Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, the most critical crisis in rural America, where there are large tracts of public forest land, is to deal with this issue of funding for the Secure Rural Schools.

The funding did finally come this year, but it came too late, at least for my district, and I think for many. Our State law requires that if you are going to give layoff notices to teachers, they have to go out in the month of March. All the layoff notices already went out. Most of the teachers already left the schools to find other employment. The funding for this finally came through in late May, as I recall, in the supplemental, but by that time the damage had been done.

We have to find a solution. This amendment that Mr. Peterson and I are offering is an approach. I know there is a point of order that has been reserved, but we have to have timely funding for our rural schools. If we put it in this bill, it doesn't actually increase the deficit as it would if it went as a new mandatory program, or if it went in the supplemental. By the way, this is important enough, I would certainly support either of those other approaches.

But the fact of the matter is, we need to assure timely funding so that we don't have the situation where the funding comes in, but it comes in too late in order to really matter for the schools and the students.

Plumas County, for example, one county in my district, issued layoff notices to 55 personnel earlier this year, and most of them are gone, even though the funding ultimately came through. So this is timely funding. It does it in a way that's least detrimental to the whole budget picture. I have worked, I have tried to work on every possible solution that I could think of. This is really a critical situation for all of rural America, where there are tracts of public forest land, and I really strongly hope that the Members will support us on this, help us to get a resolution to this crisis so that we can meet the needs of the people that we represent.

Point of Order

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

I very much appreciate that. I'd like to ask Chairman Obey a question, if I may.

Actually, I want to ask you one too, so I'm glad you're both up here.

Mr. Chairman, you have worked with us and tried to help us, and I would agree with Mr. Walden on that.

You were kind enough to offer something a minute ago that I'd just like to, if I may, accept that offer. You said you would write a letter to the chairman of the authorizing, the respective authorizing committees, which I think are both Resources and Agriculture in this case.

Could we, and with our ranking member, could I invite both you gentlemen to maybe submit such a letter to the relevant authorizing committee chairmen? I think that would be a step in the right direction here.

And I appreciate that.

Thank you, sir. The problem we have had is, frankly, the authorizing committees, for whatever reason, have chosen not to act. And in that vacuum we've been faced with a crisis of what do we do with the teacher being laid off or in Oregon's case with people being let out of the county jails because they're lacking this funding. We've had to come up with some extraordinary ways to respond to it.

I didn't mean to imply, Mr. Chairman, that this was just this Congress' authorizing committees. I'm reaching back in time to include the previous Congress as well.

It did pass out of the Resources Committee. And I think the bill passed out handily. But it never cleared the other committee.

Mr. Chairman, I do hope something can be worked out here, because hydropower is the original renewable resource. And there is starting to be a bias in this country against hydropower. There is also starting to be a bias in this country in some quarters in favor of tearing dams down.

I think it is very, very important, and by the way with reference to hydropower, just look at California's greenhouse gas reduction plan. They do not give any credit for power generated by hydropower. I think that is very bad.

I think Mr. Shadegg is on the right track. We have got to speak up for hydropower. We have got to slow down this effort to tear down dams. I know the chairman and ranking member have the best of intentions. I am glad they are running the committee. I would just like to lend my voice for this very responsible amendment that Mr. Shadegg has offered. I hope that we can work something out.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to, this has been quite a process since we got rolling yesterday afternoon, and I know there's some frustration over not moving more quickly. But I do think Mr. Boehner made the point very clearly last night and it needs to be reiterated often, that we are simply seeking to have the opportunity to review the earmarks as a body while we can have some impact on it, rather than to have them, as has been said, airdropped into a conference report, where conference reports come to the floor and you have two options only. You can't amend it. You can either adopt the conference report, or you can reject the conference report. As we all know, it's very, very rare to reject a conference report on an appropriations bill. I only remember seeing that happen once since I've been here.

And I just think that, in light of all the rhetoric, particularly from the other side, about the need to have more transparency, and then an action is taken which completely eliminates the progress that had already been made relative to transparency and relative to accountability, and this whole process today really is about are we going to have the opportunity to review the earmarks in these bills, while we can make an impact on it, while we can single some out and remove them, while we can offer amendments, or are we going to simply turn a blind eye, let this be dropped into the conference report? Basically, only, you know, mainly one person is going to control this whole process, and the entire rest of the House is shut out from this process.

That's why this process is moving so slowly, because of this fundamental battle. And, you know, it's seeming like every major media outlet in the country seems to be on the side of transparency and accountability, and yet the majority party continues down this road of avoiding transparency, avoiding accountability. And no good reason has yet been offered as to why we should take this extraordinary move going completely backwards on this issue, instead of having this out here in the light of day as it was intended, as we all argued for both sides should be the case. And that's what we're seeking to ultimately have prevail before this day is out.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to yield the balance of my time to our ranking member, Mr. Rogers.

I'll yield.

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

Mr. Chairman, I listened to the remarks of the gentleman, and I think he had some good points to make, but I do just want to point out that under the Republicans, the Democrat minority was allowed to determine which of their projects got funded. If Democrat projects were stripped out, it wasn't done by the Republicans; it was done by the Democrats on the leadership in the Appropriations Committee. I think this is important to understand. We didn't interfere with what Democrat priorities were, as I understand it. You got a certain percentage and were able to determine your own priorities.

I would say to the gentleman who just spoke, I think he may be blaming us for something that we didn't do.

Now, I am not here to lead a crusade against earmarks. The Constitution

clearly specifies that the legislative branch is in control of spending for the government. We are entitled to set our priorities, and we would not be doing our jobs as Representatives if we did not indeed set those priorities.

I do want to note with some of the things that have been said, in the final year of Republican control of the United States Congress, we cut nondefense discretionary spending for the first time in 19 years. The hardest thing we ever have done in Congress, you or we have done, is to cut spending. It is very, very difficult.

Having said that, last year we actually accomplished it, and nobody knew it so I am going to say it here again today: the first time in 19 years, through the leadership of Jerry Lewis and the Appropriations Committee, we cut nondefense discretionary spending, the first time in 19 years.

We did not cut mandatory spending, but we worked hard to slow the growth curve, and we did that. Mandatory spending, by the way, is where two-thirds of all spending actually occurs. And for the first time in 9 years, we slowed the growth of mandatory spending. Those are two huge accomplishments. I hope that the Democrat majority in the time they have will be able to show a similar accomplishment. I am not encouraged so far by what I see. I think with all of their rhetoric about openness and transparency and curbing earmarks, it bodes very ill, despite that rhetoric, in trying to tar and feather the Republicans with these slanderous statements that they have, indeed, overturned their own process and they are going to airdrop in the earmarks in the conference committee.

Yes, it has been asserted there are no earmarks in this Homeland Security bill. That is right, but there will be, and they will be in this bill in the conference report where all we can do is vote ``yes'' or ``no,'' no chance to amend or affect the process. That goes completely against what the majority party asserted would be their policy. And we have to keep calling attention to this to have the world understand what is going on here. This is fundamental to the consideration of all the other appropriations bills. We have to get this process established.

They ran their campaigns last November on the idea that the earmarks are going to be open and accountable, and the first thing they did was to go way back in time and do something where they are completely shielded from public view until the last minute when they get dropped in. That is wrong. We will not accept that, and we will not go easily into that good night until and unless you reform that policy. It is completely unacceptable to campaign about openness and transparency for earmarks, and then to go in exactly the opposite direction, have no openness and no transparency and no accountability.

That is very, very wrong, and I hope that people will clearly see that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield any remaining time that I have to Mr. McHenry, if he would care to offer any additional insights.

Thank you to Ranking Member Ros-Lehtinen and Chairman Lantos. I'm very happy to see the strong support for Afghanistan manifested here by the statements on the floor and, obviously, by a bill like this with unanimous approval out of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, we had some great initial successes in Afghanistan, and those are now threatened by subsequent developments that would be absolutely tragic and really intolerable for us to allow any reversals to occur. We need to build upon a solid foundation that has been laid, and I'd just like to briefly cite what I think the need for this legislation is.

Others have alluded to it as well, but the fact is that remnants of the Taliban regime have regrouped and are using increasingly deadly tactics, including the introduction of suicide bombings against both U.S. and NATO troops, Afghan officials and civilians and international and Afghan assistance workers.

Also, the poppy cultivation and opium production which directly support local warlords and sustain and finance insurgents, militias and terrorist organizations is increasing at a staggering rate. Indeed, the narcotics problem in Afghanistan threatens to overwhelm the entire country. More than 500,000 laborers and an unknown number of traffickers, warlords, insurgents and officials also participate in and benefit from the drug trade.

The risk for Afghanistan to again devolve into a failed state is increasing. The ability of the Taliban and other insurgents to enjoy safe haven in Pakistan-controlled areas destabilizes the region and adds to the political tension between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I'm very encouraged to see that this legislation establishes the means for developing a long-overdue and coherent

interdepartmental counternarcotics strategy that addresses a deadly and neglected illicit drug trade and its links to radical Islamist terrorism.

Mr. Chairman, for all of these reasons, I endorse this bill and encourage our Members to support it and pray that it may further strengthen our efforts to bring stability and peace to that vital region of the world.

Madam Speaker, I would like to take a minute to pay tribute to a friend and staff member who will be leaving my employment soon. His name is Richard Robinson, my Chief of Staff. He is a man possessing great loyalty and integrity.

I first met Richard when he interned for me when I was a State Senator in California. In 1991, he graduated from California Polytechnic State University and came to work for me as a full-time paid employee. It quickly became clear that Richard was a resourceful man whom I could count on for hard work, concise communication and keen strategic thinking. In January, 1991, I was elected to the United States House of Representatives, and I brought Richard with me to my Congressional office as a Field Representative.

In 1994, he married Jennifer Michele Edwards, and today they are the parents of three beautiful girls: Allison, Taylor and Lauryn. Richard is a wonderful father and dedicated husband, and I can understand why, after sixteen years of intense work for me, he has chosen to look to a new career path that may afford him a more predictable and flexible work schedule. Richard will be sorely missed, but knowing Jennifer and the children as I do, I can understand his decision.

I also know Richard to have a big heart. He was a night shift volunteer at the University of California Davis emergency room in 1999; he was a youth pastor of a high school Christian group from 1998 to 2003; and he was Director of Habitat for Humanity's Youth Build program in 1999.

In 2002, Richard graduated from Stanford University, ranking first in his class, with a Master of Arts degree in Education. He also earned a California teaching credential at the same time. I can only imagine how difficult it was for him to attend school and raise a family, but I am not surprised that Richard was successful. His mother, Melinda, tells me that he began reading as early as three years of age and was elected class president in the

sixth grade at Rock Creek Grammar School. At Placer High School, he played soccer, but particularly excelled at basketball, a sport made for a man six feet five inches tall.

Richard's service to me has been notable because he has always been willing to put others ahead of himself. He has seen the benefit of developing a team based on strong relationships and mutual respect. Even at our most trying times, I always knew that Richard was acting with my best interests in mind.

As he looks to new opportunities, (and I know they will be numerous for a man of his talents) I wish him and his family much happiness and success.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, in 1908 in response to the mounting opposition to the creation of forest reserves in the West, Congress passed a bill which created a revenue sharing mechanism to offset for counties the effects of removing those lands from economic development.

The 1908 act specified that 25 percent of all revenues generated from the national forests would be shared with the counties where those revenues were generated to support public roads and public schools. From 1986 to the present, these payments, because of the decline in timber sales, have decreased precipitously.

Responding to this urgent need, in 2000, the Congress passed the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act to compensate for the loss in revenue for these counties, providing the necessary funds for schools, roads and public lands.

This funding benefited 4,400 school districts in 615 counties throughout 37 States.

In September of 2006, this authorization expired, and in December the last payments were made. While several attempts have been made to reauthorize this legislation, none has succeeded to this point, and as a result, our counties are left without the funds that they were promised and they depend upon to provide public infrastructure activities to maintain their roads and send their children to school.

The results have been devastating. In California's Fourth Congressional District, let me just talk about three instances. In Plumas County, where 70 percent of the land is owned by the Federal Government, layoff notices went to 55 teachers and its school districts, and the county is compensating for this by increasing class sizes, closing all school libraries, closing cafeterias and possibly even closing entire schools.

In Sierra County, which is 75 percent opened by the Federal Government, the county is planning to lay off almost 40 percent of its entire education staff, and the superintendent spoke to me about the potential of shutting down one entire school district and being forced to bus children across State lines into the adjoining State of Nevada to receive a public education.

Finally, in Modoc County, which is 75 percent owned by the Federal Government, they will layoff one-third of its entire roads department and over 12 percent of its teachers.

These hardships are not unique and have spread to other States. You will hear in a minute from Mr. Walden of Oregon. Before the government makes any new promise for funding, it should make good on the obligation it already made to the 615 counties across the country which are now struggling to deal with a lack of funding for basic infrastructure needs.

Well, I would like to yield to Mr. Walden.

I yield to Mr. Walden.

Mr. Chairman, the underlying bill makes numerous references to public infrastructure. We feel this, indeed, is public infrastructure, and that it deals with roads and schools. There are certainly needy

counties by virtue of being included in this Secure Rural Schools Act. That's why we thought the amendment would be germane.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment will prevent the government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, from purchasing any mortgage from a lender where the person who received the mortgage did not use a valid Social Security number.

In my State of California, it has been calculated that each legal resident in the State pays approximately $1,200 every year for illegal immigrants to use taxpayer-funded resources, including our highways, hospitals, and schools. Reducing the opportunities for illegal immigrants to purchase primary residences in the United States will be an important step toward decreasing the burden illegal immigrants impose upon our society.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac support the residential mortgage market by purchasing mortgages from lenders that, in turn, use the proceeds to make more loans available to home buyers. These organizations, chartered by Congress, should not be in the business of assisting illegal immigrants to purchase homes.

The size of the GSE's portfolios represents a concentration of mortgage market risks, and this has been observed before, that led former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan and others to urge Congress to consider ways to shrink the size of the GSE's asset portfolios.

What better way to reduce the size of these portfolios than to prohibit mortgages for illegal immigrants. Not only will this change decrease the market risk, but it will also eliminate one more incentive that draws illegal immigrants to our country.

When a person applies for a mortgage, he is asked whether the loan is for a primary residence, a secondary home, or an investment property. According to my amendment, only a person seeking to buy a primary residence would be required to have a Social Security number. Therefore, this amendment does not discourage foreign investment in the United States. Should a foreign investor wish to obtain a mortgage for a real estate investment, he would be able to do so. However, no person illegally in this country should be allowed to purchase a primary residence here.

Since all people who are legally allowed to work in the United States are able to receive a work authorized Social Security number, this bill only targets those that are here illegally. Lending institutions should not be allowed to reward individuals violating U.S. law. Please vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

Yes. I did indicate that this only applies to a primary residence. A foreign investor could indicate that----

You would have to be entitled to have a Social Security number, which, as I understand it, would be someone who is employed here.

A parent wouldn't need the Social Security number.

Well, if the parents want to buy you a home, it would be their investment.

As I understand it, Mr. Chairman, the answer to that would be yes.

Well, because the owner of the home is the parents.

It is true the student himself wouldn't be able to purchase the home. But the parents----

Mr. Chairman, I thought I made clear, the bill allows for foreign investment in the country. The student, under the provisions of this amendment, himself would not be able to buy the home if he were a student not able to work, therefore not having a Social Security.

Then the student couldn't buy it.

That is correct.

Well, obviously the intent is valid Social Security numbers.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Doolittle

Amendment No. 19: Page 100, after line 17, insert the

following new section:

Offered By: Mr. Doolittle

Amendment No. 25: Page 128, line 6, strike ``and''.

Page 128, line 10, strike the period and insert ``; and''.

Page 128, after line 10, insert the following:

``(6) to increase the investment in public infrastructure

activities in counties determined to be economically

disadvantaged by virtue of receiving payments under the

Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of

2000 (16 U.S.C. 500 note).''.

Page 140, line 3, strike ``and''.

Page 140, line 6, strike the period and insert ``; and''.

Page 140, after line 6, insert the following:

``(4) public infrastructure activities, including

activities to benefit the public safety, law enforcement,

public education, and public lands, carried out only in

counties which are determined to be economically

disadvantaged by virtue of receiving payments under the

Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of

2000 (16 U.S.C. 500 note).''.

Page 140, line 22, strike ``or''.

Page 140, line 25, after the semicolon insert ``or''.

Page 140, after line 25, insert the following:

``(E) in the case of an eligible activity under subsection

(g)(4), administer such activities in counties described in

such subsection, except that this subparagraph shall apply

only to government agencies;''.

Page 144, after line 19, insert the following:

``(8) Required amount for certain public infrastructure

activities.--In the case of any grantee that is a State in

which are located counties determined to be economically

disadvantaged by virtue of receiving payments under the

Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of

2000 (16 U.S.C. 500 note), all of the affordable housing fund

grant amounts provided for each year other than 2007 to such

grantee shall be used for activities under paragraph (4) of

subsection (g).''.

Madam Speaker, I was, like many of my colleagues, shocked and deeply saddened to hear the news about Juanita. Grace Napolitano had just brought by a nice card for Members to sign on Friday, I think it was, and here I realize that she has passed away. I just had no idea.

It was my privilege to serve with her in the House Administration Committee when she was the ranking member, and Juanita was a passionate advocate for her ideas and her beliefs. Sometimes she and I would argue with each other, but it was never with any personal disagreement. I liked her, I thought highly of her, and would just like to join with my colleagues in acknowledging her fine service here in the House of Representatives, her dedication to California, her desire to make a difference.

I always admired her love and devotion to family, and I join with my colleagues in saying that I will miss her, and I am very sorry that this has happened.

Madam Speaker, today I wish to recognize and honor two fine volunteers, Ralph Franzen and Richard Paradis, upon their retirement after years of service ensuring the health and safety of the residents of California on the slopes of the famed and historic Squaw Valley Ski Resort.

Ralph and Richard both served on the Squaw Valley National Ski Patrol (SVNSP), an organization of approximately 95 unpaid volunteers who are trained in outdoor emergency care, CPR, and winter rescue. They combined first aid and skiing skills to serve the ski area and public at Squaw Valley USA near Lake Tahoe, California. While on duty at Squaw Valley, patrollers are agents of the resort and work under the direction of the Squaw Valley Ski Patrol Department. Together with the paid patrol staff, they are always among the first on the mountain in the morning and the last off, regardless of weather or snow conditions.

The patrollers' primary function is to provide basic life support, first aid, rescue, and on-the-slope transportation to injured resort guests. Besides first aid and winter rescue duties, volunteer patrol members frequently assist with the skier safety program on the two-mile long Mountain Run to ensure the general safety of the skiing/ snowboarding public at Squaw Valley.

Madam Speaker, both of these distinguished gentlemen have spent 35-40 days a year working as volunteers on the Squaw Valley Ski Patrol, providing for the health and safety of the skiers on the mountain. Richard Paradis joined the Squaw Valley National Ski Patrol in 1961 and Ralph Franzen in 1972. They have provided care for countless injured skiers with every level of injury. Over the course of their careers, Ralph Franzen and Richard Paradis have received commendations for rescuing individuals from life threatening situations and injuries. Today, they deserve further recognition upon their retirement.

Ralph and Richard are outstanding volunteers who have proven themselves over the years as certified instructors in first aid, outdoor emergency care, toboggan, and rescue equipment usage. These gentlemen have dedicated countless hours to training the current generation of ski patrol men and women and, as a result, have received the admiration and respect of their fellow Ski Patrol members.

Ralph Franzen and Richard Paradis truly are heroes to the many they have helped save and mend over the years. They are outstanding representatives of the community who have proven records of commitment to public service and their fellow man.

Thank you, Ralph Franzen and Richard Paradis, for your years of dedicated service.

Madam Speaker, today I wish to remember and honor a man who was a businessman, community leader and icon in Northern California, Mr. Frank Amaral. After a lifetime of dedication to his family and community, Frank passed away on March 5, 2007. He was 88 years old.

Frank Amaral was one of Nevada City's most successful real estate investors. Mr. Amaral displayed astute skills of negotiation and business savvy, many of which he honed earlier in his career in the lumber industry, working as managing partner of the Oregon Creek Lumber Company in Camptonville, California.

Frank Amaral was also one of Nevada County's early developers and helped transform Grass Valley and Nevada City from unknown destinations to the wonderful communities they are today. However, Frank's success as an adult contrasted with his humble roots.

Born on June 19, 1918, in Orland, California, he was the youngest of four children. Frank's parents, Cardoza Amaral and Rosa Julia Bettencourt Amaral, were Portuguese immigrants from the Azores Islands. Frank lost his father when he was 6.

As a 13-year-old farm laborer who supported his family during the Depression, Frank hated being poor and worked diligently to better his social status.

A rough upbringing did not deter Frank from a long list of impressive life achievements. Mr. Amaral bought the Oregon Creek Lumber Company in 1958 and started buying timberland all throughout Northern California, Oregon and Idaho. At the height of his career in the lumber business, he owned over 100,000 acres of timberland, according to a recent publication.

He also bought local properties during the 1950s. Frank's holdings included property at Jackson Meadows, Milton Reservoir, Lake Olympia, Brunswick sawmill, the Murchie Mine property, Deer Creek Park, Stonebridge and the North Star Mine, which he co-owned.

In 1966, he retired from the lumber business, developing the properties he owned and selling them off as parcels. He diversified his interests, buying farmland in Los Banos and commercial properties in Southern California.

Frank Amaral was also a thoughtful and civic-minded philanthropist who made great contributions to his community and region.

For example, the Nevada County Fairgrounds has seen the impact of Mr. Amaral's work in the community for years. The Amaral Family Festival Center was named in his honor after the family made a large donation for its renovation. But, for years before that, the Amarals donated land, money and time to many causes behind the scenes, proving to many their dedication to helping others.

The site of Nevada County's first Juvenile Hall and the land where the Madelyn Helling Library sits both were gifts from the Amarals.

Most importantly, Frank Amaral was devoted to his family and was committed to acts of charity. For years, Frank and LaVonne Amaral donated money anonymously to local organizations following their Catholic belief that charity should not be publicized.

He is survived by his wife of 64 years, LaVonne, and his two children, Lance Amaral and Julia Amaral.

May he rest in peace.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my great concern over the current funding situation facing rural schools. The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 provided compensation to counties with a large presence of Nation Forest lands. Unfortunately, the law authorizing these payments expired at the end of 2006. When it became apparent the reauthorization would not pass the House through regular order during the 109th Congress, my colleagues and I introduced H.R. 6423, which would have extended the funding for one year, providing us with more time to work for a long-term solution. Despite our efforts, the 109th Congress adjourned without reauthorizing the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act. However, I maintain my commitment to providing this much-needed funding for rural counties.

I fully support the reauthorization of this law, which provides essential funding for over 4,400 schools in 780 counties. This money compensates counties for the loss of tax revenue as the Federal Government placed large amounts of land in forest reserves. The revenue-sharing mechanism that was created for the counties when this land transfer occurred is no longer viable due to decreasing timber sales.

With nearly 5.5 million acres of National Forests in my Congressional District, my counties are greatly affected by the expiration of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000. As an example from a county in my district, Plumas County School District receives roughly $2.5 million annually from this program, which represents 20 percent of their annual operating budget. Without this funding, the County is preparing to:

Lay off 9 administrators (out of a total of 16); lay off 47 teachers (out of a total of 150); close all school libraries; possibly close some or all cafeterias and cut transportation activities.

In Sierra County, schools will be shut down and students will be bussed up to 3 hours over the State line to attend school in Nevada. As you can see, reauthorization of this program is essential.

The Federal Government has a responsibility to compensate these counties from which large amounts of land were taken to create the National Forest System, and by failing to produce a real solution that will provide this funding, we are neglecting that responsibility.

I was disappointed to see that no funding was provided for rural schools in the continuing resolution we have recently passed. I am hopeful that the emergency supplemental we will soon consider will contain the needed funding for these counties, which are truly in dire circumstances.

Madam Speaker, five and a half years ago, our Nation was attacked by terrorists opposed to freedom and individual liberty. Our President vowed to keep Americans safe by taking the fight to the terrorists, and holding the regimes that support them accountable. We are currently engaged in that fight. Like any war this size, mistakes have been made, but we must continue to progress.

The consequences of failure in Iraq would be dire. Allowing al-Qaeda the opportunity to gain a safe hold would be dangerous to Americans. Leaving before the Iraqi government can defend itself would only lead to further destabilization, and open the door to outside influence from countries such as Iran, which has called for the downfall of our society and for the destruction of Israel, our ally in the Middle East.

With violence headlining the nation's nightly news, at times we forget that successes have been achieved. Through successful elections which achieved a 70 percent turnout, we know that the citizens of Iraq have rejected the brutal rule of Saddam Hussein, and strive for peace and prosperity. But violence supported by al-Qaeda, the remnants of Saddam Hussein's government, and armed militias, have created difficult conditions for diplomacy.

Our President, working with a wide range of involved professionals, has created a new strategy to ensure progress in Iraq. James Baker and Lee Hamilton, the leaders of the Iraq Study Group, have called for support of the President's plan. General Petraeus supports the President's plan. But Democrat leaders are bringing a non-binding resolution to the floor, denouncing the President's objectives.

This resolution, without any power of law or policy objective, is merely political gamesmanship, and it is dangerous to Americans and our troops in harm's way. We are in the midst of an ongoing military operation; our soldiers are engaging al-Qaeda and violent insurgents. We have set objectives, but Democrat leaders want us to vote on a resolution that sets us up for failure and attempts to retroactively impede a military operation that is currently underway. General Petraeus has stated this will only embolden the enemy, and I agree.

Many Democrats have stated this is only the first step toward cutting the funding for our troops in Iraq, and forcing a withdrawal before stability has been achieved. But the majority offers no plan to achieve stability. Without any other alternative, withdrawal can only lead to defeat.

Our troops should have every confidence their government will ensure they have the necessary supplies and funding to achieve their mission. Military leaders should be able to move forward with their directives without fear that Congress is working to tie their hands. Yet this objective has been the stated one of the majority: to precipitate a withdrawal by slowly cutting off funding to our soldiers. I believe this is the wrong approach to supporting our troops currently involved in the military operation.

This resolution does nothing to win the war, and by not allowing amendments or other measures to be considered, true debate is being restricted. It is my hope, for the safety of our troops and for the good of the Nation, that all members of the House may reject this political maneuver and truly stand behind those men and women called to duty by our Commander in Chief.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman of the committee, Mr. Rahall, and the ranking member, Mr. Young, and also thank Mrs. Napolitano and Mrs. McMorris Rodgers for their help on this legislation.

This has been quite a few years in production. The pump station is almost complete. It will be completed next year sometime, we anticipate; and we would like to have this last detail of the transfer put in order.

You have heard the explanation as to why we need the legislation, fulfilling an obligation made by the Federal Government years ago to the Placer County Water Agency.

I am very appreciative to our colleagues for bringing this bill up and urge its passage.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be here today in support of H.R. 482, the American River Pump Station Project Transfer Act. This legislation will authorize the transfer of ownership of the American River Pump Station, located in Auburn, CA, to the Placer County Water Agency (Agency). I would like to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Natural Resources Committee for bringing this legislation to the floor in such a timely manner.

During the 1960s, the Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau) acquired the site of the original American River Pump Station and removed it to facilitate contraction of the Auburn Dam. When construction of the dam was halted, the Agency was left unable to meet its water needs. Since 1990, the Bureau has installed seasonal pumps to help the Agency provide water during the dry summer. Unfortunately, these pumps need to be removed each winter and reinstalled in time for the summer months. This is an expensive process that leaves the Agency without the long- term water-use certainty it needs. To remedy this situation, a new American River Pump Station will be constructed by the Bureau, and this legislation is needed to authorize the transfer of that station to the local agency for future operations.

This legislation is supported by the Bureau, the Agency and the local elected officials, and I appreciate all their hard work in this endeavor. I would specifically like to thank the members of the Placer County Water Agency: Current Board Chairman Lowell Jarvis; board members Alex Ferreira, Otis Wollen, and Mike Lee; and new board member Grey Allen have all worked to enable the Agency to meet the water-use needs of the community it serves. I also want to recognize former board member Pauline Roccucci who spoke with me many times on this issue. I want to thank General Manager Dave Breninger, who has been and remains a tireless and passionate advocate of the permanent pump station and Strategic Affairs Director Einar Maisch who offered strong testimony in support of this bill and helped us to get here today.

As the completion of the pump station will provide regional benefits to so many in Western Placer County, I want to thank the City Councils in Rocklin and Lincoln and our County Board of Supervisors for their steadfast support of this critical project. I would also be remiss for not recognizing the commitment and dedication of two local U.S. Bureau of Reclamation staff: Regional Director Kirk Rodgers and Central Area Office Manager Mike Finnegan.

This entire group made up the team which worked for years in advancing the permanent American River Pump Station to get us to the point we are at today, and it is with them in mind that I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 482.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express great concern over the decreased funding for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in the Continuing Resolution for Fiscal Year 2007. Specifically, I am concerned about the drastic cuts to the Mobile Enforcement Teams (MET) and the Regional Enforcement Teams (RET). The MET and RET teams are on the front line each and every day assisting state and local law enforcement agencies to combat the onslaught of drug trafficking. The MET program will be reduced by $30 million and the RET Program will be reduced by $9 million. The priorities in this bill do not represent the priorities of this Nation. How is it that $50 million can be set aside for a rainforest in Iowa in a so-called earmark-free continuing resolution, yet the DEA faces a massive reduction?

The district I represent, California's Fourth Congressional District, will feel the effects of these cuts. In particular, Nevada County faces a tremendous battle with methamphetamines every day. Methamphetamines are becoming an epidemic in this country. This reduction in funding will not only hurt the efforts of law enforcement, but also everyone who lives in a neighborhood being overrun with drugs and drug traffickers. This is the wrong time to be cutting the federal government's primary tool to combat methamphetamine on a local level.