and there one in 20 households are in jeopardy of foreclosure at this time. In fact, Stockton has had 8,000 foreclosures so far in 2007.

This morning, the Modesto Bee reported that central California and central valley homeowners were six times more likely to be in mortgage default for last year than the national average. In addition, home values have plunged 15 to 20 percent so far this year.

This amendment will address this problem and help ameliorate the harsh effects of the credit crunch. First, the amendment raises the FHA loan limit to the lower of, A, 125 percent of the local median home price or, B, 175 percent of the national GSE conforming loan limit.

The biggest impact of this will be to make FHA loans available in low- and moderately income priced home markets. By raising the local loan limit up to 125 percent of the local median home price, FHA will be able to serve currently neglected populations and ensure loans in this vast and middle-market area. In addition, the amendment will have the effect of serving high-cost areas as well. By raising this artificial cap to 175 percent of the GSE conforming loan limit, the amendment will allow FHA to serve high-cost areas.

California has some of the highest priced real estate anywhere in the country. This amendment, by expanding FHA's reach to high-priced areas, will finally bring the benefits of FHA to millions of deserving Californians.

In addition, there are other areas of the country where this will have a monumental impact. Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut and other areas are all high-cost areas and will benefit tremendously from raising the loan limit. Raising loan limits and enhancing the ability of FHA to serve currently neglected populations will have the effect of generating more liquidity

in the market and enhancing lender confidence. This will enable more borrowers who are facing loan resets to refinance their mortgages on more favorable terms.

This amendment has strong support of the National Association of Realtors, the National Association of Home Builders, and others on the front lines of the housing industry. They know the needs of this industry, and they know that this bill will help.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Miller, for his kind and accurate comments. And I would like to now yield 1 minute to my colleague from California (Ms. Waters).

I yield 1 minute to the chairman of the committee, Mr. Frank.

Madam Chairman, in the short period of time we have remaining, I just want to thank the chairman of the Financial Services Committee for his leadership, my colleagues on the Republican side for their support, particularly Mr. Gary G. Miller. This is important legislation for our country when you live in an area where the housing prices have declined precipitously by 20 percent less in a year, where you see foreclosures rampant. In my district alone, there are probably over 20,000 such foreclosures. It is having real impacts on real families in my district and across America. We need to change these regulations and bring help to these citizens in need.

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from Massachusetts for yielding.

Madam Speaker, as a subcommittee chairman on the House Agriculture Committee and as a member of the Rules Committee, I am pleased to rise in support of the Agriculture appropriations bill before us today.

One of the reasons the farm bill that we just passed last week was so hard to put together was over the past years the Republican appropriators had repeatedly chipped millions and millions of dollars out of mandatory farm bill programs, specifically in the area of research, and research is an area that has been woefully inadequately funded in previous years. As a result, the rest of the world has been catching up, and we have been struggling to maintain our preeminence in agriculture in the last few years.

We used to have a $30 billion trade surplus in agriculture, and now, like in everything else, we are falling behind and having that traded away. If we aren't careful, we are going to become a net importer of agriculture for the first time in the history of the United States. It is bad enough that countries like China, Japan and Saudi Arabia are already our bankers. We cannot afford to let them become our farmers, too.

This bill represents a stark difference from the drastic cuts we have seen in recent years. Members of the Agriculture Committee and the Appropriations Committee were vigilant to ensure that we met the promises we made, especially in the areas of research, food safety and nutrition.

I do have some concerns, however, about the horse slaughter transportation language contained in the bill which could have unintended consequences on the horse racing industry, an industry I have strongly supported since my time in the California legislature.

I am hearing from a lot of my constituents back home that have serious

problems with the potential workability and practicality of some of that language. My good friend from California (Mr. Costa) and I are working with Mr. Chandler and Chairwoman DeLauro to correct this problem.

Madam Speaker, this is a good bill. It follows through on our commitments, reinvests in rural America, improves nutrition for millions of Americans, and puts us on the right track by making sound investment in research, and will help us maintain our standing in the world as undisputed agricultural leaders.

I also want to thank and say something about our wonderful chairwoman, Ms. DeLauro. Without her help, we would not have been able to write the farm bill we wrote last week. She is a tireless advocate for her concerns in specialty crops and farmers markets and nutrition and making sure that our young people eat nutritious food, and also food safety. With her leadership, we got the farm bill done. With the leadership of Collin Peterson, we got the farm bill done. And with the leadership of Speaker Pelosi, we were able to write a good farm bill for America.

I want to thank the chairwoman and all those who helped. She has done an unbelievable job shepherding this bill through her committee and to the House floor. I thank her and congratulate her on meeting the needs of America's farmers.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I understand that the CBO has determined that my amendment violates the PAYGO rules. As such, I would like to engage the chairman of the Agriculture Committee and the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee in a colloquy.

As you both well know, buried within the authorization of the Homeland Security Department was a little-known provision that mandated the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's 1,800 agricultural inspectors move from USDA to the newly created Department of Homeland Security Customs and Border Protection Division.

This move was made in order to consolidate custom and border enforcement into one agency, a decision I'm sure was made with all good intentions in mind. However, as the GAO has recently reported, since the transfer of these USDA employees, Customs and Border Protection has not developed sufficient performance measures to take into account the agency's expanded mission or to consider all pathways by which prohibited agricultural items or foreign pests may enter the country.

Mr. Chairman, this deficiency in our border security cannot and should not be tolerated. Stopping foreign pests and prohibited agricultural products from entering the United States might not be as sexy as stopping terrorists, weapons, or drugs, but it is certainly as important.

These are six-legged terrorists, Mr. Chairman, that can wreak havoc on our Nation's agricultural industry, costing billions of taxpayer dollars in eradication efforts and decimate our ability to access new export markets.

I would like your assurances that by withdrawing this amendment I have the commitment from both of you to work with me on this issue.

While I certainly would prefer to see these employees moved immediately back to USDA, where I believe they belong, my greater concern is that wherever they are right now, they must certainly have the tools and resources at their disposal to do their job effectively and efficiently.

I would like to have a hearing on the staffing, training and morale problems that persist within the agency. I also believe that we should direct USDA and the Department of Homeland Security to develop standardized, reputable

training programs that properly identify and assess the major threats posed by foreign agricultural pests and disease.

I believe USDA and Homeland Security should be required to fully and accurately account for all agricultural quarantine inspection fees. But perhaps most importantly, I want this issue to have the attention it deserves from both Agriculture and Homeland Security Committees.

Preventing pest and disease infestation is a paramount concern to all of American agriculture, but primarily to our specialty crop industry. I have vowed to fight for them on this issue and would appreciate your help in ensuring their concerns are met.

I have been working closely with Congressman Adam Putnam on this issue, and I would be happy to yield to my friend from Virginia on this issue.

I thank the gentleman.

I will yield.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 574 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on House Resolution 574.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 574 provides for consideration of H.R. 2419, the Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007 under a structured rule.

The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Agriculture.

The rule waives all points of order against the bill and its consideration except for those arising under clause 9 or clause 10 of rule XXI.

The rule makes in order 31 amendments.

Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, as the subcommittee chairman on the House Agriculture Committee, and as a member of the Rules Committee, I am pleased to offer this progressive Federal farm policy act for consideration today.

Over the past year, the Agriculture Committee members have traveled across this country, from north to south, from east to west, hearing directly from farmers and ranchers about the state of agriculture in our country. Across rural America we have heard from farmers and ranchers from all walks of life talking about the promise of American agriculture, the immeasurable innovation and success and commitment to sustainable farming.

The 2007 farm bill builds on past successes of Federal farm policy by providing a reliable safety net for commodity crops, expanding access to conservation programs, increasing participation in domestic nutrition programs, and, perhaps most of all, most near to my heart, this bill dwarfs any previous Federal investment in specialty crops, which account for nearly 50 percent of American agricultural production.

Chairman Peterson, Ranking Member Goodlatte, and the entire Agriculture Committee were able to craft an equitable, fiscally sound farm bill that preserved the farm safety net while including critical funding for important new programs.

Furthermore, the 2007 farm bill contains unprecedented reforms to payment limitations and crop insurance programs that will reduce waste, fraud, and abuse so often identified with the farm program.

More importantly, this bill is completely paid for. During the past election, Democrats promised to live within our means like every household in America is forced to do and stop writing blank checks with reckless abandon. We pledged to exercise spending restraint to stop shouldering our Nation's needs on the backs of our children and grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that we were able to do exactly that.

You will hear a lot of talk from the other side of the aisle about this bill raising taxes, but this is simply a scare tactic in an attempt to score political points. This is completely untrue.

Let me set the record straight before we even begin. This bill does not raise taxes. The 2007 farm bill closes tax loopholes that just 5 years ago the Bush administration and its own Treasury Department identified as tax abuse. In a policy paper issued by the Office of Tax Policy in May of 2002, the Bush administration identified how corporations headquartered in tax havens use this loophole, and a June 18, 2002, New York Times article stated that Republicans in Congress also thought that this tax loophole needed to be fixed. These are the facts.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I must take a moment to thank Chairman Peterson, Speaker Pelosi, Leader Hoyer, and the entire leadership team for their tenacity and sincerity in creating a farm bill that we can all be proud of and stand behind.

Not everyone got everything they wanted, and, frankly, they shouldn't. The farm bill should never be a place to line up at the trough and recklessly suck up needed resources. In the end, while people didn't get everything they wanted, everyone got what they needed. That speaks volumes about the quality of this bill and tells me we ended up in exactly the right place.

I have never been more proud of a piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to telling my constituents in the 18th District of California that the United States Congress has

accomplished what was thought to be an impossible feat. I urge my colleagues to support this rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Speaker, a short response.

I'd just like to say that if these folks were complying with Federal and State law, why are they sending their receipts through Caribbean islands?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

I would suggest that the other side knows a lot about Enron accounting, Mr. Speaker. But we also made three substantive commodity cut amendments in order: the Kind amendment, the Udall amendment, and the Davis amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to at this time yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to set the record straight. The gentleman would like to say that this is the first time we have had a structured rule. That is absolutely not the case.

In 1996, the farm bill that year, when the Republicans were in charge, allowed 16 amendments. It was a structured rule. This rule allows 31 amendments.

Further, Mr. Ryan accused us of busting the budget because of timing shifts. Let me just point out that the 2002 farm bill had $2.6 billion in timing shifts, and the 2006 budget resolution had $1.5 billion in shifts, with a total of $4.1 billion in timing shifts on their watch.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the chairwoman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time we have remaining?

Would the gentleman like to take some of his time at this point?

I respect the gentleman from Washington, but we will have a significant amount of time in the discussion of the bill in chief.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

We object, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kagen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Does the gentleman from Washington have any remaining speakers?

Mr. Speaker, I object to the request to extend debate. As the gentleman from Washington knows, there will be another hour of debate on the bill and then 31 amendments. There is ample time to debate this bill, so I would have to object.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have stood here for the better part of an hour as we debated this rule, and I frankly cannot believe what I am hearing.

It sounds to me like the Republican caucus of this body is actually considering voting against the thousands of farmers, their families, and the millions of people throughout this country that rely on farming for their livelihood in favor of a few wealthy international companies who are deliberately evading U.S. tax law and big oil companies that have been gouging Americans at the pump.

The truth is that the Ways and Means Committee has taken the advice of the Bush administration and closed a loophole for tax cheats in order to pay for lifesaving nutrition programs for millions of Americans. This energy offset comes from reducing taxpayer subsidies for multinational oil and gas companies that have enjoyed a free ride from this Congress for far too long.

The price of oil today in New York was $75 a barrel. Is that not enough for Americans to pay? So enough with this song and dance. This is about closing loopholes for tax cheats, a loophole that your Republican administration has been advocating. This is closing a loophole for tax cheats, a loophole that this administration has been advocating being closed for years, as it is reducing windfall profits for Big Oil.

I urge my colleagues to make the right choice here and stop playing politics with the American public.

We used to have a $30 billion trade surplus in agriculture. Like everything else, we are trading that away. If we aren't careful, we are going to become an importer of agricultural goods for the first time in the history of the United States. That won't happen on our watch.

It's bad enough that countries like China, Japan, and Saudi Arabia are our bankers. Let us not make them our farmers, too. That is not the way this country was built, and I assure you this new Democratic Congress will not abandon our farm community.

This is a once-in-a-lifetime bill that will meet our country's needs. Every major group, the commodities, the specialty crops, the nutrition groups, the conservationists and others support this bill.

A ``yes'' vote on this rule and the underlying bill is a vote for the hungry, a vote for the environment, a vote for energy independence, but, most importantly, a vote to deliver on our long-standing commitment to rural America.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

The previous question was ordered.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I'm proud to stand with you, on the House floor, at this historic moment in the development of U.S. farm and food policy.

For the first time in the history of the farm bill, this year our farm policies will put fruit and vegetable growers on an equal playing field with commodity farmers. Fruits and vegetables are a growing and important component of American agricultural output.

In 2006, U.S. production of specialty crops--fruits, vegetables, tree nuts, dried fruits and nursery crops--accounted for $53 billion, or 44 percent of total U.S. crop receipts.

The fruit and vegetable industry benefits from marketing, research, and educational programs, rather than traditional crop subsidies, to manage the challenges of increased global trade and foreign competition. These challenges include increasing domestic consumption, reviving export growth, aggressively managing food safety, and mitigating pest and disease problems.

The 2007 Farm Bill addresses these challenges by providing $365 million in new mandatory funding for the specialty crop block grant program. Block grants are vital for ensuring that solutions to these myriad challenges are flexible and locally driven.

This bill also responds to the pest and disease management needs of the specialty crop industry by establishing a comprehensive early pest detection and surveillance program. The bill provides $200 million in mandatory funding for this new program to work in cooperation with State departments of Agriculture.

The needs of America's nurseries are addressed by directing USDA to collaborate with nursery industry organizations as it develops, tests, and disseminates new systems of nursery pest and disease management.

It also establishes within USDA a program for a National clean plant network. This network will provide a sustainable source of pest and disease free horticulture stocks.

Organic Agriculture

This bill responds to the preferences of consumers across the United States by making an unprecedented investment in organic agriculture. Organic foods are the fastest growing sector of U.S. retail food sales--growing at approximately 20 percent annually over the past decade.

In 2006 organic retail sales reached almost 3 percent of the entire United States food and beverage market. The 2007 Farm Bill recognizes growth in the organic food sector by expanding the assistance available to producers converting from conventional agriculture to organic production.

To help with the transition the 2007 Farm bill provides $22 million in mandatory funding for the National Organic Certification Cost Share program.

Organic farmers need reliable market information to assist them in production and marketing decisions.

This bill does that by providing $3 million in mandatory funding for data collection on price, production volume, and other organic market characteristics. Most data currently collected by USDA is of little relevance to organic producers because it is collected without regard to the method of growing.

The historic recognition of the horticulture and organic industries in the 2007 Farm Bill is an important accomplishment and sets American farm policy in a new direction for the 21st Century.

Madam Speaker, it is with the greatest pleasure and gratitude that I rise today to recognize the Merced County VFW Honor Guard for their many years of selfless service on behalf of their fellow veterans of the United States of America. I am particularly honored to recognize this team of individuals as they served as Honor Guard at the burial service of my own father, Manuel Cardoza, who served in the U.S. Merchant Marines during World War II.

For many years, members of the Winton VFW Post #7792, the Atwater VFW Post #9946, and the Merced VFW Post #4327 worked together to help conduct proper burial services for our local veterans. These individuals have worked long hours and gruesome schedules in order to serve their fellow veterans. Within the last few years, they have averaged 157 burial services, dedicated 4511 man hours, and traveled more than 4800 miles each year.

I would like to take a moment to recite the names of the veterans who have dedicated their time, energy and resources to providing their fellow veterans with honorable burial services as members of the Honor Burial Team. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring those members of the Honor Guard who have gone before us: Louis Gonzales #9946, Paul Gunderson #7792, Ernie Dominquez #4327, Wyn Aguirre #9946, David Barrone #9946, John Aue #9946, Mel Hode #9946, Vern Kolander #7792, Bill and Evelyn Petrie #7792, Bill Butler #9946, Charles Hickman #9946, Frank and Mary Gaffney #9946, and Bryce Tillman #9946. And it is with great sincerity that I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the current members of the Merced County Honor Guard: Commander Richard Clerkin #7792, Chaplain Ken Wenrich #7792, Honorary Chaplain Father Tom Timmings, Rifle Team Captain George Stroud #7792, Bugler Bill Dacus #4327, Quarter Master Don Dean #9946, Ray Baker #7792, Dick Darby #7792, Ernie Connor #7792, Judge Brown #7792, Gerald Dunker #7792, Byron McNamara #9946, Ken Henn #9946, John Douglas #9946, Bill Oliver #9946, Tony Castro #9946, David Loeser #9946, James Tyson #9946, Willie Kimoto #7792, and Ishmael Hernandez #9946.

Throughout our history, brave men and women have risked their lives to preserve freedom for future generations. It is a tradition unlike any other. Each member of the United States Armed Forces is an inspiration to the American people in their patriotism, skill, and selfless dedication to the ideals that make this Nation great. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring the Merced County VFW Honor Guard for their service and for their selfless commitment to honoring their fellow veterans with the most appropriate and necessary military burial. I wholeheartedly extend my sincerest appreciation to each individual of this outstanding team. Thank you for serving our country with bravery and honor, and thank you for continuing to serve your fellow veterans.

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

Mr. Chairman, I intended to offer an amendment with regard to sea turtles. I would like to engage in that discussion for a bit. I will not offer that amendment; I would like to discuss it with the chairman of this Appropriations Committee.

There are currently six species of sea turtles, the green, the hawksbill, the Kemp's Ridley, the leatherback, the loggerhead and the Olive Ridley sea turtle. All six are listed as threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act.

Sea turtles face a range of threats from land and sea. Their nesting beaches are under constant attack from pollution, trash, debris, predators and vehicles driving on the dunes.

Once out of the nest, sea turtle hatchlings use light cues to find the sea. Artificial lighting near the beach can disorient hatchlings, leading to dehydration and death.

In the water, sea turtles face even more serious threats. Every year, thousands of sea turtles are injured or die after becoming entangled in discarded fishing gear and other marine debris, from ingesting plastic bags or oil and tar, from being crushed by dredges, and by being accidentally caught by U.S. commercial fishing operations. The latter is one of the most serious threats facing sea turtles.

Sea turtles are accidentally caught in gill nets, trawls, long-lines and dredges, subjecting them to severe injury, crushing, or drowning.

The U.S. Government authorizes commercial fisheries to kill nearly 10,000 sea turtles and harm another 334,000 each year. And that is only what is authorized, not what actually occurs.

In addition, the government does not adequately take into account that when a sea turtle is injured, its swimming, hunting, and reproductive abilities may be severely impaired, further jeopardizing the population.

Currently, approximately one in 1,000 sea turtle hatchlings survives to adulthood, one in 1,000. While they are long-lived, they also reach reproductive maturity late in life. Due to the many risks they face, however, relatively few sea turtles survive to maturity, and even fewer live to reproduce.

In order for the sea turtle population to recover, we must do a better job monitoring the population and strengthen the necessary protective enforcement measures. The Cardoza-Hastings-Castor amendment was quite simple: it provided an additional $1 million for sea turtles under the Protective Species Research and Management account for the National Marine Fisheries Service.

What I have done with the chairman is to request that the chairman work with us, and I would like to now yield to discuss with the chairman what we might do moving forward.

I thank the chairman. I look forward to working with him. That is acceptable to us. We will work together as this bill goes to conference to see how we can better deal with this issue.

My daughter Brittany is 13 years old, and my daughter Elaina is 10. They both have encouraged me to work on

this. One knows that we have to try to abide by our children because they usually have the right take on what is right in the world. I thank the chairman for allowing me to work on this issue.

I thank the chairman.

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

Again we have worked with the chairman. There was an amendment that I was going to offer with regard to the CASA, Court Appointed Special Advocates, program. This is an issue I am very passionate about as two of my children are adopted. They were into the foster care system and into adoptive placement because of a CASA volunteer seeing the desperate situation they were both in.

The current CASA funding only allows for 50 percent of the children who are under court supervision, under court custody to receive the assistance of a CASA volunteer. The program is underfunded.

I had originally intended to fully increase this funding so that every child could have a child advocate and a CASA. That is not authorized under the authorization, so we have withdrawn the amendment at this time, but I will work with the gentleman in the future to make sure that we do the right authorizing legislation so this appropriation can be dealt with in the appropriate way in the future.

I thank the gentleman for his advice and leadership in helping me work on this issue.

I thank the gentleman for his extraordinary leadership and for his indulgence of his time.

Offered By: Mr. Cardoza

Amendment No. 38: Page 11, line 19, after the dollar amount

insert ``(increased by $1,000,000)''.

Page 22, line 19, after the first dollar amount insert

``(reduced by $1,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Cardoza

Amendment No. 7: Page 6, line 23, after the dollar amount

insert ``(reduced by $3,000,000)''.

Page 11, line 19, after the dollar amount insert

``(increased by $3,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Cardoza

Amendment No. 16: Page 83, after line 6, insert the

following new section:

Sec. 529. The amounts otherwise provided by this Act are

revised by reducing the amount made available for ``Bureau of

the Census--periodic censuses and programs'', by reducing the

amount made available for ``DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE--General

Administration--administrative review and appeals'', by

reducing the amount made available for ``DEPARTMENT OF

JUSTICE--General Administration--salaries and expenses'', and

by increasing the amount made available for ``Office on

Violence Against Women--violence against women prevention and

prosecution programs'' for the court-appointed special

advocate program, by $10,000,000, $2,350,000, $3,650,000, and

$16,000,000, respectively.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act.

It is long past time for a change of direction in Iraq. For far too long, this institution merely acted as a rubber stamp and never asked the hard questions necessary of the Administration.

That begins to change today. The passage of this bill will require the Administration to confront the consequences of their bad choices and, more importantly, set us on a responsible path for ending our involvement in Iraq.

This legislation would begin the responsible redeployment of U.S. troops within 120 days and complete redeployment by April 1, 2008. In addition, troops could remain in Iraq for the limited purposes of fighting terrorism or to train Iraqi forces.

This bill is a measured response to the quagmire we find ourselves in. As has been clear for some time, Iraq is currently engulfed in a vicious civil war. This strife between Sunnis and Shiites goes back 1400 years and the American people never signed up for refereeing a civil war.

Moreover, this bill expressly allows for our troops to remain in the region for the purposes of fighting terrorism or to train Iraqi forces.

Our enemy in this conflict is Al Qaeda. They are the ones who attacked us on 9/11, they are the ones who declared war on the United States, and they are the ones we were told were in Iraq. This bill allows our troops to do whatever is necessary to root out Al Qaeda and ensure they will not be able to use Iraqi territory as a safe haven.

Moreover, by augmenting our ability to train Iraqi police forces, this bill places the onus for Iraqi security squarely where it belongs--on the Iraqis themselves. This Administration has only given lip-service to the importance of training Iraqi soldiers and has allowed the bulk of the security responsibility to rest on the shoulders of our brave American men and women.

This is not only unfair, it is counterproductive. We keep hearing-- ``we'll stand down when the Iraqis stand up.'' This bill, by beginning the belated shift of responsibility from the American military to the Iraqis, will finally force the Iraqis to stand up.

As many have said, the problem of Iraq will not be solved militarily. No less than our military commander in Iraq--General Petraeus--has said that Iraq will not be solved with military means. Only by engaging the full weight of our diplomacy we will be able to force the political compromises necessary that will bring some measure of stability to Iraq. This bill, by redeploying our troops and thus signaling our recognition of the importance of diplomacy, will finally put the Iraqis on a path towards peace.

The time is now. The American people are clamoring for a change in our Iraq policy and, despite the recalcitrance of the Administration, a change in policy will come. After close to 5 years, billions of dollars spent, thousands of our soldiers dead, maimed, or wounded--we simply must chart a new course.

As always, this Congress stands ready to work the President to find a bipartisan solution to Iraq. However, veto threats and refusals to deal with the reality on the ground are no longer tolerable. We must all negotiate an end to this conflict in good faith with a clear and honest recognition of the challenges we face. For my part, I stand ready to work with my colleagues to engage in such a constructive dialogue.

Mr. Speaker, let's end this. Let's bring our soldiers home and thank them for a job well done. Let's pass the Responsible Redeployment Act.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask to withdraw the amendment that I just brought forward.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, shortly into my tenure as a Member of Congress in 2003 the General Services Administration, the GSA, notified me that my office space at the Bell Station in Merced, California, which I shared with the post office and the IRS would no longer be available for lease.

My office was in an historic building, and, most importantly, I was conveniently located downtown for my constituents. Despite my vigorous protests, I was literally kicked out of the Federal building.

If that wasn't enough of a slap in the face to my constituents and myself, 2 years later the GSA declared the Bell Station post office to be surplus property. The GSA closed the post office with no rhyme or reason and started to dispose of it, with no community input and no plan to replace our post office.

The GSA's handling of this situation was deplorable. The GSA turned a deaf ear to my constituents and ignored the needs of a local community.

In my 4\1/2\ years in Congress, nothing has elicited as many phone calls and letters and editorials to my local paper than the GSA's handling of post office closure in my hometown.

The GSA's blatant disregard for a community's needs hasn't only occurred in my district. This has been repeated with reckless abandon in districts across the country.

Make no mistake about it. This can happen to any Member of this Congress, and every community across America is at risk.

Three local entities in my home county attempted to obtain a historic building from GSA for public benefit use.

However, in the blink of an eye, and without advance notice to the applicants, the GSA reversed course. The GSA indicated it would put the building out for public auction and sell it to the highest bidder.

I have confirmed with the GSA experts that the GSA's activities are not only inconsistent with its mission, but are also well outside proper protocol.

I have made countless efforts to work with the GSA to rectify this situation in my district so that local communities can obtain the building. My repeated requests have been ignored. The GSA even refused to respond to a simple letter I wrote until I submitted amendments to this bill that would cut the GSA budget by 10 percent.

After panic set in at GSA, GSA sent a useless response that doesn't address a single one of my concerns, and leaves just enough wiggle room to back out of any promise of working with the original applicants. The GSA then delivered to a letter to other Capitol Hill offices, not to my own. When I was told that GSA representatives were in the Cannon Building today, they didn't even have the common courtesy to speak to me or my staff.

Mr. Chairman, this reeks of mismanagement. It shows a lack of oversight and accountability at GSA.

My amendment is very simple. It provides an additional $6 million to GSA's Office of the Inspector General. It is paid for by cutting the GSA's policy and operations account, including the Office of the Administrator and the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs.

The Inspector General will ensure that the agency is operating in the best interest of taxpayers and is not beholden to the political process or to special interests.

It is absolutely critical that the Inspector General's office has the tools and resources it needs to hold the agency accountable for its actions. And it is critical that we, as Members of Congress, ensure that government is meeting the needs of our communities.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

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

The gentleman from New York is correct. I will be happy to withdraw my other amendment if, in fact, we adopt this amendment that is more acceptable to the committee.