Floor Statements

I have a question: Shouldn't all items in an appropriations bill, whether it be for an agency or for directed spending by a Member of Congress, should that not be voted on by the entire body, and shouldn't we have an opportunity to inspect as a body all spending in an appropriations bill, including earmarks?

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. There is nearly $5 billion in the grant funds for State and local communities for first responders. It has been there for a couple of years.

I don't know why we don't insist that the authorizers in this body write the rules so that these communities can get their hands on that money and use it for the purposes for which it was intended. The money is laying there. I don't know why we are continuing to pour billions more into it when the hopper is full already. Let's fix the system and unclog the pipe that drains the hopper.

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I join in his frustration. This dispute about how the majority party is hiding earmarks so that the body cannot inspect them, is preventing us from discussing the merits of this bill, which, by and large, is an excellent bill, except for it's overspending. And I'll have an amendment at the end of the bill to address that issue.

So there's really two issues we're talking about here; one is the earmark mess that we're in, and secondly, is the overspending in the bill.

The President has threatened to veto this bill if it exceeds a 7 percent increase. The bill now contains a 13.6 percent increase in spending. That's too much. We really don't need that much money. We do need, I think, a 7 percent increase, which is double inflation. That would take care of the needs that Homeland Security has.

And so at the end of the bill, I will be offering an amendment to give Members a chance to vote to slice 5.7 percent, across the board, off of the spending in this bill, leaving a 7.2 percent increase that has been requested of us by the executives.

And so, I would hope that Members would bear that in mind. At the end of the bill, you're going to have a chance to exercise fiscal responsibility. That's what we stand for. Fiscal responsibility.

So I would urge Members to hold their fire until that time.

If the gentleman would yield.

At the end of the bill, we will have to see what amendments have passed, and then we will look at that and see whether or not that would fit into our across the board cut, and if it might be modified to that extent.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentlewoman's amendment. I have some concerns about the offset, but I believe this amendment will help restore balance to ICE's enforcement resources as well as the agency's support for State and local officials. As I said when we opened this debate, I believe a fiscally responsible funding level includes sufficient resources to carry out all legislative functions and directions.

This amendment helps to restore some balance of resources to meet the bill's mandate for ICE to contact every correctional facility across the country, over 5,000 of them, at least once a month to identify incarcerated aliens that can be deported and to initiate those deportation proceedings. That mandate is a lofty goal. Over 5,000 local and State jails and detention facilities that you have got to contact monthly and talk to the jailers who are State or local officials and are not being paid to help you with this, it is an unfunded mandate, and who are also not qualified to judge whether or not a person that is incarcerated is an illegal alien. It is not their job, and they are not trained for it. So that is going to be a difficult goal to implement and one that is unfunded but, I think, worthwhile.

So I remain concerned that the bill presupposes that ICE can simply redirect resources from some other vital criminal investigation or fugitive operation to meet this unfunded mandate. I mean, ICE is understaffed as it is with personnel out there. You take a lot of personnel off of what they are doing now to check with every jail in the country, 2,000 of which hardly have any incarcerated aliens in them anyway, and you have got to take that personnel off of fugitive operations, catching people who are not in jail who are rapists and murderers and thieves, and deport them.

So the bottom line is we have got to have some more money for ICE to do this new chore. In fact, the bill even suggests resources can be drawn from the 287(g) program to meet this mandate. But then the bill reduces funding for that very program by almost 30 percent below the request.

So restoring the $9.1 million cut in the 287(g) program will provide additional funds to help State and local correctional facilities at the ID and processing of illegal aliens, the very priority the bill is trying to force. In fact, over 40 percent of the local law enforcement officers trained to date through the 287(g) program are from jails and correctional facilities in States like Florida, Arizona, Alabama, North Carolina, California.

Look at some of the notable results from the ICE's 287(g) program.

I am quoting from the Nashville City Paper printed April 24. ``If the first week's worth of figures hold up, the number of illegal immigrants deported in the first year of the national 287(g) program would be more than 4,200, or equal to 11 percent of Nashville's total, legal and illegal, Hispanic population, according to a City Paper analysis of the first batch of 287(g) immigration enforcement data.''

Bottom line, Mr. Chairman, the 287(g) program is too vital a program in the fight to secure our borders to accept the bill's $9.1 million cut.

I urge Members to support the Drake amendment.

I thank the gentlelady for yielding. And to both Members, there are just a few thousand ICE agents, but there are literally hundreds of thousands of local law enforcement officials.

If 287(g) would provide the training and the authority for the local law enforcement to do just as the gentleman has said, think of the law enforcement power that can be brought to bear on the severe problem the country faces of getting rid of convicts in the penitentiaries, as well as fugitives on the run and on the lam, and raping and plundering and robbing in the country. I think it's as simple as ABC. I don't know why we don't do more of it.

I thank the gentlelady.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to compliment the gentlewoman for being an aggressive leader on this subject. She is very knowledgeable on the subject and has done a great deal of work in backgrounding on the amendment she has brought forward. She is doing a great service to the country in this effort. I want to compliment and thank the gentlelady for a great job.

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

Let me start, Mr. Chairman, by commending the subcommittee chairman on putting together a thoughtful bill, his first as the chairman of this important subcommittee. I must also recognize the chairman's continuation of this subcommittee's bipartisan tradition as well as to state how much I appreciate the chairman's willingness to listen to the concerns on this side of the aisle and accommodate us as much as possible.

I would, however, like to briefly say a few words about some specific items of concern. First, fiscal responsibility.

The 302(b) allocation for the Department of Homeland Security is $36.25 billion. That is $2.1 billion above what was requested of us and amounts to a 13.6 percent increase above fiscal 2007. And that doesn't even include the billions in one-time emergency funding that has been added to the DHS budget over the last year, including the $1.05 billion in unrequested funding just approved in the supplemental last month.

If you include that figure in the increase, it is almost a 17 percent increase over the current year. By comparison, the budget request would give the Department a 7.2 percent increase, and I think that recommendation is more than sufficient, even generous, for the Department.

The public is demanding accountability and fiscal responsibility, and I don't think we can exclude any Federal agency from fiscal discipline, even the Department of Homeland Security. More money and more government do not equal more security.

Therefore, I will offer an amendment later today to limit the budget to a more than generous and responsible 7.2 percent increase over current spending. I am hopeful my colleagues will support that effort.

And when I use the term ``responsible,'' Mr. Chairman, I am also stating that we must ensure DHS has sufficient resources to carry out legislative direction. The bill includes a bold mandate for ICE to contact every correctional facility in the country, over 5,000 of them, at least once a month to identify incarcerated aliens and initiate deportation proceedings against them. That is a laudable goal, and I support the policy and the goal. But, Mr. Chairman, it is going to be very, very difficult to do mechanically and it is unfunded.

We are going to be asking the States and localities to pay, assumedly, for the review of who is in their jails.

Number two, they don't have the authority nor the capability to determine whether or not Joe Blow in cell 18 is an undocumented alien or not. It's not their job, and they don't have the capability to do that. So I don't know what will be the result of this mandate. It is unfunded, and it is going to be very difficult to put in practice. The Department already surveys routinely the most probable jails where the most probable criminal aliens are being held anyway.

Despite the requirement for ICE to report on the resources needed to carry out this unfunded mandate, I am concerned that the bill presupposes ICE can simply transfer or reprioritize monies from other sources within their budget, for example, the fugitive apprehension program. They are out there trying to catch the criminals on the streets that are loose. It seems to me they are a bigger danger than those incarcerated in the jails.

These enforcement activities involve many duties, duties that include tracking down at-large criminals, investigating smuggling networks, preventing child pornography, preventing the exploit of sensitive national security technology, and taking down employers who are exploiting illegal immigrants to the point of abuse.

From which of these critical missions should ICE take monies in order to comb the Nation's jails and correctional facilities, most of which never have any criminal aliens in them anyway? So to suggest that ICE should

refocus its resources almost exclusively on jailed illegal aliens at the expense of trying to catch fugitives on the street who are raping and plundering seems to me as short-sighted as it is potentially very dangerous.

There must be a balance among ICE's many critical missions. And I am concerned this bill falls short in that regard. I am hopeful the Chairman will work with me and others to develop a more realistic implementation of this policy as we move forward.

I have other concerns as well. Any immigration policy starts out with securing the border. If we can't control who crosses our Nation's borders, all other possible immigration initiatives will fail. To address this critical issue, Congress has authorized and appropriated for substantial infrastructure on the southwest border. But the bill contains a number of onerous restrictions on funding for fencing and other tactical infrastructure along our borders until the Department performs certain actions.

At first glance, these individual fencing and tactical infrastructure requirements appear to be based upon sound policy. However, added together, they are a series of obstacles that can potentially impede installation of critical border security systems. I fear that securing the border will be greatly deterred.

While I am pleased with the continuation of robust planning requirements for SBInet, I am absolutely committed to securing our borders as rapidly as possible. We will work with the Chairman to ensure that DHS accomplishes that critical task on time and on budget. There must be a balance between prudent oversight and timely execution of the Department's border security mission.

In addition, Mr. Chairman, the bill removes for the first time the cap on the number of TSA screeners that was put into this bill in 2002, and every year since. That cap was established for very good reasons, reasons that still exist. TSA was created by Congress in 2001. At that time, I chaired the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee, and we put in this cap because TSA was demonstrating absolutely no discipline in its planning, hiring and use of technology. TSA's mindset was to hire an army of screeners, 70,000 of them, while advancements in research and technology were largely ignored.

By requiring in law that TSA could not exceed 45,000 screeners, TSA was forced to refocus its decision-making. They began to place better, cheaper, and more effective technologies and machines in the airport, x-ray machines and the like, and started to slowly clear out the more expensive, manpower-intensive trace detection machines in the lobbies of airports.

The screener cap, Mr. Chairman, works. Without it, I am fearful that TSA will go back to its old ways of solving screener problems by simply adding more people, a very short-sighted, costly, and dangerous solution. Given these concerns, I plan to offer an amendment to restore the 45,000 screener cap later today.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about the annual expectations we may be setting for State and local grants. These funds are intended to address counterterrorism needs and disaster preparedness, the Homeland Security portion of local first responders' budgets and duties. These agencies are certainly happy, of course, to get these grant funds, and now even expect it. I am concerned that we are transforming the mission and purpose of these grant programs from risk reduction to that of revenue sharing, something it was never intended to be.

Rather than just adding billions to these grant programs, as this bill does, what we ought to be doing is working with the authorizing committees to change the way these grant programs are authorized and administered, and lay out specifically what the Federal Government expects for the grants that we do make.

Grants to States and local communities are intended to reduce our vulnerabilities and are not immune from fiscal discipline, particularly when you consider that there is nearly $5 billion in unspent first responder grant dollars simply laying there waiting to be spent. We should be working on seeing that the pipeline is unclogged. Why put billions more dollars in the hopper when it's full already, waiting to be drained out the bottom in a clogged pipeline?

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I believe this bill has the potential to do a lot of good. There are many provisions and funding recommendations that I agree with. I applaud Chairman Price's efforts to keep the Department on track to produce results, provide strong oversight, and continuing the subcommittee's tradition of strict accountability.

I look forward to working with him and the Members of the House and the Senate as the bill moves forward.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to a very hardworking member of our committee, Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter), one of the hardest working members of our subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), a very hard-working member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Rogers), a member of the authorizing committee for homeland security in the House.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the ranking member on the Border and Terrorism Subcommittee of the Homeland Security authorization committee, Mr. Souder from Indiana.

(Mr. SOUDER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

The committee mark already includes huge increases in grants for the urban areas, and I am opposed to this further increase. I mean, there is only so much money to go around to all of the cities in the country and all that need help.

Just for an example, the urban area grants portion of the bill is increased already over current spending by some $30 million. It is up to $800 million just for the urban area grants.

Port security grants, all of which go to the large cities, increases from $210 million to $400 million in the bill already.

Rail and transit security grants go from $175 million currently to $400 million.

And then the SAFER fire grants, moneys that go to urban area fire departments for personnel costs, goes from $115 million to $230 million, double what it is now. There are huge increases in these grant programs, particularly for the urban areas.

I know the gentleman appreciates that. But we just don't have any more to go around unless you take it from another worthy cause.

I would oppose the gentleman's amendment.

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

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, and I would like to ask the gentleman a question, or ask his comment.

At the end of the bill, in the general provisions, I'll be offering an amendment to cut, across the board, 5.7 percent of the entire bill, across the board.

Even with that so-called ``cut'' in the increase, it will still be a 7.1 percent increase over current spending, taking the budget request that came to us from OMB.

Would the gentleman feel compelled to support that type of an approach?

Well, at the end of the bill, Mr. Chairman, I can't do it now and I would like to have done it at the outset of the debate, under our rules, it can only be offered at the end of the discussion. But at the end of the bill I will be asking Members of this body to reduce the increase for homeland security from its 16 percent level to 7.1 percent, which is the President's request; and, number two, thereby avoiding a veto.

I desperately want this body to pass a responsible funding level for the Department of Homeland Security and not have it vetoed. There is a veto threat there. If you want to prolong this agony over the bill, we need to pass a responsible funding level for the Department, which I think the President's proposal is responsible and even generous. But this Department, like all other departments in the government, is still subject to fiscal responsibility.

I am for a strong homeland defense, like all the rest of you, and for a number of years I chaired this subcommittee and I think we have done a good job of holding spending in line. But this increase is not needed. It is wasteful and it must be controlled. And the overall cutting amendment that I will offer at the end of the debate will be the responsible way to do it. And I would hope the gentleman and all of his colleagues in the body would support that when the time comes

The gentleman is correct.

Offered By: Mr. Rogers of Kentucky

Amendment No. 1: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Rogers of Kentucky

Amendment No. 2: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Madam Speaker, on May 20, 2006, five men lost their lives in a coal mine explosion in Harlan, Kentucky. The number of casualties would have been greater, were it not for the heroic efforts of three mine inspectors who decided to go in and save whomever they could.

There were only a few seconds to decide what to do in this situation. There were no second chances. Information was conflicting and incomplete in those rushed minutes late at night on May 20. These three men--Robert Rhea, Arthur Dale Jackson and Kevin Doan--heard enough and chose to descend into the smoke-filled blackness of the Darby Coal Mine.

They were driven to help whomever they could, inserting themselves into this hellish furnace not knowing whether there would be additional explosions or structural collapses.

The person they rescued, Paul Ledford, had succumbed to the carbon monoxide gases caused by the explosion and was unable to move any further. He was a half-mile down and never would have made it out on his own.

We are reminded that coal miners face potential hazards deep underground, everyday, so that we can keep the lights on and appliances running. When tragedy strikes one of

our coal mines, we depend on those level-headed, brave individuals who do the best they can at the scene to save lives and manage the disaster.

While we sort out the lesson of the Darby mine tragedy, we must also recognize those who had little time to study, deliberate and analyze what to do. They acted.

And because they did, someone lived. I commend these three individuals for answering the most important call any of us could ever get--and having the courage that now provides some solace where there would otherwise be none.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for yielding me time, and I want to thank the gentlelady and the chairman for ushering this piece of legislation through the committee and on to the floor honoring and acknowledging the contributions of marina owners and operators across this great country.

Whether it is fishing one of the 1,000 lakes in Minnesota, cruising the inland waterways of the Sunshine State, or enjoying the 1,200 miles of shoreline along Lake Cumberland in my district, marinas are America's launching point for millions of boats and boaters seeking to enjoy the beautiful rivers, lakes, bays and oceans.

These marinas employ nearly 140,000 people at over 13,000 operations nationwide, providing safe harbor and supply depots for boaters. In Kentucky, over 130 marina facilities served over 176,000 registered boats in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, from Fishtrap Lake in the east to Lake Barkley out west. In between in my district is the crown jewel of Kentucky's waterways, Lake Cumberland.

Over 5 million visitors a year jet ski, enjoy bass fishing and cruise the 40,000 acres of Lake Cumberland. Lake associated businesses, including the 11 large scale marina operations, generate over $160 million in economic activity for the region.

The lake area is famously dubbed the ``Houseboat Capital of the World,'' made famous by the prominence of world class houseboat manufacturing in Wayne, Pulaski and Russell Counties. These 100-foot houseboats are literally floating homes, with hot tubs, roof decks, full size kitchens, waterslides, grills, kitchens and the like. These boats are great venues for fishing trips, reunions or weekend escapes on the waterways across the Nation.

This resolution, Mr. Speaker, recognizes the essential role marinas and the men and women who own and operate them play in the United States, providing their communities and visitors a place where friends and families can come together for recreation, rest and relaxation.

I thank the committee for bringing this resolution through to the floor. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution and designation of National Marina Day.

Madam Speaker, 12 years ago a landmark painkilling medicine hit the doorstep of doctor's offices and local pharmacies with the promise of less addiction and less likelihood for abuse. This prescription drug provided a sustained-release mechanism with up to 12 hours of pain relief for a sore thumb or a back ache. This drug was billed as a ``safe'' alternative without the painful withdrawal symptoms of other opioids and enjoyed an FDA designation of ``moderate-to-severe'' pain, making it wildly popular among unsuspecting doctors and pharmacists. OxyContin seemed to be the answer for real pain relief.

Today, we know these were lies. The manufacturer of OxyContin, Purdue Pharma, spent $500 million marketing this deception and deceit. What began in the boardroom of Purdue Pharma executives has spread like wildfire into the living rooms, bathrooms and classrooms of families seeking pain relief. From 1996 to 2001, the number of oxycodone-related deaths nationwide increased 400 percent while the annual number of OxyContin prescriptions increased nearly 20-fold. Over the same time period, OxyContin brought in $2.8 billion in revenue for Purdue Pharma, at one point accounting for 90 percent of the company's sales. Purdue heavily promoted OxyContin to unsuspecting doctors, many of whom had little training in the treatment of serious pain or in recognizing signs of drug abuse in patients.

To this profit-making scheme came the unsuspecting victim of eastern Kentucky. The birthplace of bluegrass music and the rich story of Daniel Boone became ground zero in the war against the illegal diversion of prescription drugs. Appalachia Kentucky is home to a proud people, skilled in the crafts and arts, family-oriented and hardworking. It is also home to an aging population, war veterans and retirees, tough foresters and miners, living with above average unemployment and below average access to healthcare and medical information.

This was a perfect mix for an epidemic. On a per capita basis, our drugstores, hospitals, and other legal outlets receive more prescription pain-killers than anywhere in the nation. And at one time, my region accounted for 25 percent of all OxyContin overdoses in the country. Meanwhile, the death-toll continued to rise, topping out at nearly 500 Oxy-related deaths nationwide. Lives like Sheriff Sam Catron, one of the finest law enforcement officials in Kentucky I've ever known, who was cut short by the bullet of an OxyContin addict.

Today, the President, Chief Legal Officer, and Chief Medical Officer for the Purdue Frederick Company have plead guilty in Federal court to charges of misbranding OxyContin and will pay over $634 million in damages. This is tremendous news. I have railed against the marketing practices of Purdue in the Appropriations Committee for nearly 7 years and I am pleased to see justice served. I applaud the work of the U.S. Attorneys from the Western District of Virginia and the Virginia Attorney General for their work to bring these criminals to justice.

This landmark case is a wake-up call for the entire pharmaceutical industry, and a warning that deceptive, destructive marketing practices will not be tolerated. The ill-gotten gains and greed of drug profits will hopefully never again be prioritized over the health-care needs of our citizens. Though this sad chapter has finally closed, we must continue to be ever vigilant against the scourge of illegal drugs in our communities. With wise and robust investments in state-run prescription monitoring programs, law enforcement personnel, substance- abuse counselors, and educators, we can win this war; regain strength in our communities, and save lives.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished ranking member on the Armed Services Subcommittee on Appropriations, Mr. Young of Florida.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, a member of the committee (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. Speaker, I rise, regrettably, today in opposition to the supplemental conference report before us, the first time I have risen in opposition to an appropriations conference report in more than 12 years. The Democratic side of the aisle and many of their liberal newspaper editors are intent on substituting their judgment for that of our professional, trained, experienced military leaders.

I am reminded of a quote that I want to read to you, it's very brief, that speaks to this subject. I will tell you the author in just a moment. ``It appears we have appointed our worst generals to command forces, and our most gifted and brilliant citizens to edit newspapers. In fact, I discovered by reading newspapers that these editor geniuses plainly saw all my strategic defects from the start, yet failed to inform me until it was too late. Accordingly, I am readily willing to yield my command to these obviously superior intellects, and I will, in turn, do my best for the cause by writing editorials after the fact.'' Signed, Robert E. Lee.

This Congress is made up of 535 lawyers, doctors and teachers, some with military experience, some without. It is not, however, made up of 535 military commanders who possess the ability to manage a war against al Qaeda. Yet that is what this conference report does. It enables over just half of 535 politicians to micromanage the war in Iraq against al Qaeda.

Sadly, though, this is not the only reason to vote against this conference report. It's also full of billions of dollars in spending categorized as an emergency which undermines the true needs of our troops and gulf coast hurricane recovery efforts. Specifically for Homeland Security, the supplemental contains two categories of emergency funding, hurricane recovery and the global war on terrorism.

Speaking to the hurricane recovery portion, this is a true 2007 emergency. FEMA needs these funds now to continue our commitment to the devastated gulf coast region and to ensure the disaster relief fund does not run dry in the middle of what experts are predicting will be an active hurricane season.

I can only hope that in an effort to keep the overall exorbitant spending of the bill down, the majority has not shortchanged the true needs of this account.

The global war on terrorism, part of this funding bill, is another story. While it contains many worthy and important items such as nuclear and explosive detection systems and additional aircraft for the northern border, things I have supported in the past and continue to support, they are in no way a 2007 emergency. In every instance, these items could and should be addressed in the regular 2008 appropriations bill. By including them in this 2007 emergency, the majority is simply trying to look strong on security and buy down requirements to free up funds in 2008 for additional spending.

While I support homeland security spending, I support it in a fiscally responsible way.

Mr. Speaker, it is not often that I have two such compelling reasons to vote against a bill: taking away authority to manage our war against al Qaeda from the military commanders, and carelessly adding billions of dollars in non-emergency spending. These are the very reasons we will be back here addressing these matters again in a couple of weeks after the President vetoes the bill.

We should address these issues now, and stop the political gamesmanship that harms both our troops and the gulf coast recovery effort. This bill is nothing short of a cut-and-run in the fight against al Qaeda. I urge a ``no'' vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the players and coaches of the 2006-2007 June Buchanan Crusaders basketball team.

In Kentucky, basketball is something of an institution. It embodies a tremendous spirit of

teamwork and dedication, and the Crusaders have shown that they possess both characteristics. The Bluegrass State is widely known for producing great basketball teams, and the June Buchanan Crusaders are no exception. Making it to the state tournament marks a tremendous milestone in their journey for excellence, and I am proud of their accomplishment.

June Buchanan School is located in the small town of Pippa Passes, Kentucky and has 74 students in grades 9 through 12. After winning the regional championship in Southern Kentucky (26-6), the team is playing in the first round of the Kentucky state basketball tournament at Rupp Arena tonight.

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the Crusaders for their tremendous success throughout the entire season and wish them the best in the boy's state basketball tournament. Through their hard work, determination, and skill they have made Southeastern Kentucky very proud. I ask each of my colleagues to join me in honoring the June Buchanan basketball team.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for yielding time.

The supplemental before us today is a case study of what happens when one branch of the government tries to do the job assigned to another. It is hard to say what this will be known for, unconstitutional legislation that would allow Congress to micromanage a war, or a crude political compromise designed to win votes.

One thing though is perfectly clear: The bill is a sham. Don't be fooled by the rhetoric you will hear today. The managers on the other side of the aisle will try to convince you that we are addressing pressing needs, providing critical resources for our troops in the field and other so-called disasters here at home. But make no mistake, the bill will only hamstring our troops, provide fodder for our enemies abroad, cause a disastrous and precipitous cut and run, and indescribable damage to America's reputation in the vital Mideast and worldwide.

It also breaks the bank here at home by providing funds for pork- laden Democrat wish-lists. What does dollars for a spinach producer have to do with providing help for our troops in Iraq? What does money to a salmon farmer have to do with providing support for our troops in Iraq? What about aquaculture money? What has that got to do with troops in Iraq?

And for those Members who have surrendered their better judgment for pork for their districts, the majority adds $2.5 billion in so-called emergency

homeland security items to sweeten the pot.

Don't get me wrong, many of the majority's homeland security adds are worthy and important items, such as nuclear and explosive detection systems and additional aircraft for the northern border, things I have supported in the past and continue to support, but they are in no way a 2007 emergency. They can be handled regularly in the 2008 bills. In every instance these bills could and should be addressed through the 2008 process.

By including them as 2007 emergencies, the majority is simply trying to look strong on security and buy down requirements to free up funds in fiscal 2008 for additional spending. While I support homeland security spending, I support it in a fiscally responsible way.

Let me turn to the real issue under debate today now. To the defense provisions that will cause the precipitous withdrawal of our forces from Iraq and take from a President his constitutional powers of Commander in Chief, there is a very good reason why our Founding Fathers gave the executive branch the responsibility to conduct war.

The House of Representatives is made up of 435 individuals; lawyers, doctors, teachers, farmers, some with military experience, some without. It is not made up of 435 military commanders who possess the ability to manage a war. We have military professionals to do that. Why are we attempting to insert our military judgment, which can cause the death or injury of our troops, when we are neither trained nor skilled to do so? Leave the management of the war to the trained professionals who know what they are doing.

If your aim is to end the war, and it is, this is the absolute wrong way to do it. The right way, bring forth a resolution or a bill to reverse the original authorization for the war. But as long as you have authorized the war, please don't tie the hands of our great soldiers and their commanders behind their backs in carrying out your authorization, still on the books, to fight this war against terror.

Mr. Speaker, this committee has lost its way on this one. It is a shameful turn of events. Handcuffing the authorities of the President, undermining our troops in harm's way and exploiting worthy government programs for political gain is beyond the pale. Our troops and our Nation deserve better. They deserve our undying support.

I urge a ``no'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I have the sad duty as the dean of the Kentucky delegation to inform the Members of the passing of our former colleague from Kentucky's Fourth District, Gene Snyder, who served some 20 years in this body until he retired in 1986. He passed away on February 16 of this year in Florida. His funeral and interment in Louisville took place last Saturday.

For those who would desire, there will be a Special Order taken out by his successor in that district, Geoff Davis, tonight around 8:45. If you would like to participate in the Special Order, time will be available.

I thank the gentleman for yielding this time, and I want to say to him how much I appreciate him taking this Special Order out as the successor to Gene Snyder in that district to allow us to pay tribute to this legendary figure.

I came here in January of 1981, and Congressman Snyder had been here, of course, long before I got here, had been here at that time I guess 14 or so years. But he took me under his arm and taught me many of the same lessons that the gentleman has just referred to. A kind, gentle soul. But when he had a project on his mind you better get out of the way because he was tough, and he knew what he was doing. And he carried in his pocket a list of those who voted against his bill so that if you wanted a favor from Gene Snyder you had better be on his list that he always carried with him. He would always refer to that list when he was thinking about helping his colleagues. And that made him very, very effective.

He was a dear friend and a mentor of all of us. He was particularly helpful to me as a freshman Member of this body. And I was very, very sad to see him leave the body in 1986. But he deserved a retirement. But we never could get him to come back to Washington to see his friends. When he finished his work here, he was finished with his work here and he retired to his home in Florida.

At his funeral last Saturday in Louisville, a beautiful ceremony, Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate, from Louisville,

an intern in Gene Snyder's office, that is where he got his start, paid Gene Snyder one of the most beautiful tributes that I think I have ever heard. The eulogy that Senator McConnell gave to Gene Snyder is memorable.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I am going to quote that eulogy because it says what I would like to say myself, except it has been said so well by the Senator. So if you will bear with me, I am going to quote the eulogy that Senator McConnell gave at the funeral Saturday.

``Twenty years have passed since Gene Snyder said goodbye to Washington. We gave him back to Pat, and she took good care of him until the end. We honor you, Pat, for your devotion to Gene on the wonderful journey that was marked by much suffering in these last years, and we share your grief.

``Kentucky politics has been known to produce some fine storytellers. Marion Gene Snyder was one of the best. You wouldn't want to share all of these stories with the League of Women Voters, or the Plague of Women Voters as he called it. But when Gene died last week, one of the greatest Kentucky stories of all time came to a close.

``Born in West Louisville to Marion and Lois Snyder, Gene came of age in a time and a place where you worked hard, went to church on Sunday, and always voted democratic. His dad worked a number of jobs to support the family. Gene summed up his childhood like this: I was a poor boy, he said from the other side of the tracks in a cold water flat.

``But what he lacked in privilege he made up for in smarts. Politics called at an early age and Gene responded in the only way he knew how. He gave it everything he had. He enrolled at the University of Louisville, went to law school. He volunteered as precinct captain before he was old enough to vote and he won his first political appointment as Jeffersontown City Attorney in 1954 at the age of 26.

Continuing to read now from Senator McConnell's eulogy at the funeral, he says, ``party officials saw his talents right away, and 8 years later, they tapped him as a candidate for Congress.

``Youth wasn't the only obstacle he faced. Let's not forget that back then, ``conservative'' was a bad word. When Gene was preparing his run, a famous Harvard economist summed up the national mood. These are the years of the liberal, he said. Almost everyone now so describes himself,

``Not Gene. He was conservative before being conservative was cool. And he made no apologies for it. Most people would have excused him for moderating his views until he got his feet under him. But he wasn't the type to bend in the direction of the crowd. He stood still and watched as the rest of the country bent toward him.

Now, continuing from the eulogy that Senator McConnell paid tribute to Gene on Saturday at the funeral, ``he was 35 when he arrived in Washington with the rest of the class of '63. He had a lot to say and a way of saying it. He saw a lot that year. A President assassinated, a new administration and the stirrings of an anti-American counter culture that he would battle, always with good humor, for much of the rest of his life.

``It was a difficult time, but it was exhilarating too. Young conservatives were quietly developing the ideas that would one day drive the political culture in Washington, and men like Gene Snyder, who dared to speak those ideas in a hostile crowd, gave all of them reason to hope.

``Those were the thoughts that were going through my mind at least, Senator McConnell says, when I applied to be an intern in Gene's office after my junior year at U of L. Like most interns, I spent most of that summer in the mailroom. But I was working for a man who knew what he believed. That appealed to me.

``It appealed to me even more when I saw him lose his seat the following year. Most Republicans were running away from their party's presidential nominee, Barry Goldwater. Gene stood still. He embraced Goldwater, even when it was clear that Lyndon Johnson was about to destroy him in the general election. He brushed off the loss with customary good humor. He took out an ad in The Washington Post that read, ``caught in the LBJ landslide. Congressman must sell three bedroom, one and a half bath home on large lot near schools and churches.''

``When a curious reporter called the number on the ad, Gene picked up on the other end. Johnson carried my district by 64,000 votes, he said. I lost by 16,000. That means I was 48,000 ahead of Goldwater.

``I wouldn't have done anything differently in that campaign, he said. I don't think you should rise above principle just to win an election.

``So he came back home, started over and won again 2 years later as a proud conservative. And for the next 20 years the people around Louisville and Northern Kentucky knew they were home when they heard Gene's campaign jingle come over the radio. I think most folks felt the same way about that jingle as the customer who walks on to the screen in that Head-On commercial and says, the commercial is annoying, but the product is great.

``The gentleman from Kentucky made the most of his time in Washington. He threw himself into his work with the enthusiasm of a child. It was a different time. Slower, more congenial, more fun. Gene Snyder was the perfect man for those times.

Now, continuing from the eulogy that Senator McConnell gave at the funeral Saturday, ``the people around here learned the art of politics by watching him lean over fences and shake hands with tobacco farmers in Carrollton.

They learned to enjoy it, too, the way he did, riding up Dixie Highway in a Lincoln car on warm summer nights, stapling his campaign fliers to telephone poles until the sun went down.

``A master of the practical joke, Gene once told a staffer to find a reception room in the Capitol that hadn't been cleaned up from the night before and to bring back the flowers. A little while later, one of the female staffers on the Public Works Committee found the flowers on her desk with a love note. Gene wrote the note, but he signed it with the name of an unsuspecting male staffer.

``His humor even found its way into legislation. The Kennedy Center was supposed to be a self-sustaining institution. But when it couldn't pay its bills, it would ask the Public Works Committee to help out. Gene was the top Republican on that committee, and he didn't like the idea at all. So he introduced a bill proposing Friday night wrestling at the Kennedy Center as a way of boosting ticket sales.

``A visitor to the House of Representatives in the late 1970s might have noticed a large man in a brightly colored sports coat. Gene liked to dress himself when Pat was out of town. Well, C-SPAN put an end to that. One day three worried viewers from Kentucky called Gene's office to say their Congressman was on fire. The camera made his cranberry and orange jacket look like he was engulfed in flames.

``Gene always enjoyed a relaxing atmosphere. After a late night at the Capitol, Members always knew where they could relax or have a drink. The third floor of the Rayburn House Office Building was a good bet. You might find Gene there playing gin rummy with friends or telling a story. You would just follow the laughter.

``By 1979 most of the Nation had moved firmly in Gene's direction. Goldwater finally won his election in the person of Ronald Reagan, and Republican officials in Louisville were excited. I remember because there were about two of us back then, me and Gene. We announced our support for Reagan together, and Kentucky voters would give our 40th President their endorsement a year later.''

Now, continuing from the eulogy that Senator McConnell gave at the funeral Saturday:

``Gene's good humor was matched by his skills as a lawmaker, though he didn't like to admit it. 'I'm a lawyer,' he'd say, 'but not enough to hurt.'

``Yet anyone who worked with him knew he was one of the great parliamentarians of his day, someone who brought a staggering knowledge of the rules to the Public Works Committee and a lot of good things back to Kentucky.

``He was instrumental in building the Jefferson County Floodwall, the Markland Dam Bridge, the Clay Wade Bailey Bridge in Covington, and the Banklick Creek Watershed Flood Control

Project. He was responsible for the Dayton Floodwall; the Falls of the Ohio Wildlife Conservation Area; the renovation of the Louisville Post Office and the Louisville Courthouse; and a new terminal at Standiford Field; new bridges in Covington and Newport; the Gene Snyder Airport at Falmouth; and, of course, the freeway. That is what Gene called it anyway. Just the freeway.

``Gene embodied the old rule that Members of Congress should be friends after 5 o'clock. He was a committed conservative, but even liberal Members lined up to thank him in his last days in Washington. One of them had this to say: 'Gene Snyder has been devoted to building things like bridges across rivers and streams, but he has also devoted himself to devoting goodwill among people.'

``When the last staffer turned off the lights and pulled the door shut on Gene's Capitol Hill office, an era in Washington ended. The people in the Fourth District saw a lot more of him and Pat. The members of Owl Creek Country Club would hear his stories now. The people at Concordia Lutheran saw him quite a bit.

``But Washington would miss, and still misses, his common touch, his lack of pretense, his principle.

``Age and illness would take their toll in the last years of Gene's remarkable life, but his humor remained. Old friends would call just to hear the recordings on his answering machine.

``But now death has done its work, and a great American story comes to an end. Yet we know it continues. This husband, father, lawmaker, mentor, and friend goes to the Father's house now.

``We take comfort in trusting him to the Lord of Mercy, who tells us that in the life to come, every question will be answered. Every tear wiped away. And we look forward to the day when we see Marion Gene Snyder again, upright, restored in body, healthy and strong, reaching across the fence to take our hands.''

So, Mr. Speaker, that is the eulogy that Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the senior Senator from Kentucky, the Republican leader in the Senate, as he delivered the eulogy to our friend Gene Snyder Saturday at the funeral in Louisville. I read the eulogy because I could not say it any better.

Gene Snyder was a legend in his own time. He is a legendary Member of this body. He was one of the most powerful Members of this body for many years. But beneath that sometimes publicly crusted personality was that warm, gentle spirit and warm, gentle heart; that helpful person who reached out a hand to help those who needed it, whether it be a Member of Congress or a person back home looking for help on a Social Security claim or a veteran's pension or the like.

We won't see his kind again, unfortunately, but I am glad that I had the honor and privilege of knowing Gene Snyder for many, many years, listening to his advice, laughing at his stories, and enjoying the companionship that we did. God rest his soul.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to support our troops and our Nation. It is really that simple.

We in Congress have an obligation and duty to debate the many different issues facing the country. Our words and our actions traditionally make their way to our constituents' living rooms and the national news, but now, with communications being what they are, to our troops in the field through the Internet.

Our words are the guiding principles by which the voters ultimately make their decision on who they want representing them here, and this week obviously is no exception.

Our words will carry on for many months to come. Our constituents are listening, as there is no issue more sobering or more somber than this one.

Over the last 4 days, though, I have been struck not so much by the rhetoric on display here but the effects this debate will have on the morale of our troops. Our words have carried much further than those living rooms this past week. This debate will inevitably make its way to our troops there in Iraq standing watch in some remote outpost, training Iraqi security forces.

This debate will inevitably make its way to the parents of our troops, their spouses, their children. These children will remember parts of this debate and will grow up learning just how much their country supported their parents during these trying times.

The talk also goes to the enemy, who is watching and listening to us in the caves, on the battlefield, the terrorist cells wherever they may be. They monitor what we are saying to learn of our resolve. So even if we just talk, we ought to be very careful what we say. The world is watching and listening.

And since we have the power to fund our military, I want to talk briefly. We have one Commander in Chief. The President's premise for going to war in both Afghanistan and Iraq has always been to go on the offensive. It is hard to prove a negative, but it is obvious we have not had one terrorist attack in the U.S. since 9/11. That is not all because of our decision to go to war in Iraq, but it is one of the reasons.

Everybody ought to know by now the basic mindset of the terrorist jihadists. They are attracted to volatile parts of the Middle East, where broken regimes make it okay to practice hatred and violence. They are looking for safe sanctuary that provides secrecy, communications capabilities and a basic infrastructure with which to concoct their next scheme. They plan and plot and wait to pounce in various hot spots around the world, just as they have done in Kenya, Tanzania, the USS Cole, Bali, Madrid, London. It is a low-grade world war.

If we finish this job, Iraq might be a place where people are more concerned with getting to work and raising a family than one where terrorists can plan attacks and sectarian violence is rampant. It won't be perfect.

And let's be honest about what is called sectarian violence. Where did that come from? A lot of it from terrorist organizations, al Qaeda foremost. It is provoked and prodded along because our enemies know it will test our resolve. Listen to the tapes of Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahari. They talk about it all the time.

What they want for themselves is for the U.S. to give up. They call us a paper tiger, a country that gives up when support wanes or when the going gets difficult. In their view, after we give up, they will claim victory and turn Iraq into a terrorist factory of training camps, weapons making and surveillance operations, all designed for the express purpose of waging the next attack in the U.S. or otherwise advancing this low-grade world war.

The President knows this, and we need to end this war. He has taken the input of others and readjusted our strategy and, as we speak, is readjusting our tactics. The Iraqis must take charge of their own security.

Our military is pressing for action, action from our own troops to quell the violence and action to get the Iraqi security forces trained, equipped and ready to act.

I hope to bring the Kentucky troops home, but not until the work is done. Oppose the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I am sad to say that this is a sad day for the U.S. House.

Why do I say that? Well, Mr. Speaker, the power of the purse is the most important power of the Congress. James Madison called the power of the purse ``the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people.''

The power of the purse of the Congress is exercised through its Appropriations Committee and the appropriations process that is longstanding in this body.

Today, we are throwing out that procedure. We are saying in this bill that all of the work that has gone on in the hearings, hundreds of hearings, hours and hundreds of hours of testimony that we have taken in the various subcommittee hearings from the administration, from outside witnesses, from Members of Congress, the Senate and so on, all of those hearings are being disregarded and thrown out. The testimony from the agency and the department heads and the Inspectors General and all of the people that are in the executive branch that are in charge of keeping track of the money, the GAO reports, budget reports, policy expert reports, all of those are being tossed out in favor of the judgment of two Members of the Congress, one from the House, one from the Senate. The bill before us is the product of two people, one from the House, one from the Senate.

All of the debate that took place on the House floor on these individual bills as they came before this body, and Members expressed their views, offered amendments, had some won, some lost, but nevertheless, the process worked. That is being thrown out.

These bills were chock full of reporting requirements of oversight provisions, congressional controls, money closely tied to results from the administration. The bills were carefully crafted in an open process, input from every Member, and all 10 of the 11 bills passed through the House gained widespread bipartisan support. Legislation we can be proud of. And yet we are throwing that out.

The bipartisan work, we are throwing it away. This annual process we call the appropriations process is being discarded. We are cutting the purse strings, blindly handing over the money to the executive branch with no leverage, no new oversight of nearly half of the Federal discretionary budget.

The new majority, Mr. Speaker, has been very righteous in saying it will conduct much more oversight than the previous Congress. And yet this so-called CR completely abdicates the majority's responsibilities as conducting any oversight. Just give the money to the executive branch. Spend it as you please. We don't care. That is what we are saying.

And, Mr. Speaker, I don't like it.