Floor Statements

It was my first trip to Israel, and I know the gentlewoman from Nevada has been there multiple times, countless times, in fact. For me to have seen firsthand what you are talking about today, there really is nothing like seeing it in person.

When we went to the border, and I know that the gentlewoman has talked about this tonight, we went to the border with Gaza and we looked at Sderot and we had families there that until recently lived in Gaza. The mother of course with the children, she pointed across to where she used to live. She said, ``That used to be my house.'' She told her story about when she is getting her kids ready for school, the alarms will go off and they know that the bombs are starting to come in. She told this gut-wrenching story about her experience in a minivan with her kids getting ready to go to school and the alarm goes off. That really puts it in perspective that these are families that are just trying to get through the day, and this is what they have to deal with, not once as the gentleman from New York said, but repeatedly over and over again. These families have to endure the threat of that stockpile that he is talking about landing in their house, hitting their car and killing members of their family. These are things that we can't comprehend on a daily basis in this country, to have that threat every single day raining down upon you.

As the gentleman from New York described, in many instances these are primitive weapons that we are talking about. But in many instances these are weapons that have rained down on this community by the thousands, literally by the thousands. And we met with a gentleman that one of them had hit his house. Again, when you see firsthand the people that are affected by this and the children that are affected by this, it puts in perspective the fact that they are living right there on the border.

What struck me the most when we asked her the obvious question: Why don't you just move? I think that is what many of us might think about doing. And she said much more articulately than I can say tonight, but she said: ``Look, this is where we live. This is our home. If we move, then we have lost. If we move, they are going to move up to where we happen to be at that moment. Then they will start again and we will have to move again. We are not going to do that. We are going to stay here. This is our home. We are under great threat, but we are not moving.''

That really tells the tale of the type of people, the fortitude that we are talking about.

I had been watching the discussion and I couldn't sit back any longer. I had to tell my piece of the story having seen this firsthand, and what a magnificent thing it is to see the courage and the bravery of these people. But the threat that they live under is something that cannot be ignored.

That's right. We were touched by the pain, but we were also touched by the courage that they endure daily these attacks, and they stay and they don't have to do that, but they make the decision to be there. And when you see the story and you see the children firsthand, and again, when they point across in the Gaza and say I used to live in that house right there, that used to be my house.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to hear my colleagues on the other side of the aisle say that this bill is a move towards government-run health care that will cause seniors to lose their Medicare.

I would suggest to my colleagues who complain inaccurately that Medicare beneficiaries will lose coverage under this bill that, if my colleagues are so worried about that, they should consider the implications of doctors refusing to see Medicare patients, which is exactly what could happen if we don't pass this bill and fix physician reimbursement.

SCHIP is a State block grant program and will remain so under this bill. Nearly every State contracts out the SCHIP program to private insurers. That is far from a government-run program.

These are children who live in families where the head of household works but they don't make enough money to afford health insurance. These are families that work hard and play by the rules but still can't afford health care for their kids. That is what we are talking about here today, Mr. Speaker.

This bill protects and strengthens the Medicare trust fund and invests in our children, and I ask my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Pastor Calvin C. Brown. Pastor Brown has served as the pastor for the Tabernacle Baptist Church in Beaver Falls for the past 46 years. During his years of service to the community, he has become a well known and beloved church leader for the residents of Beaver Falls and families throughout the region.

Throughout his illustrious career, Pastor Brown brought hope to many by starting ministries and preaching across the country. He has been an exceptional citizen within his home community where he worked tirelessly to help others who are less fortunate. His accomplishments include working with the Housing Authority of Beaver County to locate homes for those in need, serving as chaplain for the local sheriff's department in Beaver Falls, and performing marriage ceremonies for countless couples. Local residents often speak with Pastor Brown on his regular walks around town, where he warmly greets others and always lifts their spirits. -

I want to commend Pastor Brown for his commitment to the community of Beaver Falls as a pastor, brother, friend, and confidant. I congratulate him on his career and wish him all the best in his retirement.

Madam Speaker, today House Democrats unveiled the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act. It was endorsed by the National Governors Association, a bipartisan group of our Nation's Governors, who just last week asked us for urgent action to reauthorize the Children's Health Insurance Program.

The SCHIP program that we are reauthorizing will ensure that millions of children have access to high-quality, cost-effective health insurance, and it will protect and strengthen the Medicare Trust Fund.

Now, while the President's budget underfunded this program, knocking 1 million children off of the rolls of the SCHIP program, I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join us in a bipartisan effort to show support for the SCHIP program and reauthorize and support the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act.

Mr. Speaker, she is correct. In the State of Pennsylvania, she did a fantastic job in the State legislature in crafting Pennsylvania's plan with regard to children's health insurance. And Pennsylvania, I think, has one of the best, if not the best plans, the model for the entire country on this issue.

And we're going to be joined tonight by some other people who know a lot about health care and especially know a lot about the children's health insurance programs.

We're going to be joined by Mr. Pallone, who's the chairman of the Health Subcommittee right here in the House of Representatives for the Energy and Commerce Committee which has jurisdiction over this issue, and there's no one in this Congress who has worked harder on this issue over the years and has more experience with crafting this. He was involved in putting this together 10 years ago and now, as chairman, has certainly had a lot to say about it.

And we're going to be joined by our colleague from Connecticut, Mr. Murphy, Chris Murphy, who was instrumental in his State legislature on these issues. So we really do have some folks here tonight to talk about this issue who have experience, who have detailed knowledge on this issue.

And what could possibly be more important on the domestic front than health care?

And I'm sure my colleagues would agree, as I travel around my district, I'm sure they have the same experience in their district. That's the issue that comes up more often than any other issue because it affects everybody. It is an issue that, no matter whether you're rich or poor, live in an urban setting, rural setting, you have issues with your health care costs.

Small businesses can no longer afford to offer health insurance in many cases. Large employers are having the same issue.

We have 45 million uninsured in this country, people who lack any health insurance at all, tens of millions more that live in fear of losing their health coverage or are underinsured, don't have adequate coverage to cover their needs.

And 9 million of that 45, Mr. Speaker, are children. And, unfortunately, 6 million of those 9 million children are eligible to participate in the SCHIP program. And the SCHIP program has worked. We're at a 10-year point of reauthorization. And over the past 10 years the number of uninsured children in this country has decreased by 25 percent, while the number of uninsured Americans has increased. This is a program that has worked.

And we talk a lot in this House and a lot during these discussions about the differences between what the President wants to do on the budget level and what this Congress wants to do in a variety of issues. But there is no issue on which there is a starker contrast of opinion than this SCHIP program.

We, as Democrats, want to expand the program in a way that makes sense. It's fiscally responsible, but it's going to pick up many of those 6.2 million children who lack health insurance. We want to find a way to cover those kids.

What could possibly be more important in this country than finding a way to give health insurance to children who live in families that don't have health insurance? I can't think of any more important task.

The President, on the other hand, offered up a budget that actually decreased the number of children that are going to be covered under this program by 1 million. His 5-year budget would have knocked a million children who currently qualify for the program, would have knocked them off the rolls and they would no longer qualify.

And I know my colleagues are going to talk about some of the President's comments recently about what his views are on the program, and I will leave it to them to have that discussion, as I do appreciate the Speaker's indulgence as I have to take the chair following my remarks here.

But I did want to take a moment to just emphasize how important this issue is and to talk about the difference of opinion that exists, not just with Republicans and Democrats, but especially with the administration, Mr. Speaker, and this Congress. There is a stark contrast of opinion, and we're going to have that discussion tonight.

And I thank the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania for her time and all of our colleagues here for their leadership on this important issue.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Dorothy Tyler and her late husband Elias. Twenty years ago this July, they incorporated their organization, the Tyler Youth Group, Inc., which has provided years of programming and support to the children of Aliquippa, Pennsylvania. Their exemplary record of service to their community makes them deserving of high praise.

At the time the Tyler Youth Group, Inc. was founded in 1983, it consisted of a drill team, majorettes, pom pom girls and a drum corps. The Tylers saw the group as a way to serve an unmet need of area youths: the need for after-school programming that would provide kids with productive activities that would help them grow and develop. With a bus they purchased themselves, they took their group to activities and competitions across the region.

Time passed and as both the group and its participants grew, the Tylers added new programming and facilities to meet the needs of the children. They began offering educational and career-oriented activities, and in 1989 they took a rundown, dilapidated building and turned it into a community center for Aliquippa youths and their families. Today, the Aliquippa Tyler Community Youth Center provides a range of activities and services conducive to the healthy growth and development of the area's children.

I am honored to have the opportunity to recognize the Tylers for their tremendous record of service to their community. Their commitment to helping develop healthy, productive young citizens serves as an example to us all.

Mr. Speaker, when I was elected to the House of Representatives last November, I asked to serve on the Higher Education Subcommittee specifically so I could help make college more affordable for American families, and this bill does just that. It raises Pell Grant awards to their highest level in history. It cuts in half the interest rates students will pay on their student loans, and this bill rewards community service by providing loan forgiveness for those who choose careers in important fields like first responders, law enforcement, firefighters, and nurses.

And we do all of this at no additional cost to the taxpayer. This bill is fully funded, and I am proud to have played a part in crafting this important legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Hodes. It is an honor to see you here tonight, as well as Mr. Klein from Florida.

We are at our 6-month point. We have one of our freshman colleagues in the Chair tonight. Mr. Hall from New York is serving as the Speaker pro tempore this evening. We are in the Chamber here tonight; we are talking about the first 6 months. We are talking about what is certainly the most important issue facing the country, as anyone would agree, which is the war in Iraq. We are talking about accountability. As the gentleman pointed out, we have a President that seems to be struggling with accountability right now.

If you look at what has happened in Iraq, we talk about the surge. We are going to have this report in September on whether the surge has worked. We all pray that we get good news in September, that General Petraeus is going

to come in and give us an accurate assessment and, hopefully, that assessment will be that things are turning around.

But it does not appear at this point that that is the case. In fact, as you well know, Mr. Hodes, the last 3 months where the surge has been fully in effect and we have been over there, have been the bloodiest 3 months in the 4\1/2\ years we have been in Iraq. The last 3 months have been the worst 3 months. That does not bode well for the effectiveness of the surge.

As you said, we are over 3,500 now that have been killed and 25,000 injured, wounded and that is just a tragic situation.

I was able to tour Walter Reed soon after that incident came to light with the Washington Post, and perhaps you gentlemen did as well. What strikes you when you meet these men and women, they are the bravest and the brightest and the best this country has to offer. To think that we have a situation where we were giving them substandard care in a military hospital, and in the Department of Defense, we chronically underfund our VA health care systems all across the country. So you have the Defense health care system that Walter Reed was a part of, and that was a disgraceful situation; then on the other hand, for the past several years, we have chronic underfunding of the VA health care system.

So when we talk about this administration's record with regard to accountability and what happens after these brave men and women come home, we have the issue of multiple deployments where the Guard and Reserve families have to struggle with multiple deployments and extended deployments going from 1 year to 18 months. Some of these veterans are small business owners or work in small firms where they have to go to their employer and say, I have to go over to Iraq, I have to serve this country. Of course, the employer says, that is wonderful, you have my support. Then they have to go back a second time, maybe a third.

Again, for the ones that own their own business and are the person that is running the business, how are they going to keep that business afloat? It affects the family. It affects the children. This has so many repercussions. Every segment of our society is impacted by it. But we have a President that has been given the views of the American people--we are going to talk about that tonight--but they have been disregarded.

Sixty-nine percent of the American people think we are heading down the wrong road in Iraq and that we need to change course. Instead, we get more of the same. We have an administration that was given a blueprint for success by the Iraq Study Group 6 months ago now, 7 months ago. Instead of following it, or at least looking at it, it was promptly discarded.

We have an administration that has ignored the advice of his generals on the ground. Whenever they tell him something he doesn't want to hear, they have resigned or they are fired. So I lack the confidence that this administration is going to be able to view the Iraq situation as anything more than ``stay the current course.'' We all know that we need a different course.

We were talking about accountability. I did just want to tell one story that is related to the way this administration views our men and women and the families that are serving this country. I had a constituent in town today. She is an 84-year-old Gold Star mother. Her son was killed in 1969 in Vietnam. She has not been to Washington, D.C. She has not seen the Wall with her son's name on it, the Vietnam War Memorial. She called our office 2 weeks ago and explained her situation. She said, ``I am bringing my two daughters, who are obviously grown now. They are the sisters of the serviceman that was killed in 1969. They are going to come down together as a family for the first time.'' Her goal, her life-long dream, was to tour the White House. So we called the White House. As you certainly know, there is a 6-month waiting list. But there is an exception in special circumstances. One of those circumstances, we were told, you were probably told, were for Gold Star families.

They can get in and take that tour of the White House.

So we were told, sure, they are welcome. We sent the information over, and then we promptly got a phone call saying, well, no, no, that exception only works for Iraq and Afghanistan Gold Star families, not for Vietnam era families.

So we had to call back this 84-year-old woman who wanted to see the Vietnam War Memorial and her son's name on the wall for the first time, and wanted to tour the White House, it was her lifelong dream, and we had to tell her well, I am sorry, we are not going to be able to do that, because the White House does not allow that.

Then it came to my attention that we as Members of Congress in very rare circumstances are allowed to take groups down and put them in the line if we appear with them. So I called her and I said, you know, I am going to just do this myself.

So today we took her down and we put her in the line and she got her tour of the White House.

So I sent a letter to President Bush and I said, there is two issues here. One is this policy is ridiculous. How can you justify putting one group of families who have suffered the greatest loss imaginable in the service of our country ahead of another group of families? How can you put one generation of military Gold Star families ahead of another?

The second issue is, what is the policy? Can you explain it? What is the justification for it? And please change it. That was the situation. I was fortunate as a Member of Congress, I was able to get Ms. Boyer in. But, unfortunately, you wonder how many people around the country have made a similar effort and were unable to get in on this tour.

So, I really thought this was a disgraceful situation, and I did want to bring it to the attention of my freshmen colleagues, because this is something that just happened today. And I think it is indicative of the treatment that our military families are getting from this administration.

I talked about the fact that we have had 6 consecutive years prior to this one of chronic underfunding of our VA healthcare system. You see the result at Walter Reed, what happens when you don't provide enough funding for these institutions. Unfortunately, we as a nation were doing that over the last several years.

But this Congress took a step in the right direction to resolve that by providing the largest increase in the history, 77-year history of the VA health care system, and in the 6 months we have been here, we have voted for $13 billion in increased funding for the VA healthcare system.

We have also voted to increase screenings and treatment for traumatic brain injury, which is now the signature issue for the Iraq war veterans. Many of the people who would have perished in previous wars, because of increased technology and military equipment, we have a lot of amputees and we have a lot of head injuries. So the issues we face are different from issues we faced in previous wars with regard to treating the men and women that come home.

So we are going to screen them and we are going to treat them for traumatic brain injury and we are going to make that part of what we are doing in the VA healthcare system.

So this Congress has taken a step in the direction of honoring our Nation's veterans, and I am proud at our 6-month point of our first term in Congress that we can go home over the July 4th recess and talk about the fact that no Congress in the history of the Congress has ever done more for our Nation's veterans than we have, in just 6 months. So I am proud to talk about that.

I was struck in hearing my Pennsylvania colleague, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak), I believe the highest ranking military officer ever elected to Congress; and so much of the rhetoric that revolved around the discussion that this House had on Iraq was, you guys don't have any experience, you don't know what you are talking about. All you want to do is tie the hands of the generals on the ground, and you need to leave this up to the experts.

What we have heard tonight is an expert, one of the military's foremost military experts that we are fortunate to have not only in this House of Representatives, but in our freshman class with us.

We heard a strategy for success, and we heard someone who has been there

and seen it firsthand. What struck me was the fact that the President has probably had these discussions, and he has probably had people come to him and offer solutions. Maybe not the identical solutions that Admiral Sestak has, but differences of opinion. And the problem is, this administration has not shown a willingness to listen to differences of opinion.

I talked about it earlier. Generals are reassigned if they come in with a difference of opinion. Public opinion certainly doesn't matter. The facts on the ground certainly don't matter.

I was watching earlier, and I don't know if you had the opportunity to walk through some of the facts of what is going on on the ground in Iraq right now. We hear a lot of things on TV about, is the surge working, is it not working. I will let my colleagues decide.

In November of 2003, the number of insurgents in Iraq was 5,000. That is a pretty high number. In March of 2007, the most recent month for which data is available, there were 70,000 insurgents in Iraq as estimated by the Brookings Institution. So 5,000, 4 years ago; 70,000, today.

The number of multifatality bombings in May of 2004 was 9; in May of 2007, last month, it was 42. To me that does not indicate that we are making progress or there is a light at the end of the tunnel. And the numbers of people killed, both civilian and American servicemen, we talked about that earlier, it is exponentially more now.

Clearly, we need a new direction, and we need people like Admiral Sestak, like anyone who is willing to take a hard look at this and offer an alternative solution, like the Iraq Study Group. This is a group of experts who got together, spent a great deal of time studying this issue, making very thoughtful recommendations to the American people, to the White House, and they were promptly disregarded.

Not only were they disregarded, but the course of action that they recommended, diplomacy with the other actors in the region, a training force rather than an offensive force, these are things that we are going in the exact opposite direction. We didn't just discard it, we have gone opposite to what they recommended.

I would say once again that this discussion is healthy. We have four of us here that have opinions, and there are a lot of opinions, and that is the way it should be. I would agree with the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes) that I hope the same type of discussion is taking place on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 179, 110th Congress, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 50 minutes p.m.), pursuant to House Concurrent Resolution 179, 110th Congress, the House adjourned until Tuesday, July 10, 2007, at 2 p.m.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Brittany Hulings, who has been selected as a 2007 Presidential Scholar. Ms. Hulings lives in Sewickley Hills, Pennsylvania and recently graduated from Quaker Valley High School. She is an exemplary citizen and a wonderful example of what our students are capable of achieving.

Since 1964, the Presidential Scholars program has honored the nation's most distinguished graduating high school seniors. Applicants are judged based on their performance in the classroom, their commitment to the ideals of service and their aptitude for leadership. Recipients must excel in all of these areas. Earning this recognition is so competitive that of the over 3 million seniors who graduated this year, only 141 were chosen as Presidential Scholars.

In addition to her excellent academic record, Ms. Hulings has distinguished herself as a student athlete. Due to both her scholastic achievements and her skills as a golfer, she was selected as the Pittsburgh First Tees Scholar for 2007, and she also earned the Pritchett Young Ventures Scholarship. She also boasts a proven record of service, having been active in the state YMCA.

I am honored to have the opportunity to recognize Ms. Hulings's exceptional achievement of becoming a Presidential Scholar. Additionally, I would also like to recognize Ms. Hulings's parents, teachers, coaches and other role models, whom I am sure played a significant role in molding such a remarkable young woman.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. Lou Falconi. Lou was born and raised in Farrell, Pennsylvania, a small steel town located in my district. After Lou attended college and served a tour of duty in Vietnam, he returned home to Farrell and began what

would become a long and successful career as a teacher and a football coach.

Named as the Farrell High School head football coach in 1980, Lou spent the next 27 years raising the spirits of Farrell residents through his team's excellence on the field. Lou compiled a career record of 210 wins versus 91 losses and 6 ties. Under Lou's leadership, the Farrell Steelers won two PIAA Class A State Championships, four WPIAL Championships, and a District 10 title. Lou was named Coach of the Year three times by the Pennsylvania Scholastic Football Coaches Associated and was recognized as Conference Coach of the Year eight times by his coaching peers.

On June 19th, 2007, Lou received the ultimate reward for his distinguished career--an induction into the Pennsylvania Scholastic Football Coaches Association Hall of Fame.

I want to commend Lou for his commitment to the community of Farrell both in the classroom and on the football field and congratulate him on this well deserved achievement.

Madam Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to the faculty and staff of Pine-Richland Middle School in Gibsonia, Pennsylvania. Pine- Richland Middle School was recently given the extraordinary honor of being designated as a School to Watch by the National Forum to Accelerate Middle Grades Reform, a distinction bestowed upon only 34 middle schools nationwide this year.

In order to become recognized as a School to Watch, middle schools must meet rigorous criteria set forth by the National Forum. To comply with these standards, schools must not only promote academic excellence among their students, but also provide adolescents with an environment that is sensitive to and supportive of their particular developmental needs. Additionally, schools must ensure that their resources are used equitably to assist and challenge students at all levels of achievement.

By earning recognition as a School to Watch, Pine-Richland Middle School has demonstrated its commitment to providing the best possible education to every one of its students. I am honored to have the opportunity to recognize the talented faculty and staff who earned this award. Every day, they dedicate themselves to the task of producing enlightened students and virtuous citizens. I commend them for their work and wish them continued success.

Mr. Speaker, President Bush said this week that there are important differences between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to

spending, and he's right, because for 6 years, President Bush joined with Republicans that led this Congress on the most fiscally irresponsible budget policies in the history of the Nation. They turned the record surpluses of the 1990s into the record deficits we face today, and while they ran up those record deficits, inconceivably they cut medical research. They cut Head Start, they cut clean water programs, and they cut health care for our Nation's veterans.

Mr. Speaker, the Democratic budget balances the budget within 5 years, and our appropriations bills comply with pay-as-you-go scoring. We passed Homeland Security and Military Construction and Veterans appropriations bills last week, and this week we'll pass an Energy and Water bill that includes renewable fuel and reduces our dependence on foreign oil.

So you see, Mr. Speaker, the President's right; we do have different priorities on Federal spending.

Thank you. Same to you. I had a wonderful Father's Day with my two children, and I'm happy to be back on this Monday night. And I did want to add some levity to the evening, because people watch late night television. We're here; it's after 11:00. And the gentleman perfectly set me up by talking about the President's radio address. So I wanted to read a quote from the President's radio address that, for those that know history and for those that don't, I'm going to remind them of some of the history. They're going to find this quote to be quite entertaining. And this is the President's radio address.

``In the weeks ahead, my administration will continue pushing for earmark reform and holding the line on Federal spending. The American people do not want a return to the days of tax and spend policies. They expect accountability and fiscal discipline in Washington, D.C.''

Now, certainly, we don't disagree with that statement, but for those that understand the history of this administration, they can understand why some of us might be amused to hear the President saying such a thing, because I would remind my colleagues, if they need reminding, that prior to President Bush taking office, the 4 years immediately before his term, his first term, we had had 4 consecutive years of budget surplus, surpluses that were forecast as far as the eye can see.

In fact, the Congressional Budget Office scored the 10-year projection of surplus at over $5 trillion of surplus.

So President Bush comes into office, there's every reason to expect these surpluses are going to continue.

Well, what have we seen in the 6-plus years that this President has been this office? Well, we've seen six consecutive budget deficits, deficits that before the Democrats retook control of Congress, were forecast as far as the eye can see. And this has been the biggest spending administration in over the past 6 years before this year, the biggest spending Congresses in the history of this country.

So for the President to get on the radio and come before audiences and lecture the Democrats on fiscal responsibility, and I would re-read that last

statement on what he says the American people expect, ``They expect accountability and fiscal discipline in Washington, D.C.''

Well, over the course of that 6 years, the President added $3.5 trillion to the national debt. Now, keep in mind what I said earlier, that the projection before he took office was, over the 10-year period, we would have over $5 trillion in surplus. But, instead, in just 6 years, he had an $8 trillion turnaround, from $5 trillion on the plus side to $3 trillion on the deficit side.

And I would suggest, if you had said to an economist going into that term, figure out a way that this is possible, how can a President, using economic policy, working with the Republican-controlled Congress, have a $8 trillion swing from surplus to deficit, most economists would have said, oh, that's impossible. You can't possibly mismanage the economy in such a way that you could have that poor of an outcome. Well, unfortunately, we have.

So here, again, to have this President lecture this Congress on fiscal responsibility is simply inconsistent with the facts.

He also references earmarks in the appropriations process. And we do have Ms. Wasserman Schultz here, a member of the Appropriations Committee. And I know she will have something to say about this as well.

But I wanted to remind my colleagues about the history of the 12 years that the Republicans were in control of this House, from 1995 through 2006. Well, for that 12-year period, the 12 budget cycles that we had, I don't know if any of my colleagues would like to venture a guess, how many times in those 12 years do you think the Republican Congress finished the appropriations process on time? How many times were all the appropriations bills completed by October 1, which, under statute, is the beginning of the fiscal year?

The gentlewoman from Florida.

Zero. That is correct.

Zero times in 12 years. Now, interestingly, you'd say, well, it must be difficult to do then. Maybe it's not often that we're able to do this. Does the gentlewoman from Florida wish to venture a guess on the last time that the budgets were all completed on time and the appropriations were completed by October 1 in their entirety?

Right. In the 1994 year, the Democratic Congress, the last year the Democrats controlled Congress, the Democrats were able to complete all the budget bills, all the appropriations bills on time. The last time it has happened. Then we had 12 years of Republican rule in this Congress, in this House, and we had 12 consecutive years where the appropriations bills were not completed on time.

So it should be no surprise to any of my colleagues and other outside observers that the Republicans are not anxious to see the Democrats come back into power and right away pass all 12 appropriations bills in a timely fashion. So I was not surprised, and I suspect others were not surprised, to see the extraordinary delaying tactics that we saw take place in this House last week, with continual and repeated procedural motions, motions to rise.

And those of us that sat here at 2 o'clock in the morning on that night, we realized that this was not about substance. This was not about policy. This was merely about denying the Democrats a legislative victory because the last thing those on the other side would want is for us to come in and right away pass the appropriations bills on time, which hasn't happened since 12 years ago when we last controlled Congress.

And, lastly, the President mentions earmarks. His quote again: ``In the weeks ahead, my administration will continue pushing for earmark reform.''

Well, what has been the history of earmarks under the Republican Congress? Let's go back to that 12-year period, and I know the gentlewoman knows the answer; so I will spare you the question this time. In 1994, that last year that the Democrats controlled Congress, there were 4,000 earmarks, approximately, in all the spending bills combined for $26 billion. That is what they represented. Now, that sounds like a lot and it is a lot. It is a lot of earmarks and it is a lot of money.

Well, let's compare that to last year, the last year the Republicans controlled Congress. These were the people, you recall, that last week were decrying the use of earmarks and talking about how unfair it was how the Democrats were approaching it, and we have a President now who says he is going to continue pushing for earmark reform, ``continue'' being the operative word there. Well, when you hear the word ``continue,'' let's thing think about what happened last year. Now, recall in 1994, 4,000 earmarks, $26 billion. Last year, 2006, 16,000 earmarks, unprecedented, the highest in the history of the country, $64 billion of earmarks, compared to $26 billion in 1994.

So here again, please spare us the lecture about fiscal responsibility and accountability in the appropriations process and certainly as it pertains to earmarks. We have had, over the past 6 years of this administration and over the past 12 years of Republican leadership in this Congress, the biggest-spending Congress and administration in the history of the country. They spent more money, they ran up bigger deficits, they used more earmarks for more money than any Congress and any administration in the history of the country. So please forgive me if I view with skepticism some of the President's comments over the weekend.

And at this time I will now turn it over to the gentlewoman from Florida.

I appreciate the gentleman and Ms. Wasserman Schultz.

I did want to make clear, just for anyone who is watching this debate, that all of these bills that the President is threatening to veto over spending are compliant with pay-as-you-go policy. That is critical.

It means we as the Congress are doing the same thing the American people have to do in their own home. Checkbooks, you have to have money on one side of the ledger if you want to spend it on another. That is something this Congress has not done.

They came into place in the 1990 budget agreement.

They were allowed to expire, and that led to the record deficits of the past 6 years that I talked about earlier.

On our very first day in Congress, it was this Congress that reinstated the pay-as-you-go. As a result, all of these appropriations bills that the President is threatening to veto, for the first time in 6 years, these appropriations bills are compliant with PAYGO. They say simply, as I said, you have to have money on one side to pay for it on the other. If you want to increase spending, or decrease revenue, for that matter, you have to find an offset to pay for it on the other side of the ledger. That is what the President is talking about vetoing.

Specific to the Homeland Security appropriations bill, which we passed last week, I just wanted to talk a little bit about immigration. Boy, we hear a lot about immigration, around the country on talk radio. I am sure each of you in your Florida districts hear about it. I can promise you in my Western Pennsylvania district, I hear more about immigration than I hear about any other issue, and there is not even a close second.

It is an important issue. It is an issue for a lot of people that we have illegal immigrants coming across the border. And for anyone who is talking about this Homeland Security bill that is concerned about that issue, I want to tell you that in this bill we have money for fencing.

The speaker before us had his prop out where he was showing about building a fence along the border. This bill has money to build the fence.

This bill has money for new technologies for detection of immigrants, illegal immigrants coming across the borders.

This bill has increased border agents and security agents that are able to enforce our laws, 3,000 new border agents along our southern border with Mexico.

It has new detention beds. We have a catch-and-release program where we don't have the capacity to hold on to folks that we are catching on the southern border, so we simply release them. This bill has money to stop that practice with new border agents and new detention beds.

So for anyone that is watching this debate that is concerned about immigration and thinks we need to secure the boarders, we agree, and we passed a bill to make that happen. That is the bill the President is threatening to veto.

We also have port and aviation security measures. We have a situation where as a result of 9/11 we have to be very concerned about our aviation security, certainly, and our port security. We have money in this bill to increase our security on both of those. That is what the President is threatening to veto.

We have increased the money available for first responders. The President cut by 55 percent firefighter funding. So anyone who is concerned about firefighters, can you think of a more worthy commitment for our Federal spending priorities than the brave men and women who put their lives on the line every single day here at home to keep us safe and are doing it on a voluntary basis through the fire department?

The President cut that funding by 55 percent in his budget. Well, we restored that, because our priorities say that we should find that money, and through pay-as-you-go we did find the money to pay for that. But we put that money back in for our firefighters and our police, our first responders.

Lastly, before I turn it over to Ms. Wasserman Schultz, who can speak as a member of the Appropriations Committee, this is so important. This bill ensures our tax dollars are spent wisely with the requirement for competitive bidding on contracts.

Now, anyone who has followed what happened in the Homeland Security arena over the past several years, and certainly that includes Katrina and the fiasco that took place with the no-bid contracts thereafter along the Gulf Coast, knows how important it is to ensure that our tax dollars are spent in a responsible and fiscally rational way.

We do that through the requirement that we do competitive bidding on contracts which has been in very short supply over the past 6 years.

So that is what is in this bill. We secure our borders. We put money into detection and prevention and detention of illegal immigrants. We secure our aviation, our airplanes and our airports. We secure our ports. We put money in for first responders. That is what the Homeland Security bill does, and that is what the President is threatening to veto.

I just want to remind our colleagues who are with us tonight and watching us tonight that this is about preventing the Democrats from a legislative victory. It is not about the budget because this is compliant with pay-as-you-go rules.

I was amused in listening to the gentlewoman from Florida when I thought about what one of the major Republican Presidential candidates said recently, ``The Democrats don't understand terrorism.'' The gentlewoman went through a very lengthy list of things that we have done here in the first 6 months on homeland security and on terrorism, and the fact that the President is threatening to veto many of those initiatives.

I would ask the question rhetorically, who among us, the Democrats or Republicans, don't understand terrorism? I think we are the ones putting forward initiative after initiative after initiative compliant with PAYGO rules to prevent terrorist attacks, as much as it is possible to do that, and to address these issues in a way that has not been done. It has languished for years.

The 9/11 Commission recommendations were put forward in 2003. Here we are 4 years later. September 11 took place nearly 6 years ago. We still have not implemented the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and that is indefensible.

I would just say to anyone who says it is the Democrats who don't understand terrorism to take a look at the list that the gentlewoman has put forward that we have done in only 6 months after these initiatives have languished year after year.

Mr. Speaker, I tell my colleagues, for more information, if they would like to learn, of course you can go to Speaker.gov/30something, or there is now a link on the Speaker's Web site to the 30-something Working Group of which the three of us are members as well as Mr. Murphy and Mr. Ryan and others. So that site is www.speaker.gov, click on the 30-something icon and you can learn more about the issues and see the charts, even the gentleman's Velcro chart which is now missing.

That is [email protected].

Mr. Speaker, after years of neglect, this House is finally going to take up a VA funding bill that honors our commitment to our Nation's veterans. In contrast to the chronic underfunding that the VA has seen in recent years, this bill that we are going to talk about today has the largest increase in VA health care spending in the 77-year history of the program.

And for the first time, this bill exceeds the recommended funding level of the service organizations, the American Legion and the VFW.

Democrats continue to demonstrate our commitment that no group should stand ahead of our Nation's veterans when it comes time to make Federal funding decisions. This bill will help us clear up the 400,000-case backlog at the VA. It is going to help us avoid issues like what happened at Walter Reed, and it will give our veterans the care that they earned and the care that they deserve.