Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased and proud to recognize the pastor of my hometown church in Somerset, Kentucky, Dr. French Harmon, who presides over the First Baptist Church, Somerset, Kentucky, where he has a valuable lesson for his congregation, which I am now proud to briefly repeat.

He says three important words every Sunday: celebrate, connect, and care. Dr. Harmon reminds us to celebrate Jesus Christ and what he sacrificed for us. He tells us to connect with one another in our communities, at work, and at home. And he tells us to care about our fellow human beings, whether friends, strangers or mere acquaintances.

As the Congress goes about the people's business in this Chamber, let these words guide us as we strive to make the country a better place. As we press ahead with the issues of our time, let's follow the most basic lessons of our faiths that teach us to do right by others. Let's remember the higher power that we answer to and to whom we are ultimately accountable.

I am very proud of my hometown pastor who reminds me of what really counts, what's really important, and why we are here. Dr. Harmon is a leader. He has grown his congregation 50 percent to 600 over just the last year. He coaches little league baseball, he leads prayer breakfasts at the local chamber of commerce, just as he did yesterday at the National Prayer Breakfast here in Washington. He celebrates, connects, and cares, not just on Sunday but every day.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to honor Dr. French Harmon. His wife, Rachel, and three children and Rachel's parents are with him here in Washington.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 44 minutes a.m.), under its previous order, the

House adjourned until Tuesday, February 12, 2008, at 12:30 p.m., for morning-hour debate.

Madam Speaker, I want to bring notice to the House of an all-volunteer rescue squad in eastern Kentucky which was founded nearly 50 years ago in the aftermath of tragedy and will be nationally recognized this month for their citizen preparedness efforts.

The Floyd County Emergency and Rescue Squad, Inc. was formed in 1958 after a school bus went off the road and crashed into the Levisa Fork of the Big Sandy River. Back then, there were no responders close enough, and 27 people perished in that accident. We have a rich tradition in eastern Kentucky of fixing our own problems when solutions seem too difficult, or even impossible. Two of the founding members of the rescue squad lost their children in the accident. They vowed that something like this should never happen again, so a small group of people got together and volunteered their time to be on call so that others might be saved. Because of their efforts, people traveling on rural, mountainous roads in Floyd County can know that help is on the way should they need it.

With 32 members, Floyd County's rescue squad is going strong. They work in coal mines, at the local retail store or as police officers. They have an operating budget of less than a typical Kentucky household, yet keep their well-worn trucks in good running order and are ready to respond whenever needed. More people understand what citizen preparedness means after 9/11 and Katrina. But it also means being prepared for any catastrophe where seconds count and trained personnel are needed when the injured are trapped. Citizen preparedness is nothing more than a concept without committed people who make it happen. These people don't get paid but choose instead to answer to a higher calling--helping their fellow citizens in times of need.

The National Congress on Secure Communities in Washington, DC, will be recognizing the Floyd County Emergency and Rescue Squad, Inc. on December 17 for their efforts to keep people safe. It is national recognition for our local heroes.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to recognize the Floyd County Emergency and Rescue Squad, Inc.--the people who provide public safety in parts of our country where it would otherwise not exist.

Madam Speaker, I want to bring to the notice of the House the long distinguished career of one of Kentucky's greatest attorneys, Jerry Winchester, who is returning to private life. His career spanned the wide expanses of the profession, from private practice to prosecuting attorney and judge. He was tough but fair, diligent and prepared--attributes that command the respect of anyone who has ever witnessed him in a courtroom.

Circuit Judge Jerry Winchester is leaving the bench after 20 years of deciding major civil and felony criminal cases--the murders, assaults, robberies and drug cases. He brought closure to victims and justice to perpetrators and there was nobody better.

His judicial circuit, made up of McCreary and Whitley Counties, has the highest caseload in Kentucky. Yet, he ran the court at a steady clip to handle the load, when it could have bogged down under less able leadership. He had few staff, and in the early years, none at all. He was the sole judge for over a decade and citizens counted on him alone for conducting speedy trials. This basic right, embodied in the sixth amendment of the Constitution, was upheld for thousands in southern and eastern Kentucky because of this one dedicated individual.

As the Commonwealth's prosecuting attorney in the 70's and 80's, Jerry Winchester was not interested in ``running the numbers,'' or measuring success by how many people he put in prison. When offenders deserved harsh punishment, they got it. He weighed fairness and ethics to seek a punishment that fit the crime in those many cases where good judgment is the only thing that keeps justice from unraveling. The golden scales of justice were felt in the courtroom, it was witnessed over and over by judges, attorneys, victims, criminals and juries.

Before serving as Commonwealth's Attorney, Jerry was a high school teacher, an FBI

agent and a lawyer in private practice. He served as a Sunday school teacher for 35 years. These real-life experiences made him understand people better, as the best judges and attorneys do.

Now as Jerry heads into retirement he will have time to pursue his varied interests. These include taking up piano lessons with his seven- year-old grandson Jerry Paul and ballroom dancing lessons with his wife Nell. When he masters the piano and ballroom dancing he can tend to his bees and keep making honey and hunt and fish.

I am proud to know Jerry Winchester. There are only a few people like him. These rare individuals don't seek glory, and they don't have to. Faithfully adhering to legal principles as lives hang in the balance leads to its own recognition. It is unto itself and as pure as gold--it will never rust and will always shine. There is no substitute.

Madam Speaker, I commend to you and our colleagues of the House, the outstanding career and public service model of the Honorable Jerry Winchester of Kentucky.

Madam Speaker, I regret that I must inform the House of the passing of a great American in my home community who stood tall on the mountaintop and watched over many people all around her.

Jennie Rachel Catron lived through more tragedy than most people, and in spite of it, showed leadership, stability, strength, love, discipline and direction until the day she left us at 91, on October 14, 2007. Her lesson to us is that it's not what happens to you in life that matters; it's what you do about it that counts.

To her children, she was their hero. To our community, she was our devoted volunteer. She inspired all of us to never quit and to never be counted out, but to move forward with compassion to put down adversity when it strikes.

Among the many causes Jennie Rachel dedicated herself to were the Daughters of the American Revolution, the Somerset-Pulaski County Rescue Squad, the PTA, the Homemaker's Club, and the Republican Women's Club. Through her efforts the uneducated were taught, the poor got a helping hand, and families were made stronger.

Her life appeared to be that of any wife, mother and then grandmother. But it was not--that life was violently taken away from her. She would lose her husband Harold, the Somerset Police Chief, to a criminal's bullet. And 45 years later, she lost her son Sam, the Sheriff of Pulaski County, the same way. Both times Jennie Rachel was only a few feet away. And both times, revenge was exacted against her husband and son for going after criminal enterprises.

Yet, she managed to build a new life. She devoted herself to her surviving son Lewis, daughter Nancy, grandchildren and great grandchildren. The community organizations she was involved in are too numerous to name.

The order in life that most of us expect, was upended for Jennie Rachel Catron. She rebuilt what was torn down--for her and the rest of us.

Her daughter Nancy read a verse at her mother's request and thus concluded her eulogy. It is a fitting tribute to a fine lady whose spirit is alive when we look across our community and see the good that is there.

Do not stand at my grave and weep:

I am not there. I do not sleep.

I am a thousand winds that blow.

I am the diamond glints on snow.

I am the sunlight on ripened grain.

I am the gentle autumn rain.

When you awaken in the morning's hush,

I am the swift uplifting rush

Of quiet birds in circled flight,

I am the soft stars that shine at night,

Do not stand at my grave and cry;

I am not there. I did not die.

We remember Jennie Rachel Catron.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to offer a House concurrent resolution commending the First Battalion, 149th Infantry of the Kentucky Army National Guard for service overseas in defense of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and the citizens of the United States.

The First Battalion, 149th Infantry, known as the ``Mountain Warriors,'' recently returned home to eastern Kentucky after completing a 16-month-long tour of duty. While in Iraq, the Mountain Warriors courageously and successfully performed routine and perimeter security missions, mounted combat patrols, and personal security details, among other assignments.

The 149th Infantry lived up to their strong name and tradition with distinguished service and sacrifice and proudly represented our Kentucky mountain heritage. The Mountain Warriors have a long and storied history dating back to the Mexican-American War and they have served our Nation in nearly every major conflict including World War I, World War II, and now our global war on terror. While in harm's way, the Mountain Warriors successfully completed their mission without any loss of life.

This resolution also honors and recognizes the members of the Heavy Equipment Transport Platoon, 2123rd Transportation Company, who recently returned home after completing their tour of duty in Iraq. The 2123rd Transportation Company conducted daily resupply missions including moving tanks, water, heavy equipment, weapons, and guided weapons systems for the United States Army.

Finally, this House concurrent resolution recognizes the members of the Rear Area Operations Command from the Second Battalion, 123rd Armor of the Kentucky Army National Guard. The ``Orphan Battalion,'' now returned to the Commonwealth, performed base operations for coalition forces in Iraq including 110 combat patrols, site hardening and security improvements, and establishment of 11 guard tower and 17 vehicle battle positions at Qayyarah Airfield West.

These men and women have made Kentucky proud, serving honorably and with steadfast resolve, sacrificing time away from loved ones, careers, and their communities. I want to express my deepest gratitude to these men and women for their service to our great country. I also express my thanks to their families who have waited patiently for their loved ones to return home.

Madam Speaker, the Appalachian Mountains, the Cumberland Lake and River, and red bud trees are just some of the natural assets that make southern and eastern Kentucky one of the most special places in the world. For many years, however, people who visited here could not say it was very special because what they saw were dumps, trash, litter, and filthy water.

These problems, which emerged over decades, were largely due to inadequate infrastructure for handling ever-growing amounts of solid waste and wastewater. And we had to do something about this problem, or else there would be no hope of ever having a clean environment or growing the economy.

In the summer of 1997, the region's elected officials gathered to face these problems including a key State official--the late General James E. Bickford, the former secretary of Kentucky's environmental department. They presented a battle plan for declaring ``war against pollution'' in the region. Their vision was to encourage citizens to take responsibility for protecting their environment and provide the education and resources needed to do so. Their campaign would promote PRIDE, or ``Personal Responsibility in a Desirable Environment.''

PRIDE has 10 years under its belt and now is a good time to remember why this initiative is essential to moving our region forward. People understand these days that a clean environment goes hand-in-hand with a healthy, vibrant economy.

Our region's religious, civic and elected leaders look for ways to leverage what makes us special--whether that is our mountain heritage, red-bud trees, scenic highways, or our pristine rivers. Our region will sell itself as long as we continue to show the world what makes us special. There is nothing special about trash and pollution. No matter how nice a place is, nobody wants to visit places that are polluted and littered.

First impressions count. When people see a natural area or town square for the first time, what makes a real impact is how clean a place is. For too long, the first impression people had in our area was empty bottles and fast food wrappers strewn along the highway, or in some cases--abandoned appliances, automobiles, and junk in an otherwise pristine natural setting.

For those of us who live here, we don't want to live among trash and pollution. Our region has turned the corner. We left behind the southern and eastern Kentucky of the past--one with stagnant economic growth and net outflow of people. We turned it into a region for the future--one where business opens its doors and people move in. Simply cleaning up a place invites people to stay.

PRIDE has produced great benefits to the environment. With modern wastewater treatment systems, there is no excuse anymore to dump raw sewage into our creeks and rivers. PRIDE's sweeping efforts to install modern treatment systems enabled our waterways to thrive with plant and animal life again. No longer do we have open sewers moving through our mountains.

What I like best about PRIDE is the spirit of volunteerism behind it. People caused this litter and pollution problem and now people are fixing it. It is an amazing thing to watch what happens when a community pulls together towards a common purpose. Ten years ago there were skeptics and doubters. Today, many statistics clearly show PRIDE's progress over the last 10 years.

Theodore Roosevelt understood the need to protect our natural resources and a short sentence he once said sums up so well the spirit of PRIDE today: ``Believe you can and you're halfway there.''

What a legacy we have built. There are now 27,907 homes with access to sanitary wastewater treatment. Nearly 2,500 illegal dumps have been eliminated and 500,000 bags of trash have been collected. And the hard work of 238,000 volunteers made this happen.

When we look back 10 years hence, we will see even more progress--a region of the country that is free of the pollution and trash that held it back. On this 10-year anniversary, we remember the PRIDE volunteers and community leaders who believed we could.

Madam Speaker, I want to pay tribute to a company helping our people here at home, our troops at war, and the community in which they are based.

For decades, companies in my Fifth Congressional District were primarily logging and coal mining. Many still are, and their employees are very hard workers, and these are worthy industries on which our Nation relies. However, after the trees are harvested and the coal is mined, these companies go elsewhere and with them our employment opportunities. So it's not surprising that people over the years packed up and moved to places like Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana in search of a career and a future. I was one of those people.

One of the things we're trying to do in our district is attract companies that don't depend on our natural resources, but rather employ our hard workers and innovate and improve their products so that they can compete anywhere in the world. We could fix all of mankind's problems, and it won't mean a thing if people don't have a place to work. Good companies make good communities.

I want to recognize one such company, Outdoor Ventures Corporation, which this year celebrates its 35th anniversary and is located in Steams, KY.

Outdoor Ventures Corporation's 180 employees make specialized tents for the military. For our troops overseas, those tents are home. Like most products these days, what sounds simple is not. These tents require precision engineering and manufacturing techniques perfected over three decades.

Company President J.C. Egnew's dedication to civic life goes far beyond business, however. In his hometown community he was instrumental in creating its first public park, the first library and expanding our local community college. And, he keeps a tourist attraction going strong--the Big South Fork Scenic Railway, where visitors can take a 16-mile round trip ride on the 100-year-old Kentucky and Tennessee Railway.

I am proud to have this company in my district. And, I'm proud to know, Mr. J.C. Egnew who runs it. His company is built to last and our community is a better place to live as a result.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that I must inform the House of the passing of another member of that vanishing breed of ``the Greatest Generation'' of Americans who served our Nation during World War II and made our Nation and its communities strong when they came home.

John Gideon Prather Sr. was somebody all of us turned to for advice. Part of that was because he was a wise attorney, helping many clients who couldn't really afford one, but it was also because that's just the way he was, regardless of his chosen profession. The country lawyer in him gave advice to judges, other attorneys and clients across Kentucky. As a prosecuting attorney, he set the tone for how lawyers ought to interact with one another professionally, fight as they may in the courtroom. Our community and our criminal justice system are stronger because of him.

John left us September 21, 2007 at the age of 87. His law partners were his son John Jr. and Winter Huff. He began working in his father's insurance company in the 1940s. After Pearl Harbor was bombed, he joined the U.S. Navy, where he served in North Africa and Italy. After the war, he graduated from the University of Kentucky law school and began his legal career, spanning six decades and including terms as Somerset City and State prosecuting attorney.

As a civic leader, he was not just a member of our community organizations, including the Jaycees, Kiwanis Club, VFW and American Legion, he was a leader in them. He was also a profound Sunday school teacher. But John Prather's greatest civic effort was his near-lifelong commitment to Troop 79 of the Boy Scouts, headquartered at his church in Somerset. Generations of young boys became much better men through John's dedication to Boy Scouts. They were his greatest pride and maybe his greatest legacy.

He leaves behind his wife, Jean, a son, a daughter-in-law, and four grandchildren.

John was a father figure and friend to us lawyers, his church, civic colleagues, and, indeed, the whole community. A mighty oak has fallen and the void left on the mountain top is both painful and profound. We will miss the gentlemanly courtesies, wise counsel, and warm friendship he dispensed so liberally.

We will miss John G. Prather.

Madam Speaker, I regret that I must inform the House of the passing of a great American in my home community.

Richard E. ``Dick'' Cooper was a friend to me and many others in the State of Kentucky, but especially in my hometown of Somerset. Even more than a friend, he was a father figure, a confidant, friend and advisor. And he was humble, giving and modest.

Dick left us August 7, 2007 at 92. He was the Chairman of the Board at Citizens National Bank, and knew practically everyone. In fact, he also likely knew their parents and even grandparents. His devotion to duty was tireless. He came to work every day right up until the day he died. He cared deeply for people.

After completing high school in 1932, he graduated with honors at the University of Kentucky. In 1942, he entered the U.S. Army and served in the Pacific. Back home, in the business community, he very successfully led the Somerset Stone Company before becoming chairman at the bank. As a civic leader in our community, he served on numerous organizations including on the advisory board at Somerset Community College. For many years he served on the Board of Trustees of the University of Kentucky.

Dick was more than a local leader. He was well-known throughout the Commonwealth, as a great civic and business leader. He was awarded ``man of the year'' in 1965 by a Louisville radio station. But he was our man of the year for many more years to come and will continue to be.

Mr. Cooper married Cornelia Dozier in 1961, and she is a leader in her own right in community and cultural affairs. He also leaves behind two children and five grand children. Dick was a brother to the late U.S. Senator John Sherman Cooper, who served with great distinction in Congress from just after World War II until the early 70's.

He came from a good family and leaves a good one behind. Family, friends, and associates from across the Commonwealth of Kentucky will remember him. He touched many lives and hearts with his genuine concern for them, and his example of leadership with purpose and dedication. I am just one of them.

The world is a better place because of the life of Dick Cooper.

Madam Speaker, on October 13, 1964, Melva Joan Adkins of East Lynn, West Virginia began her career with the U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, Huntington District, as a GS-3 Clerk Stenographer in Real Estate's Management and Disposal Branch. She always sought ways to show initiative and achieve results regardless of the assignment. Her dedication to a job well done enabled her to move to the top of the administrative field.

In 1974, Mrs. Adkins advanced to the position of Conveyance Examiner and was responsible for assuring the Government acquired appropriate title to project lands. She audited project acquisition records and recommended actions to correct deficiencies. Melva quickly mastered the skills required for the position and became an expert in the audit field.

Her exceptional communication skills and real estate knowledge were an asset when she was promoted to Realty Specialist in the Encroachment Section of Management and Disposal Branch in 1990. She worked on the very difficult Muskingum Area Encroachment Program, the first dedicated program of its type in the Nation. Her ability to communicate at all levels contributed to successful resolution of many situations.

In 1992, Mrs. Adkins transferred to the Management Section of Management and Disposal Branch. Her new duties entailed the utilization, disposal, and leasing of civil works projects in Kentucky, West Virginia, and Ohio. In this position she worked with numerous Federal, State, and local agencies, the general public, and other Corps team members to meet the projects recreation and flood control missions. In the last two years of her employment, Mrs. Adkins arranged in-kind services totaling over $1,000,000 that benefited various District projects. She is known by Corps customers as honest and ethical and has consistently received recognition and praise for her high quality of work.

During her career Mrs. Adkins has been an excellent role model and mentor to her team members. She has served on numerous Federal Women Program committees, served as a Equal Employment Opportunity Counselor, and helped to write the Huntington District's Etiquette Book for the Physically Challenged.

Melva J. Adkins has made significant contributions to the U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers' mission. On July 30, 2007, she retired with 42 years, 7 months, and 5 days of Federal service, and I offer my heartfelt congratulations on a job well done.

Will the gentleman yield?

We join you in the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law. It constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill, and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

I ask for a ruling of the Chair.

Madam Speaker, reserving the right to object, if the gentleman would join in a colloquy, a question has arisen as to whether or not when this bill goes to conference with the other body and there should be items that are included in the conference report that comes back to the House, items that were not included in either the Senate-passed version or the House-passed version, would those items be subject to a point of order when the conference report hits the House floor?

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's explanation, and I would be happy to yield to the minority leader.

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished majority leader.

Let me clarify that point briefly. The proposed rule change will not take place until some time later.

In the meantime, we are taking up this bill.

So that the point of order would lie, as the minority leader has said, to this bill.

I thank the gentleman.

I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I can tell you there is zero in this bill.

To also clarify that, that is precisely and exactly what we voted on last year; is that correct?

Madam Speaker, I thank the minority leader and majority leader and the chairman for their clarification.

Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

I will be very brief. I thank the gentleman for yielding. On the Energy and Water bill, I'm a little confused.

I will be happy to yield.

Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Let me thank the chairman for that clarification.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

I want to compliment the gentlelady again on an excellent amendment, the hard work that she's put into this issue. I have some problem with the offset, but that's overridden by the urgent need that the gentlelady has illuminated in her amendment.

Allowing our local law enforcement officials and first responders to have authority in illegal immigration problems is the only way, in my judgment, that we will ever be able to solve this problem. And so I commend the gentlelady for this wonderful amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield briefly?

The 287(g) program is voluntary by local communities, is it not?

Well, if the gentleman would yield very briefly, every community has the decision to make. If they don't want to participate, that's their business. But for those communities that do want to participate, it seems to me like we ought to allow the local option to take effect.

If the gentleman would briefly yield, do you have a problem, though, if Mecklenberg County, North Carolina, wants to do the 287(g) program? You don't have to do it. But is it okay for them to do it?

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I'll be brief. I understand my chairman's concerns that he has expressed.

Notwithstanding that, though, this agency is so far behind with this backlog, and trying to catch up with equipment and procedures that are decades old. I think this demands that we do something different. And so I appreciate the gentleman bringing this forward. I think it's a good idea. I'm going to support it.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I join the chairman in opposing the amendment, reluctantly, because the gentleman from New Mexico makes a compelling argument for better border security. Coming from his State, I can fully understand that.

But as the chairman has said, we have increased in this bill moneys for an additional 3,000 Border Patrol agents, and the gentleman was arguing strongly for that and I appreciate that. But we have accommodated his request to that extent, as well as 500 additional Customs and Border Patrol officers, and we increase the salaries and expenses by over $50 million. So I think there is more help on the way that the gentleman has been asking for.

But the moneys that the gentleman would take from TSA is not for screeners. It wouldn't come from screeners, it would come from the equipment that we are trying to furnish airports with, explosive detection machines, X-ray machines to locate explosives, so that we can clear the lobbies of many airports that have the trace detection machines in the lobbies so that passengers in small- and medium-sized airports really can't get through to fly. And that has been a pet project of this Member for some time.

So that is where the money would come from, $125 million, and that really is my objection, because if we take that money from these explosive detection machines, which are already underfunded, and this bill increases the number quite a bit but is still underfunded, it would severely cripple the effort to bring more technology to the airports.

I join the chairman in opposing the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Iowa 30 seconds to close.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, if we can't control who crosses our Nation's border, all other possible immigration initiatives will fail.

Now, the gentleman's amendment prevents the undue delay of urgently needed border security. It still maintains the flexibility to use any and all tools to protect the border and secure the border, like fencing, vehicle barriers, and technology; but it takes away all of the strings and conditions upon which the money was appropriated to build the fence.

How many times does Congress have to say to the Department, build the fence?

The money's here. Take these strings and conditions away from this project. That's what it was designed and financed for and authorized by the Congress.

Now, DHS should absolutely be consulting with the mayors and the local officials; and they are, very vigorously. They spend hours and hours meeting and talking with the local communities. They're doing that with vigor.

This amendment also removes the possibilities of frivolous litigation. This bill invites frivolous litigation. This amendment would strike that frivolous language.

I'm supportive of the funding levels and planning requirements in this bill for border security and immigration enforcement. I've maintained that onerous restrictions for fencing and tactical infrastructure are contrary to our homeland security needs.

Now, this amendment does strike planning requirements for SBInet. But the program has demonstrated sound management over the last year. It's met and exceeded every legislative requirement from the 2007 bill. In fact, the majority conducted a substantial oversight of SBI through hearings and a Codel to the southwest border and saw fit to release all of the $950 million withheld from obligation until a fair expenditure plan was submitted.

I have read this expenditure plan and can report to you that this program is on track to meet some very noteworthy goals by the end of 2008, including the installation of 370 miles of fencing, another 200 miles of vehicle barriers, and over 640 miles of technology along the southwest border.

Bottom line, Mr. Chairman, it's time to stop talking and start digging and building that fence. The money is there. Take away these conditions that have been placed on building the fence that Congress ordered and make it happen.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman has offered a very thoughtful amendment. I think it is worthwhile, and I would like to add my name to it and support it.

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

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

Like the chairman, I am sympathetic with the gentleman's concern about funding for REAL ID. It is a mandate that we put on the States that we need to match money for. And we've done that. As the chairman indicated, there's $50 million in this bill which was unrequested by the administration. In addition to that, there's $40 million that was put in this program in '06 and most of that is unobligated. So there will be around $90 million that REAL ID has. So there's plenty of money, I think, in the REAL ID program. The gentleman, I think, should be pleased with that.

But at the same time, I must say that we can't afford to take more money out of the Deepwater program. This subcommittee has maintained aggressive oversight of that program. But this bill also makes, as the chairman said, substantial cuts already of almost $200 million to Deepwater that will, in effect, slow down the program's acquisition schedule and delay the much-needed modernization of the Coast Guard's ships and aircraft.

Specifically, the bill cuts $60 million from the National Security Cutter, $70 million from the Maritime Patrol Aircraft, and over $50 million from the Fast Response Cutter. Now, those reductions are made in the name of good oversight, but I fear that the security of shores will be further delayed by these sizable reductions, and may unnecessarily prolong the operation of antiquated systems, some dating back to World War II.

We're confident the Coast Guard is putting in place the right managerial tools and controls and organizational improvements to get Deepwater heading in the right direction. But let me be clear. Mr. Chairman, no one has been harder on Deepwater than this Member. Too much of our national security is at stake for the Coast Guard to continue to struggle with inadequate managerial and budgetary controls. I think the commandant of the Coast Guard now has seized control of this program, and I am convinced that he is on the right track and will have the capability to make it work.

And so while we're cutting Deepwater in this bill and putting controls on how they spend their money, they still need this money, and this amendment would cut too much from the Deepwater program for a REAL ID program that is flush with money already.

So I oppose the amendment reluctantly and congratulate the gentleman for his thoughtful but misplaced amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to compliment the gentleman. He's been very hard working on these whole issues, and I appreciate him bringing this to our attention and appreciate the chairman being willing to listen further to your request.

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

I want to first thank the chairman for including $20 million in this program when it was zeroed out in the budget request and also to congratulate my colleague from Kentucky (Mr. Davis) for this amendment which I strongly support.

It increases the funds for this CEDAP program by $30 million to get it back up to the historic funding level of $50 million. That's what we've always had in this program. In fact, Mr. Chairman, this program was created by this subcommittee in fiscal year 2005, and the reason was we found that a lot of small towns and small communities were not being able to get grants out of their State allocations or these other grant programs because the moneys were being consumed by the larger cities. And this was the only way we could find to get money directly to those smaller communities.

These are not grants that go to the State. These grants go directly from here to the local community, designed to target those areas that may not directly benefit from the large amounts of grant funding because of competing priorities within the States or larger urban areas. It gets basic first responder equipment into all first responder hands.

And it's been one of the most successful programs DHS has run. It made close to 4,000 awards in fiscal 2005 and 2006, another 2,000 awards for fiscal 2007.

There is some report language in the bill that changes how the program is run from a direct assistance program to a grant program. I don't necessarily agree with that, but I think it is very important to get the level of funding back to the 2007 level of $50 million.

Listen to what some of the local communities say about this program: ``Your program is one of the absolutely best run and organized programs I have ever seen in the rescue service. The equipment you offer to emergency responders for homeland security is right on target for our needs in the field.''

Another one says: ``The CEDAP program has allowed us to obtain, train with, and deploy an essential fire fighting tool that we would have otherwise not have had available to us.''

Another one says: ``This award represents a purchase that would have not been possible for my agency. Thank you for giving us this ability.''

So, Mr. Chairman, this is a popular program. It is effective. It helps communities that otherwise are not getting help and there's no other place for them to turn. So I urge our colleagues to support the gentleman's amendment and restore funding for this worthwhile program to the previous year's level and the level it was set at in 2005 and every year since.

And I want to congratulate Mr. Davis for bringing this amendment forward. It's thoughtful, it is needed, and it fits the bill; and I congratulate the gentleman and support his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI, which states, in pertinent part: An amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is a simple amendment.

It would restore to the bill the traditional historic 45,000-person cap on the number of screeners that the TSA can employ.

The reason for this is simple. This screener cap has been in place since before there was a Department of Homeland Security.

When we first created the Transportation Security Administration in 2001, I think it was, or 2002, TSA was in the Department of Transportation. At the time, I chaired the subcommittee that funded that Department.

When we first began to place federally employed screeners in the airports, TSA came to us and said we need 35,000 screeners. We said, okay, here is the money, hire them.

They came back a few days later, a few months later, and said no, we're going to need 40,000. Then they came back a few months later and said no, we have to have 45,000. Then it was 50,000 and 60,000, and then finally they said we need to have 70,000. We said, wait a minute, time out. We can't afford this many. Where are you going to stop?

What they did at the outset, TSA was poorly managed, poorly run, and was not operating properly. They made up for their difference, their shortcomings, by hiring more people. I remember going to an airport in the South, a moderate-sized airport. The lobby was full of the trace detection machines where they swab your briefcase and then run it through the machine, very time-consuming, very labor-intensive, and not very accurate.

And the lobby was full, passengers having trouble getting through the doorway to get to the boarding gates. And I called over the Federal director, security director for that airport and I said, when are you going to apply for an x-ray machine to more efficiently and more securely search people as they go to board the airplane? They said, oh, we don't need, we don't want an x-ray machine to replace these trace detection machines in the lobby. I said, why not? The person said, our people are perfectly happy. I said, you mean the passengers? No, the screeners. Of course they were perfectly happy. One machine, Mr. Chairman, would have taken the place of all of those trace detection machines in that lobby.

And so we came up with a screener cap mainly to force TSA to bring technology to bear on the detection of explosive devices in briefcases and baggage of passengers. The 45,000 screener limit works. TSA now is placing the machines in airports.

This committee, this subcommittee, has now appropriated many hundreds of millions of dollars in this bill, along with others, to buy more machinery.

But the cap on screeners needs to be kept in place. It's been there since we first began TSA 5 years ago. You take that screener cap off, as this bill does, and TSA will go back to their old ways. I guarantee it. They'll go back to their old ways of hiring screeners to run trace detection machines, very unreliable, insecure, and disruptive, actually, of people trying to get on the airplane.

So I urge our colleagues to keep in place, put back in place the 45,000 screener limit that's been in the bill ever since we've had a Department of Transportation, TSA in the Department of Transportation and now Homeland Security.

I know the bill contains funds only for some 44,000 screeners, and the argument can be made that we can control the number of screeners by the amount of money we appropriate. And this bill starts us along that line.

But we all know that these agencies can come back to the Appropriations Committee and request a reprogramming of funds from one account to the next, and the pressure would be great if they came to us to assign that reappropriation of monies. But the limit works. Keep the limit.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman for the amendment. This is a horse of a different color that you have brought up here. And I think it is a humane thing to do, and I congratulate the gentleman. And being from horse country, I doubly appreciate it.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple. It strikes the Davis-Bacon section in the bill. That section has consequences that I'm not sure the majority has thoroughly thought through.

Requiring all DHS contract and grant funds to comply with Davis-Bacon could unfairly disadvantage communities that are unfortunate enough to be struck by a disaster. It could reduce funds available for their recovery. It could slow the pace of assistance and significantly increase non-Federal cost-share requirements. This section would likely cost already cash-strapped States and localities additional funds.

The Congressional Budget Office says that Davis-Bacon will cost taxpayers more than $9.5 billion from 2002 to 2011. This expansion would only greater the burden on taxpayers.

This expansion further disadvantages small, emerging and minority businesses new to the complex, inefficient wage and work restrictions which make it nearly impossible for them to compete with better capitalized corporations, disadvantaging the very companies we often seek to help following a disaster.

And so I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and strike this onerous restriction on the Nation's communities.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this is the final amendment, and it is the fiscal responsibility amendment. This amendment would implement an across-the-board cut in the bill of 5.7 percent, thereby limiting the increase of this bill to 7.2 percent over the current year, the amount the President requested, instead of the current 13.6 percent in the current bill.

Let me emphasize that point again. This amendment does not cut anything. It provides a more than generous and responsible 7.2 percent increase in Homeland Security funding over the current year. It's a small downpayment on fiscal discipline, an issue we heard a lot about last November.

The national debt is burgeoning, the public is demanding that we gain control of Federal spending. Despite the President's overall budget request of $933 billion for fiscal year 2008, and an already generous $63 billion over the current year's level, the majority plans to add another $20 billion on top of that at the minimum. Where will it stop?

This year's $20 billion could become $40 billion next year and on and on and on. The only thing this does is ensure our children and their children will be paying for this generations to come.

The Homeland Security bill before us today represents 10 percent of that $20 billion increase in spending, more than $2 billion above the President's request. Nobody on this side is proposing that we cut Homeland Security, not our President, not this Member, certainly not this amendment.

I agree with the funding level requested by the administration. It's a responsible 7.2 percent increase from the base 2007 level, a rate that is already over double the rate of inflation.

As I said before, the public is demanding accountability and fiscal responsibility. I don't think we can exclude any Federal agency, even Homeland Security, from fiscal discipline. Otherwise, there will be no discipline at all.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment, a fiscally disciplined amendment still providing a 7.2 percent increase in Homeland Security security.

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

Mr. Chairman, I urge an ``aye'' vote on the amendment.

Before yielding back, I want to thank the Chair for being a very responsible and fair-minded chair tonight. We thank you for that service. I want to congratulate the chairman of the subcommittee, who has been easy to work with and understanding of issues on this side of the aisle, and he has been very forthcoming and cooperative, but, at the same time, disciplined in his own approach, and to the staff on both sides of the aisle. This has been a long week for them, as well as a long several months now. I want to thank the staff for the great work that they have done.

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

I thank the chairman, and I am glad that he is continuing the tradition of this subcommittee in being a bipartisan, strong oversight subcommittee to see this new Department to a success one of these days, we hope.

Mr. Chairman, I urge an ``aye'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.