Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your leadership on this bill. I am proud to serve as the Vice-Chairman of this Subcommittee. I want to echo the words of my friend, Mr. Rehberg, because Amtrak is an essential service in my Congressional District and home state of New York.

We have had this debate every year, and we go through this process in each of those years. Last year in particular, we fought possibly the toughest battle in years for passenger rail. We were threatened with vetoes, unless some Amtrak reforms were enacted. So what did we do? We enacted reform. One year later, we have seen evidence these reforms are working.

Yet, here we are today with a proposal to fund Amtrak at $900 million. This allocation is

a shutdown number for Amtrak, and it would come at the worst possible time to shut down Amtrak.

This is because we have seen evidence these reforms are working. We required Amtrak put in place a new business plan. We required Amtrak to institute new service contracts and plans. For instance, they had to adopt more efficient accounting procedures. We also demanded they restructure their dining services, which was a big money loser.

The Department of Transportation Inspector General just issued a report on Amtrak business practices. According to this April 6th report, Amtrak has saved $19 million from October 2005 through February 2006, thanks to these reforms. This is better than expected.

Amtrak is saving money because of the institution of these new reform plans that we demanded of them. To now shut them down would go back on our word. They lived up to their end of the deal, now we must live up to ours.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, after 9/11, our nation united against terrorism and those who want to kill innocent civilians and destroy our American way of life. New York was impacted deeply by these tragic events and we understand first-hand the kind of unthinkable damage that can be inflicted by hate-filled violent extremists.

I voted to support the use of force in Iraq for many reasons. Decades of deception and violation of United Nations resolutions; invading neighboring countries; and a litany of ruthless atrocities by Saddam Hussein involving murdering his own people.

I believe that the best way to safeguard freedom in our nation increasingly depends on supporting a democratic global strategy in areas beyond our borders. That is why supporting the creation of a self-governing Iraq is so critical to the future of both our countries.

Having said that, I am deeply disappointed in this resolution because I believe we owe Americans more than a simple declaration of our resolve in Iraq. We owe them an account of our progress in the Global War on Terror; an assessment of the situation, the stakes, and the strategy for victory in the battle for Iraq; and an affirmation we will defend our country, defeat the enemy, and win this unsought struggle for survival.

There are several points in this resolution that I am concerned about. It also strikes me as merely a reiteration of the resolution we passed last December.

First, I am disappointed in the choice of the word adversary in this resolution. History and reality illustrate that within Iraq and the broader Global War on Terror we do not face an adversary--we face a very real and dangerous enemy. We should not be afraid to clearly state what we as a nation are up against.

Secondly, philosophically, any state-sponsor of terror is a threat to the United States, because terrorism is an attack upon the self- evident, inalienable human rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This point should be clearly expressed in a resolution of this nature.

Additionally, the second clause states ``. . . for the past two decades, terrorists have used violence in a futile attempt to intimidate the United States.'' This clause is too sanitized. The hard truth is the enemy has not tried to intimidate us. The enemy has tried to kill us and often succeeded. The enemy does so because our very existence as sovereign citizens of a free Republic constitutes a beacon of hope for all who are--and all who yearn to be--free; thus, we are our enemy's paramount obstacle to world dominion.

I know first hand the difficulties we face in Iraq. I have heard it directly from the men and women that are fighting so hard in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I do hope that despite my concerns that this debate provides a clearer understanding of the threats we really face and the opportunity to develop a strategy that protects our troops and enables our military to develop a comprehensive strategy to win this war, transfer the power to the Iraqi people and bring them home. It should also demonstrate that the ``cut and run'' agenda of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle is the wrong approach to this problem and encourages the terrorists to wait us out and undo all that our soldiers have worked through blood, sweat, tears and their lives to establish--a victory for our nation and a stable and secure democracy in the Middle East.

Lastly, and most importantly, I will continue to stand by and support U.S. troops. I must take this opportunity to pay a personal tribute to the brave lives that have been claimed from my district: Nathan Brown, Stephen Madison, Kevin Kimberly, Isaac Nieves, and Joseph Robsky. Their sacrifice, and the sacrifice of their families and loved ones embody the spirit of our great nation and principles of democracy we hold dear.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to the amendment and in support of the Strand Performing Arts Center, not because it is in my congressional district, because it is not; but because I recognize it as an important part of economic development in the north country, a part of the State of New York that I partially represent.

Let me suggest that I play a little off of my colleague, Mr. McHugh's comments and the notion that what I would suggest the gentleman from Arizona do is direct his angst and his efforts toward the authorizing processes, the processes that created the criteria that many of these projects have had to compete within for many of these years. Maybe that is where the reforms and the oversight would be best directed, because by playing by the rules, the people of the north country have an expectation here that they are going to improve their economic climate, a place that is incredibly distressed, that is in the national interest, I believe, to help assist, and that will be able to improve the quality of life.

Things like being able to recruit good doctors to come to work at the Champlain Valley Physician's Hospital, a place that endeavors to develop a cardiological unit that will provide the opportunity for the people of the north country to not have to drive or relocate their families hundreds of miles away. This adds to the quality of life and the recruitment potential.

I also want to make a brief comment about the comments by Mr. Walsh and associate myself with them. New York State is a donor State. We send tens of billions of dollars every year in Federal tax dollars. New York State taxpayers send to the Federal Government more than they receive in return. A $250,000 earmark for the Strand Theater Arts Center which will help with the economic development in a depressed area is a concern for all of the people of New York, and, I believe, all the people of this Nation.

I think this is an appropriate use of Federal dollars. I think if the gentleman is sincere about his efforts to provide the proper oversight, he ought to direct them towards where they ought to be properly directed, and that is where the rules are made up for it.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for raising this important issue, and we would be happy to accept his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman is withdrawing his amendment, and I know this is an important project in the gentleman's district in Minnesota and that the State and the FTA are working to finalize the details on this commuter rail line.

Let me say for the record, we will watch the progress as this bill moves to conference and as the Northstar line moves to full funding status.

I thank the gentleman for withdrawing his amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, as we are seeing, we have got a lot of business at hand here today and a number of amendments yet to come and the desire to try to move forward and finish our work here. But this is an important bill that really establishes the Federal priorities in transportation, really does that at a time when we are faced with great fiscal constraints and the need to move forward.

So I would ask my colleagues, as they come forward to the floor, to really understand the constraints of time that we have and the constraints of floor action because, as we know, tomorrow we will be debating at length the involvements in Iraq and their importance to the Nation, something that the American people will ask us to provide great clarity for them.

So as we move forward, we have discussed a number of issues, including the issues by my friend from Arizona, Mr. Flake, on the earmarking process and its appropriateness and whether the process for oversight is appropriate. I want to point out that the process has been appropriate, but earmarks make up a very small percentage, six-tenths of 1 percent of all of Federal expenditures and that this process here, the American people can rest assured that this Congress is doing its job with great diligence.

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. King of Iowa

Mr. Chairman, I am willing to accept the gentleman's amendment.

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

As I was saying earlier, Mr. Chairman, we have a lot of very important legislation to come and Members are encouraged to participate, but at the same time we need to continue to move forward.

A number of difficult issues face us. Some of them will affect our local districts more than they will affect others. And at the same time, we would urge Members to look at the entirety of what the process is and the entirety of the constraints that we have facing us as we move forward in debate on this important Transportation-Treasury bill.

The committee has worked for hours and months. I need to acknowledge the staff for all of their tremendous work at vetting each of these projects and making sure that the projects meet the budget requirements we are under. As Chairman Lewis pointed out earlier in the day, the Appropriations Committee has done marvelous work in the 2 years under his leadership, done work in which we have been able to bring appropriation bills in under budget, and in incredibly stealth and quick time we were able to pass these pieces of legislation last year and we will do the same this year before the July 4 recess, thus giving us time to move with our colleagues in the Senate in conference to settle the differences that may exist in each of these spending bills. And as we move forward, Members need to understand that there is a great deal of work left ahead of us.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would be honored to yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman. And reclaiming my time, I would point out, as we did earlier, that some of the disagreements that exist between those who are concerned with the earmarking process may be better rectified or more rectified in looking at the rules and the standards and the criteria established under the authorizing process for the allocation of all of these funds.

In that instance, we might be able to bring about the kinds of reform that those who advocate against the earmarking process.

I think it is important that the American people understand that as

local representatives, we are the closest representatives that they get to their expenditure of Federal tax dollars. Therefore, every 2 years they have the opportunity to voice their pleasure or displeasure with us as Members of Congress in terms of whether we are handling the public purse strings appropriately or not.

I think it is all healthy for the body. We look forward to future debates on it. But as we move forward, I think that people need to stay focused on the priorities that are being established, the process which is meant to vet that priority and protect the American people.

They can rest assured that that process is being fully exercised through the appropriations process.

Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, in the brief time I have, I want to just say that I want to echo the words of my friend, Mr. Rehberg, that Amtrak is an essential service in my part of the country. But we have had this debate every year, and we go through this process in each of those years.

Last year, in particular, we had a very strong and vigorous debate in which we were threatened with a veto at one point and demanded reforms. This $900 million allocation is a shutdown number for Amtrak, and it would come at the worst possible time to shut down Amtrak.

This is because it is part of those reforms. Amtrak was required to institute new acting procedures. It was required to institute new service contracts and plans. It was required to put in place a new business plan. The Department of Transportation Inspector General just issued a report from September 2005 to March 2006.

Amtrak has saved in excess of $19 million with the institution of these new reform plans that we demanded of them. To now shut them down would go back on our word. Let me also say that Amtrak promotes fuel conservation. At this time, when we are all sensitive about that, it is something that we ought to consider.

A recent study by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory shows Amtrak consumes 17 percent less energy per passenger than automobiles and 18 percent less than planes. Amtrak is an essential service. Support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment and would point out that this is not an amendment that simply cuts money out of the bureaucracy. It is not a bureaucratic cut.

The cuts proposed by the amendment are irresponsible in today's atmosphere where immigration and terrorism threats to the government and U.S. citizens are real.

Cutting the Federal buildings fund by $261 million would leave the fund without the resources it needs to build critical, secure crossings on our southern border with Mexico and strengthen the Federal buildings against the threat of terrorism.

Let me repeat that. Vote for this amendment and you are voting against building border crossings on the U.S.-Mexico border and against funding to secure Federal buildings against terrorism.

The amendment would completely eliminate GSA's new construction of six border stations at the crossings in McAllen, Texas; El Paso, Texas; San Luis, New Mexico; Columbus, New Mexico; Calexico, California; and Nogales, Arizona. In addition, the amendment would eliminate the Food and Drug Administration's Montgomery County, Maryland project, as well as the remote delivery facility in Anacostia for mail sorting for the Federal Government, something that is sadly needed with the threat of anthrax and other deadly substances in our government now.

Funds would be cut that are needed to secure Federal buildings to protect workers and the general public from possible terrorist attacks.

As much as higher funding for the capital fund would be nice, there are more pressing needs in this bill.

This amendment is irresponsible, and I would urge its defeat, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would point out to my good friend that I probably, more than any other Member in this body, have great understanding of what public housing funds are for. I grew up in public housing. Nevertheless, this bill is about balancing the priorities that we need in this age of terrorism and threat of terrorism. In this age of immigration reform, I think that these funds need to fully be kept in as they have been appropriated by the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.

In conclusion, let me just say I strongly oppose this amendment because of its impact on some vital security needs. I would point out to the gentleman and my friends, of the $261 million he diverts over into public housing, 20 percent of it could be used for administrative costs in the current form of the structure that it is used.

This money is needed and has been prioritized as such, and I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

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

Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman from New York if his intention is to withdraw the amendment, as we were led to believe.

It is necessary.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I do so in opposition to this amendment which I understand takes part of the program and makes it available into the first quarter of fiscal year 2010. The problem with that is that this adds an unneeded complication to the administration and accounting of the HOME program and is unnecessary since under existing rules, if the funds are obligated on time, they will be available to homeowners during the last quarter of the year.

Mr. Chairman, this causes a great deal of problems in the administration of this program, so I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers and I will close on this side.

Mr. Chairman, once again I reiterate the opposition by the committee to this amendment. It is unnecessary and is an unneeded complication. But I would make the final point that already in existing appropriations the problem of the first quarter of next year will be satisfied with $25 million that has been appropriated next year, which will overlap between the 2007 and 2008 cycle, meaning this amendment is not only unnecessary but wouldn't have the impact which is already covered in the bill, in prior bills passed.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, while I recognize that the gentlewoman from Florida has great intentions here, this bill, as we have said, is all about choosing priorities and making some difficult choices. The proposed reduction in HUD S&E funds, combined with the need to absorb a one-half percent increase in the Federal pay raise, will necessitate a further reduction in HUD's staffing level of several hundred full-time equivalent staff positions, making it more difficult for HUD to provide sufficient oversight and risk management in its significant housing and community development program delivery.

Regarding the cuts to GSA, I make note that we are at the start of the hurricane season, and these funds that would be cut support the Office of Citizen Services and Communications, the Nation's focal point for information and services offered by the Federal Government. This infrastructure has been a resource in the time of crisis or unexpected events, most recently as a means to provide valuable information to citizens after Hurricane Katrina. Reductions could impact the hours of operation of our call centers for victims of hurricanes this year.

These accounts also fund GSA's real and personal property utilization and disposal programs from which we transfer assets no longer needed by the Federal Government to State and local governments and nonprofit organizations, saving millions of dollars.

Cutting these funds delays in transferring properties to eligible recipients and delays in generating sales proceeds from disposal actions.

The amendment would cut funds for the Office of Governmentwide Policy, which carries out various policy functions assigned by Congress that is separate from GSA's operations. For example, these are the folks who set per diem rates and travel policy for government employees.

Mr. Chairman, cutting GSA operating expenses is the surest way to bring the operations of the Federal Government to a grinding halt. And while ``government'' bashing may be popular with many folks, we found out with the devastating hurricane season last year that many citizens want their government to respond to them in times of need. I ask Members to oppose this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

I do, Mr. Chairman.

Point of Order

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

The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment is not merely perfecting and adds additional legislation.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, I recognize noble intentions are at work here, but I am very opposed to increasing this program at the expense of other critical programs, and there are a number of reasons.

The committee mark fully funds the amount requested by the administration and fully funds the program that has been in place for the past decade. These funds go to State and local governments to abate lead-based paint in homes that will not be restored through privately funded modernization or resale.

Three years ago the Senate began a new demonstration program and added between $50 and $75 million in additional funds. The House has not included these funds in subsequent years, and the Senate has attempted to continue the demonstration program each year. They may well try to do it again.

The committee is simply not in a position to absorb a $35 million increase in funding for this demonstration program at the expense of other programs that are being funded at the 2005 level or below.

Once again, the proposed reduction in S&E funds, combined with the need to absorb a one-half percent increase in the Federal pay raise, will necessitate a further reduction in HUD's staffing level of several hundred full-time equivalent staff positions, making it more difficult for HUD to provide sufficient oversight and risk management in its significant housing and community development program delivery.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude by reiterating my remarks that this is, as Mr. Terry pointed out, a year of very tough budget numbers. But not only that, we need to control our spending here.

The committee understands that, but also understands that it needs to meet other priorities. The mark fully funds the amount requested by the administration and fully funds the program that has been in place the past decade. The cuts that are proposed as offsets would be too substantial to absorb in the other programs. It would have a devastating impact.

I would urge our colleagues to vote ``no.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.

Point of Order

I will make the point order against the amendment because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. Clause 2 of rule XXI states in pertinent part: ``An appropriation may not be in order as an amendment for an expenditure not previously authorized by law.''

Mr. Chairman, the amendment proposes to appropriate funds for a program that is not authorized. The amendment, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

I ask for a ruling on the point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the point of order, and I will reserve the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I would urge my colleagues to do so.

Mr. Chairman, I will make these very quick points: First, that section 108 is an eligible use of economic development funds. And, therefore, there is no reason to have a separate set-aside of funds, as is proposed here in this amendment. In fact, in this bill we have added $1 billion in CDBG funds for the fiscal year. So there will be plenty of opportunities for States to do exactly as the gentlewoman calls for, and we believe that is the best way the program should be run.

With that, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

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

Let me start by saying as a member of the committee I really appreciate the work of the chairman and the ranking member. I know the very difficult choices that had to be made under an extremely tight budget and extremely tough year in making those decisions. And I rise in opposition to this amendment somewhat reluctantly because I agree with some of the prior speakers and the need to look at the priority of water and the needs of water throughout the Nation as a means of expanding United States influence in a very positive way. We do it in this bill; we do it as best we could in fitting in some of the other priorities they have.

And why I rise in opposition to this amendment is because of its effect. As has been pointed out already, it cuts everything, but from the designated funds, the earmarked funds. It cuts $250 million that I think will critically imbalance United States relationships in some places. For example, it cuts from some of the African nations that I think desperately need the support that would be given in the MFM fund.

And as an Armenian American, I want to point specifically to the effect it would have on Armenia and the fact that it would cut $68 million in assistance, economic and border security assistance to Armenia, which I view in large part is in this bill in order to balance out some of the challenges that fledgling nation has with its neighbors in Turkey and Azerbaijan; and in part, in recognition, which we have failed in this Congress to do as of yet, and in this Nation, to recognize the Armenian genocide of the past century and its impact on that nation's history.

And so I want to salute the chairman and the ranking member for trying to find that delicate balance and striking it here in this bill. And while I applaud the sponsor of the amendment and his intentions and hope that we can work in future years to do even more as it relates to providing water, I think the impact of what this bill does in terms of offsetting those funds would have too detrimental an impact. Therefore, I would urge my colleagues to object.

I yield to the gentleman from Oregon.

Well, the amount for Armenia, as is being explained to me by the chairman, is about 7 percent. So if I said 7 million, then I misspoke out of MFM. But the total impact, as I understand it, of the taking of the 250, about 50 percent would be to lose the 68 million that was intended to be sent to Armenia for the border security.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment and would like to say, first, that I understand that simply by having this debate here today, I think we are sending the appropriate message that needs to be sent to Egypt. And I would point out that already in the bill we rescind $200 million in aid to Egypt, and I think that this particular amendment would be much more punitive than is requisite and needed.

The United States needs to strive to bring reforms to Egypt. We all agree on that. But this is not tough love. This is going over the top in my estimation, and would cause damage for many years in the future if it were to pass. Reducing U.S. aid to Egypt at this time would also be strategically not a good move for the United States. Egypt has facilitated expeditious transit of hundreds of U.S. warships and thousands of U.S. aircraft through the Suez Canal and Egyptian air space since the start of Operation Enduring Freedom and Iraqi freedom.

Egypt has been a close partner. Many of my colleagues before have spoken about that relationship and what it means to the region at such a critical team. So I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment because I think it goes just too far.

I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Reclaiming my time, let me conclude by saying that I agree the purposes of this amendment are quite noble and that we as a body and as an institution should be promoting the ideas of reform and we should be intolerant and frustrated, but this amendment goes too far. And we have already taken steps and the mere fact we are having this debate I believe reinforces that message. I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy regarding the fiscal year 2006 high-density high-threat urban area security initiatives, and I do so recognizing that we are in the process of debating and discussing the 2007 bill, and so the relevance is of some importance.

Last week, DHS released the funding allocations for the 2006 homeland security grants program. I was extremely disappointed to see New York's overall allocation for the UASI program decreased by almost $83 million.

It is tough to understand why, considering New York City remains the highest target to terrorism. New York has been attacked and targeted not once, but multiple times; and its security is a national concern.

In fact, a Pakistani immigrant was just convicted last week for attempting to blow up a subway station at Herald Square.

I have been fighting for a threat-based funding formula for several years because homeland security funding should be based on population, threat, vulnerability, and consequence. The program should never be used for pork spending. The formula I have been fighting for will benefit the areas that need it the most: those that face threats like New York City, Boston, Philadelphia, San Diego, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles and many others where we know real threats exist.

This debate is not a fight between rural and urban areas, and I would point out that I represent the 32nd most rural district in the country, and I know rural areas have essential infrastructure to protect as well. I learned from 9/11 that urban and rural areas are linked in terms of economics; and, frankly, as Americans, we all have the same concerns, so we must look for productive investments from DHS.

Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request your consideration to join with me in working toward a solution in addressing the process in an oversight hearing.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Sabo- Sweeney amendment and would urge its adoption.

Let me just say this. This amendment restores funding that I think is key and essential. First responders are our frontline defense in homeland security, critically important in so many ways for rural, urban and suburban communities.

I know, for example, as a New Yorker that, on preparedness issues, both the SAFER Act and the firefighter grant dollars have been essential towards us prospectively and proactively preparing folks on the ground to really meet the needs of the community and really meet the needs of the Nation and making us prepared.

So I could not urge my colleagues more strongly to be supportive of this amendment and would ask that it be adopted.

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman. I also should point out that the chairman has worked very hard with all of us, both last year and this year, to make this a reality.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Rahall- Whltfleld-Sweeney-Spratt Amendment, which bans the sale and slaughter of wild free-roaming horses. I am pleased to state this exact same amendment passed the House last year with overwhelming support with a vote of 249-159.

As my colleagues have stated, a measure was snuck into the FY05 Omnibus Appropriations bill to allow wild horses to be slaughtered for human consumption overseas. The provision to allow the sale and slaughter of wild horses was underhanded and wrong.

When Congress unanimously passed the Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act of 1971, it established a policy to protect wild horses from capture, harassment, and death. BLM responsibly carried out this mission for 33 years, before the statute was secretly changed 2 years ago. Americans have clearly made their voices heard that these wild horses must be protected.

This amendment is a responsible solution to this problem. The passage of this amendment would prevent BLM from selling horses--and close the loophole on slaughter.

Since BLM began the sale of wild horses, a number of horses have been purchased and slaughtered. This has generated a massive public outcry. In response to this, BLM temporarily suspended its sale program, with the intent to resume the sale shortly. Mr. Speaker, this is not enough--it is urgent we pass this amendment and end this practice now.

The slaughter of wild horses is indicative of the larger overall problem of horse slaughter. Last year, 90,000 American horses were slaughtered in this country and served as meals in restaurants in Europe and Asia. That is why I'm fighting for the passage of my legislation, the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act, H.R. 503, which bans the slaughter of ANY horse for human consumption.

In addition to this same amendment last year, I also offered an amendment to the FY06 Agriculture Appropriation's Bill to temporarily suspend this horrific act. Although our amendment had enormous public support and overwhelmingly passed both chambers, the USDA defied the will of Congress by granting a petition allowing a fee-for-service option submitted by three foreign-owned horse slaughter plants to circumvent the ban.

I am pleased to hear that I may finally get my stand-alone legislation, H.R. 503, addressed in committee so we aren't forced to do these stop-gap measures each year. I appreciate our Leadership and Chairman Barton reviewing the need for this legislation. I look forward to working with you as we address this cruel topic.

Horse Slaughter is not humane euthanasia--it is a malicious, painful end for these animals. Americans don't eat horses, nor do we raise them for human consumption. This amendment will right a wrong and is a positive step forward in our ultimate goal of ending the slaughter of horses in the United States for human consumption overseas.

Mr. Speaker, Sunday is Mother's Day. In honor of all of our Mothers, I rise today to urge all my colleagues to push for passage of the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act (H.R. 2231) this year.

One out of eight women in the United States will develop breast cancer at some point in her lifetime. It afflicts our mothers, our daughters, our sisters, our wives. It currently afflicts three million women--including one million women who do not yet know they have breast cancer. In New York alone, there is expected to be 14,400 new cases in 2006 and over 2,700 deaths due to breast cancer.

The human toll of this disease is staggering. All women are at risk of getting breast cancer. In some way, breast cancer will directly or indirectly affect you or someone you know. Breast cancer takes a life every 14 minutes. Another woman will receive a life altering diagnosis of breast cancer every 3 minutes.

Passing the Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act would help get to the bottom of what causes breast cancer and how to prevent it.

H.R. 2231 authorizes $30 million a year for five years to establish these multi-institutional, multidisciplinary centers. The centers would include institutions with different areas of expertise working together to look at different aspects of the same issue.

This bill creates a new mechanism for environmental health research, and provide a unique process by which up to 8 research centers are developed to study environmental factors and their impact on breast cancer. Modeled after the DOD Breast Cancer Research Program, which has been so successful, it would include consumer advocates in the peer review and programmatic review process.

This Federal commitment is critical for the overall, national strategy and the long-term research investments needed to discover the environmental causes of breast cancer, so that we can prevent it, treat it more effectively, and cure it.

It is generally believed that the environment plays some role in the development of breast cancer, but the extent of that role is not understood. More research needs to be done to determine the impact of the environment on breast cancer, which has been understudied in the past.

Less than 30 percent of breast cancers are explained by known risk factors; however, there is little consensus in the scientific community on how the environment impacts breast cancer. Studies have explored the effect of isolated environmental factors such as diet, pesticides, and electromagnetic fields, but in most cases there is no conclusive evidence. Furthermore, there are many other factors that are suspected to play a role but have not been fully studied. These could provide valuable in understanding the causes of breast cancer and could lead to prevention strategies.

We must all work together to find a cure for breast cancer. As we work to achieve that goal, we must continue to create comprehensive programs to study the disease, increase awareness and ensure early detection takes place. We must make a commitment to women who have or will be affected by breast cancer. I am proud to support efforts that will help so many of our sisters, daughters, wives and mothers.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to honor a distinguished constituent of the 20th District of New York; Mr. Lewis Golub. Mr. Golub's tireless contributions to his business, employees, and community are outstanding and have resulted in the formation of a successful company that has benefited many.

Over the past 50 years, Lewis Golub has worked vigorously to develop and support the Golub Corporation/Price Chopper Supermarkets, a large and extremely successful supermarket chain in Northern New York. Yet, Mr. Golub does not limit his efforts to his business. As the Regional Vice Chair of the New York State Business Council, an active member of the Board of Directors of the Saratoga Performing Arts Center, the Empire State College, and the Food Marketing Institute, Mr. Golub plays a pivotal role in many other facets of the community, extending himself to the services of his fellow neighbors. In addition, Mr. Golub has received the Humanitarian of the Year Award from the New York Chiefs of Police, the Arthritis Foundation's Accolade for Community Service, and the Community Service Award from the Interfaith Community of Schenectady, New York. These many awards reflect Mr. Golub's strong commitment to his community. He has distinguished himself through his financial support for his community; there are few who possess the same passion.

Mr. Golub has received numerous awards including, the United Way's CEO of the Year Award and the John J. O'Connor Excellence in Leadership Award, as well as the American Marketing Association's Marketer of the Year Award, the New York Capital District Business Review's Executive of the Year Award, and the Capital Region Business Hall of Fame Award, among others. The Golub Corporation/Price Chopper Supermarkets remain a sturdy pillar of business in the Upstate Region of New York.

Mr. Golub's charitable spirit is evident in every aspect of his life. It is through his tenacious character and generous qualities that

the community enjoys the services of Mr. Golub. Mr. Speaker, please join me as I recognize the significant life accomplishments of Mr. Lewis Golub and wish him all the best in his bright future. We can all take a chapter from his life and benefit from his example. My Congressional District is better served through the commitment to excellence Mr. Golub demonstrates and our communities are fortunate to call him a neighbor and friend.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to honor and pay tribute to the late John J. Sanvidge, a dedicated and loyal public servant, and one of my outstanding constituents from the 20th District of New York. His professional and personal achievements are numerous and varied, and have positively shaped the lives of many in my District.

Throughout his life John worked to protect the people of his community and nation. He courageously defended our country in the European Theatre of WorId War II, while serving in the U.S. Navy. Locally, he was an advocate for the citizens of the 20th District through his service as Commissioner of Public Safety for the city of Troy, and while serving as Director of Civil Defense for Rensselaer County. John also worked to help those less fortunate. For over 50 years, the John J. Sanvidge Funeral Home, Inc., founded by John, has helped countless citizens of Renssealear, Albany, and Saratoga counties cope with some of the most difficult times in their life. He served as chairman of the Rensselaer County Muscular Dystrophy Association Drive and was influential in the first Jerry Lewis Telethon in New York City. John was an active member of his community as a member of the CSEA, Veteran of Foreign Affairs Post 8764, the Tibbits Cadets of Troy and the American Legion.

It is my privilege to honor such a dedicated member of my district. The selfless work of individuals like John Sanvidge constitutes the foundation of good citizenship and embodies true American values. The residents of my district have benefited from the efforts and achievements of John J. Sanvidge. I thank him for his contribution to our community and our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this time to recognize the marvelous response of the students of Union Vale Middle School in Lagrangeville, New York to the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

Hurricane Katrina caused such extensive devastation that has had a profound effect on the entire country. When Hurricane Katrina made landfall on August 29, 2005, as a Category 4 storm, millions of American lives were changed forever. Americans in the Gulf Coast lost their families, homes, business, schools and communities. Intense rains, wind, flooding and tornadoes caused by Hurricane Katrina resulted in immense devastation of the Gulf Coast states. The residents of the affected areas are trying to find a way to rebuild their lives, despite returning to a lack of water, food and shelter.

Americans across the nation felt the effects of Hurricane Katrina. To this day, Americans continue to donate money, time and effort to help rebuild this devastated part of the country. States across the country have taken in evacuees and are helping them find shelter and rebuild their lives. Colleges and universities have welcomed students displaced by Katrina to their campuses. Americans have opened their hearts to their fellow citizens.

This great relief effort can be seen in the community of students, faculty and parents from Union Vale Middle School in Lagrangeville, New York. Upon learning of the terrible devastation caused by Katrina, Union Vale Middle School set to work raising funds to support the victims. The middle school established a ``Katrina Relief Week'', which included a ``Walk to Higher Ground'' walk-a-thon, bake sale, silent auction with prizes donated by faculty, staff and local businesses, along with a Faculty Benefit Showcase. In all, the community of Union Vale Middle School raised over $26,000. This is a marvelous accomplishment and a heartfelt donation to the victims of Hurricane Katrina.

I would like to recognize the Union Vale Middle School community for their remarkable efforts for raising money for the areas devastated by Hurricane Katrina. The students, faculty and staff dedicated a great amount of time and money to this cause, demonstrating their concern for and compassion towards their fellow citizens. Union Vale Middle School is an exemplary community whose invaluable dedication to helping our nation deserves our recognition.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for the kind introduction and thank him for his great work at getting this rule out and onto the floor and for his friendship and his hard work on behalf of this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I have been on this committee for a number of years since its inception. And every one of these bills comes to the floor, and we have common interests in the bill that we can agree on and common things that we can disagree on. But it is an accumulation of work representative of the process here, a bipartisan, bicameral bill that is not perfect by any means, but gets us significantly closer to the places we all want to be. And I think this is probably the one conference report that does that more than any other that I have been fortunate enough to work on, and it is because, as the gentleman from Texas pointed out, it does do something that is important and that has been voted on by this body a number of times, and that is to distribute first responder grants appropriately, threat-based, risk-based, first before we go to minimum standards.

Now, we had negotiated, and we had a compromise with our friends in the other body who still have not gotten to the place where they understand that the most efficient way we are going to fund and protect this Nation is to make sure that the funds and the resources are directed to where threats most exist. And they insisted on still a minimum level of funding for every State in this Nation that I think exceeds common sense. But nevertheless, this is the first time we have been able to codify in legislation and will enact in legislation the idea that homeland security is going to be done threat-based, and that is critically important. And it is why this is an important bill. It is the most significant of the homeland security approps bills because it enacts into law what this body has said now for 2 straight years that we ought to be doing.

It does a number of other really important things, too. And despite the critics, who we have heard from today, saying that it does not do enough, it does more to improve border security than any other single piece of legislation we have had before us since September the 11th. It does important things on restructuring our capabilities in science and technology, and every year, we have this debate that we are not spending enough money, whether it is for screening devices in airports or ports or other kinds of places or interoperability of communications. The fact of the matter is structurally this bill does more to get us to the place where we actually can have the technology put to use in the field that will ensure that we are able to provide that kind of support for our citizens and our first responders.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that, after a very arduous negotiation, the Coast Guard Deepwater program, which is critically important to maintaining our security throughout, is really strengthened here in this bill. Now, we have got a lot of work left to do. There were billions, literally billions of dollars in the pipeline for first-responder grants. And the most important thing that we can do in this body, I think, is provide the proper oversight to make sure that those billions of dollars get to where they need to go and they are spent in a reasonable and responsible manner. This bill does that.

I want to salute Chairman Rogers for taking the prudent steps that he has taken here and for really leading us. I support this bill and urge my colleagues to do so as well.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment and want to thank my good friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey). We have worked on a number of things, including this, for quite some time.

Mr. Chairman, 3 years ago I introduced identical legislation that made homeland security funds, first responder funds threat-based. That legislation, I am happy to say, has since been supported overwhelmingly by the 9/11 Commission, the President, and the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. We passed an amendment by House vote of 409 to 10 as part of the authorizing language for Department of Homeland Security.

Simply, what this is, and this is not a geographic vote, this is not a political-philosophical vote, it simply says the Department of Homeland Secretary and the Secretary of that Department ought to have the resources and ought to have the flexibility to direct Federal resources where they belong, to direct Federal resources where the threats exist.

So if it is in the subway systems or the rail systems or the aviation system or some other system that the threat actually exists, the Secretary will have the capacity and the tools to indeed take all of the resources that we have as a Nation to protect ourselves.

We owe it to our constituents. It is the highest order of duty here in this body. The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Lowey) and I have worked on this now for a number of years, and I am thrilled we are offering it here. My suspicion is it is going to be accepted here and made part of the PATRIOT Act.

The reason it is part of the PATRIOT Act is the original formula, the current formula that we operate under, was part of the original PATRIOT Act bill that was passed. At that time, we could not have anticipated all of the things we now know to be true as a body. This is rectifying something that was an oversight in the original PATRIOT Act bill. I strongly support that, as I do this bill.

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