Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, this has to be one of the worst ideas ever put forth. Just think of it: Instead of getting the IRS to collect the tax dollars, we go and tell someone else that they can collect 24 cents on the dollar, instead of hiring more folks to collect what they have been doing for so many years. So we lose 24 cents on every dollar, rather than have someone take care of this.

Now, the IRS has spent $71 million in money we have given them on this program and have collected in return somewhere between $20 and $25 million. The IRS Taxpayer Advocate, as was mentioned by the gentleman, calculated that if this money had been spent by the IRS to collect, they would have collected $1.4 billion.

Mr. Speaker, we have also heard here about the harassment tactics. Now, we can deny it as much as we would like, but when you give me an incentive of 24 cents on the dollar to collect from taxpayers, things can get out of hand. That is why senior citizens have been called 150 times in a month's time, looking for their son. My friends, these kind of tactics would make a great comeback episode for ``The Sopranos,'' and I think one might be in the works.

Mr. Speaker, the IRS can do this work. We tried to do this, as you know, in our committee, and it was defeated, basically with the minority party saying on a point of order they would pull it out of the bill. But it was our intent to do that in our bill. In addition, we put in $400 million in fiscal year 2008. With this funding, the IRS should be able to start working on these cases themselves, without outsourcing.

I know, as Mr. Rothman has said, that there is a madness in this House about taking everything that American workers do and sending it somewhere else, overseas usually, and then what government employees do, they send it to another agency or to somebody else. I can't wait for the day when you decide that the whole Congress should be outsourced overseas and we should have people doing our work.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bad idea. We should pass this bill and stop this program immediately.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mr. Alex Rodriguez, who, on August 4, 2007, made history by becoming the youngest baseball player to hit 500

home runs. Lovingly mown to baseball fans throughout the world as ``A- Rod,'' Mr. Rodriguez exemplifies the great contributions Dominican- Americans continue to make to this Nation.

Born in New York, and raised in Miami, Mr. Rodriguez displayed his baseball talents early in life. He attended Miami's Westminster Christian High School, which went on to win the national baseball championship his junior year. During that time, he earned several prestigious awards, including USA Baseball Junior Player of the Year and Gatorade's National Student-Athlete of the Year. Mr. Rodriguez was also the first high-school player to try out for Team USA in 1993.

Today, Mr. Rodriguez is considered one of the best baseball players of all time. Proudly wearing #13 for my beloved New York Yankees, Mr. Rodriguez has become a legend to all prospective baseball players and fans. He has earned two American League Most Valuable Player (MVP) awards and has accomplished several noteworthy feats. For example, among all baseball players at the age of 30, Mr. Rodriguez ranks first in both home runs and runs scored, third in runs batted in (RBIs) and fourth in hits compared to other players at that point in their careers. Mr. Rodriguez also shares the record for most home runs in one month, hitting fourteen in April 2007. Mr. Rodriguez is also the third member of the exclusive 40-40 Club, composed of baseball players who accumulate a total of both 40 home runs and 40 stolen bases in a single season. These are just a few of the many accomplishments of this legendary baseball player.

Off the baseball field, Mr. Rodriguez is actively involved in his communities, from Miami to New York to the land of his parents, the Dominican Republic. For example, in 1998, he established the Alex Rodriguez Evening Benefit for the All Stars, which, up to this point, has raised more than half a million dollars for the Boys and Girls Club of Miami. In 2003, Mr. Rodriguez donated $3.9 million to the University of Miami to remodel the university's baseball stadium and to provide scholarships to deserving students. In 2005, Mr. Rodriguez donated $200,000 to the Children's Aid Society in New York and $50,000 to the Dominican Republic branch of UNICEF, which fully funded five day-care centers outside of Santo Domingo for 1 year. These are only a handful of the many ways in which Mr. Rodriguez contributes to the development and success of our communities.

Madam Speaker, A-Rod is truly a shining star and a role model to us all both on and off the baseball field. I will continue to cheer him on as he breaks more records on his way to greatness. I ask my colleagues to join me in paying tribute to this fine athlete on the occasion of his 500th home run.

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

I rise in strong support of the gentleman's amendment. And under different circumstances, I would simply say I accept it and that would be the end of it, but that is not going to be the end of it.

I rise in support because I think there are a couple of things we have to know and we have to remember. First of all, there is a law in place since 2000, the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act, which allowed agricultural products to be sold to Cuba.

Now, here is where the irony comes in. In 2005 the Treasury Department issued regulations requiring that the payments for exports to Cuba must be either received by the U.S. exporter or by a third- country bank prior to the goods leaving the port in the United States rather than upon arrival in Cuba. Now, that is the only country we do that with.

Now, what is the irony here? The part of the argument that has always been made is that we should work in this Congress to help or to force Cuba into a political change, a political change which would mirror our democratic system, our electoral process, and also, I am sure, our capitalist system. Well, the irony of this is that it is capitalism at its best to allow credit to take place between two nations. It is anti- capitalism to suggest that the only way that we can sell products to you is if you pay ahead of time prior to looking at the product. I mean, we wouldn't do that. Picture going into a store and their saying you can't look at the product, you can't test the product, you can't do anything: you have to pay ahead of time.

So there is a contradiction here that doesn't make sense. What the gentleman wants to do is simply put Cuba on par with every other country.

Now, if we were here for the first time, as we were in 2000, creating a new way to trade with Cuba, then all these arguments, I think, would be in place, whether we want to do that or not, what kind of government they have. But we already have that in place. We already have that in place. And we should note that the reason we have this in place is not because anti-embargo people like me ruled the day in 2000, it's because farmers in this country and business people in this country, but especially the farming community, felt that it was important for American business to be able to sell some products to Cuba. That has not changed our political stance on Cuba. Cuba still has an embargo imposed by the U.S. We still do not have relations with Cuba. Nothing has really changed since 2000 except the ability to sell products.

Now the gentleman wants to put Cuba on an even keel with the rest of the world. I think it's a proper way to go. I think it's good for our business community. I think it's good for trade with Cuba. And I support the gentleman's amendment.

I will be asking Members on this side and on both sides to vote for his amendment if it comes to a vote.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriation bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI. And that states, ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' And it does impose additional duties.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman starts off as we suspected by assuming that Members of Congress have no ability and no understanding and no knowledge, enough certainly to make an appropriation called an earmark. That assumes that only Federal agencies and the folks who work in those agencies know what a good program is.

I think every so often we have to remind ourselves what a so-called earmark is. An earmark is when a Member of Congress determines that in his or her district there is a program worthy of Federal support. But on so many occasions, as certainly has been the occasion in my district in the Bronx, those Federal agencies, for one reason or another, don't pay the attention they should, so a Member gets involved in directing some dollars. And it is some dollars compared to the total budget.

In this particular case, we're talking about an organization in the Youngstown area that was originally set up to deal with the fact that in the southwestern Pennsylvania region, there has been a mass exodus of people between 25 and 30 years of age. Furthermore, with the demise of the steel and coal industry, the region has seen very high levels of unemployment. New and small businesses are necessary to the economic well-being of the citizens of this area.

Now, JARI's efforts have directly led to an increase in small businesses formed in the region and jobs created and retained in the region. There has been an increase in longevity and sustainable efforts for small businesses. Business folks have been given the ability to grow. And yes, while the gentleman seems to think that it is a bad thing to have Federal dollars go in and then assist in reaching other dollars, well, that just shows that they know how to work the system and work it properly. There is nothing wrong with that. But the whole notion that only people and Federal agencies know how to direct dollars, and that only they know what a good program is is really a misconception.

Now, the gentleman from Arizona will be here for quite a while, we see he's setting up his presentation. And it will be a good, strong presentation, but it is only based on the belief that Members of Congress are not intelligent enough to know a good program, to know a good use of Federal dollars.

Interestingly enough, the same folks who will get up today and attack earmarks will not attack the fact that there are large number of earmarks that come directly out of the White House directing Congress to spend money on something; and that most have voted for the largest earmark of them all, the war in Iraq, which has earmarked hundreds of billions of dollars with very little, incidentally, accountability in many, many cases.

So, I stand in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. He knows that he and I have a friendship, a personal friendship and respect. But on this one, as last time, he is totally wrong. I stand in opposition to his amendment and in support of this particular earmark.

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

I am sorry?

The sponsor is not on the floor, but his trusted companion is on the floor.

You have said that.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. I would like to direct my comments more on the sponsor than on the project, although I will speak about the project.

The gentleman is one of the most distinguished Members of the House, certainly a Member who knows the appropriations process, knows the pitfalls of this process called earmarks, and would not knowingly put forth a foolish or unworthy member-item before the House. So I take that very seriously. He is not a rookie who is trying to find his way around the House, as many do every day, but he is one who knows what is acceptable and what is proper and what is dignified, and that is what he is doing.

Secondly, and very important to note, we all have so-called earmarks for our district. This is for the Nation's Capital. This is not something he is bringing back to his district to score points with his constituents, which is proper. There is nothing wrong with that, letting your constituents know you are working in Washington on their behalf. But here he takes time, and, if I may say, dollars that he probably could have asked for his own district, to make sure that something in the Nation's Capital happens and happens properly.

I take that very seriously, because, as I said last night, Mr. Regula and I are committed in this committee to making life and conditions in D.C. much better than they are.

So I commend the gentleman from California for thinking of a place outside his own district, and I am here in opposition.

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I concede to the point of order.

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

Mr. Chairman, as we already know, I conceded that point of order so that issue is not before us. But I think it is important, nevertheless, to speak somewhat to the issue so that people fully understand what it was that this subcommittee was attempting to do.

The whole notion of having private debt collectors collecting taxes throughout this country does not sit well with a lot of people. It is not one

of the most popular programs. In fact, it is a very unpopular program.

No one traditionally has liked the idea of somebody knocking on your door to collect your taxes in a dispute with the government. But at least historically we have had a situation where we knew that the person knocking at our door or on the phone was a member of the government, an employee of the government, who had been trained in how to deal with the public and who fully understood what was within the law allowed in that conversation and in that approach.

We now, in this wild desire to turn our backs on Federal employees and outsource, go out and get private employees to handle much of government's work, we decided to go and set up a system which is really very sad. We now say to a private debt collector, go and collect those taxes; and for doing that, we will give you 24 cents on the dollar.

The American people need to know that. They need to know that for every dollar that is owed to the government, the government is now saying we will hire an outside agency that will go after you, and we will let them keep 24 cents on the dollar. What a waste of government money. What a waste of the taxpayers' money.

It is interesting that we hear folks here get up and tell us we are wasting taxpayer dollars. In fact, in a few minutes the gentleman from Arizona will go back to that issue, although he was not involved in this other one and I don't want to bring him into it. But you talk about a waste of money. Rather than use government employees to go find these dollars, you are going to give away 24 cents on every dollar.

The point of order was based on a belief that this would lose revenue for the government because we would not hire these folks to go find the money, to go collect the money. The whole purpose of our bill was to go back to the day when the employees of the Federal Government would collect the dollars. Nowhere in this bill did it say that by not allowing outsourcing of these jobs, by not allowing private debt collectors, we are giving up on our hope to collect the dollars. That was not the purpose.

So, technically, the point of order was correct, and that is why we conceded it. But when you really analyze this, it would have been and it was a bad decision, because that was not the intent.

Lastly, the very famous hit show ``The Sopranos'' ended a couple of weeks ago. But had they known that this program was going to continue, they could have had another episode, because I predict that years from now we are going to be back here telling you horror stories about how private debt collectors are collecting those debts. They don't have to answer to the public or to the government, the way we have to, the way Federal employees have to. What they are going to start doing is using all kinds of tactics that we will live to regret. So there might yet be another Sopranos episode.

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

Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Flake

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

Since 1959, the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, SPUR, has been one of California's preeminent public policy think tanks providing research, analysis and public education related to planning and good government.

It was originally formed to revitalize downtown San Francisco by channeling growth away from suburban sprawl and back into the urban core. SPUR provides a neutral educational forum to promote civic engagement, particularly among disadvantaged citizens, businesses operating in areas of high employment, and firms operated by low-income individuals.

SPUR is a widely sought-out resource for small businesses, concerned individuals, local government agencies and other nonprofits, offering educational programs, publishing a monthly journal with the latest information on urban planning and best practices, and convening 20 active policy committees where small business people and community members can become involved in local and regional public policy.

The funds included in the Financial Services appropriations bill are for construction costs associated with the new urban center. The center will allow SPUR to expand its educational

and research programs related to key issues impacting urban businesses and communities.

You know, as I listen to the gentleman, I always know where he is going with his argument because his argument continues to be that only people in agencies know how to spend Federal dollars and that we, Members of Congress, do not. Obviously a program that has been around since 1959 in the City of San Francisco that has played a role in revitalizing the city and its growth, a city we are all proud of, is one that merits our support.

As I am reading what I have in front of me, I am thinking how in private industry we always hold up private industry and corporate America as the ones that do it on their own, and we don't want to do anything for community groups that may be trying to get some government help. But, you know, we have all kind of tax breaks and tax subsidies that we give corporate America to grow and invest. They have their think tanks, except we are talking about billions of dollars, so their think tanks are composed of people they deal with on a daily business.

Local folks, local small business people every so often need government to step in and give them a helping hand, not to carry them on their shoulders, but to help them grow. I think this is a fine example of a program that merits our support. For that reason, not only do I support it, but I respectfully rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

This is not my earmark. But you know something, as chairman of the committee that carries the earmarks, I respect the fact that every Member has a right to put them forth, and we looked at all of them, as did Mr. Regula, and the earmarks that are here are earmarks that we feel are proper.

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

I suggest to my colleagues that they pay close attention to their TV sets because I rise in opposition to the gentleman's amendment and in support of the gentleman's program. Now, I'm going to do that and try to remain serious, because I'm supporting an earmark by the gentleman who spent over 3 days beating the heck out of all the earmarks on the House floor and telling us that he had never seen an earmark that he liked. I obviously saw an earmark that I like, his earmark, and he saw an earmark that he liked.

Granted that it's got a pretty bad title because people think it's a Christmas tree and Christmas tree opens up a discussion for loading up and all kinds of other things, but we actually looked at it and it's a worthy project.

My point in diplomatically somewhat embarrassing him is the point that I can see in him an ability and a desire to help his community, and he could not see in us for 3\1/2\ torturous days our desire to help our community. And so I am rising as chairman of the committee asking both sides to go against Mr. Flake and support the gentleman's earmark because it indeed is one that helps his community and that's what it's all about.

But in the process of doing that, we also have to be careful what we say. The gentleman from Texas said that he supported Mr. Flake but opposed your amendment but thanked you for making this process possible. I have a surprise for you. Even if you had said nothing against earmarks, Mr. Flake was going to say something about earmarks for as long as he could because he's known for that.

So this is a very convoluted situation that I find myself in. But I support your earmark, I want you to take full credit for it, I want you to put a press release out and if you don't, I will put a press release out naming your program because I think it's a wonderful program and you should be proud of it.

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

And reclaiming my time, with all due respect to both gentlemen from North Carolina and Arizona, we know that the perfect Christmas tree only grows in upstate New York and that's a fact of life.

Reclaiming my time, English is a second language to me, but I assure you that I know what you said and you were not saying that you just wanted information. You were saying

these were bad things. Except that you found a good one and I support you on it. So as they say in the south Bronx, quit while you're ahead. Just take the earmark and publicize it.

I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

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

I'm in opposition to the gentleman's amendment. And the gentleman continues to stay with the theme that these programs can operate without government assistance. Yet, the gentleman, on many occasions, votes, as we all do, for programs where corporate America and other parts of our economic community, of our corporate community, gets help from government in order to put forth their product, in order to put forth their growth.

What my colleague, our freshman colleague is doing, and I compliment him on that, on the fact that as a freshman Member of this House, he already has, obviously, a sense of what his community needs. And this earmark, this modest earmark that he has put in this bill is one to take back to his community and continue to help to build the kind of small business education and information centers that we need.

And so I not only rise in support of it, but I commend the fact that already, at such a short time tenure in this House, he has that full understanding, willing, incidentally, to stand up and defend an earmark, knowing that some people will criticize him for it. But he knows his community better than we do.

And that's my whole point, that there seems to be a prevailing theme that only bureaucrats and Federal agencies, who I support, know how to spend taxpayers' dollars.

Well, no, this is a fine example of a new Member of the House who has a full understanding of his district, who is willing to stand up and defend what is a good earmark. And that's what we should respect, the fact that when we look at the global situation, these Member-driven items are a small amount of dollars, Mr. Chairman, compared to the overall budget.

I mean, I don't want to continue to harp on it, but the kind of money we spend in Iraq, billions, hundreds of billions, of dollars, a lot of that, as we know, unaccounted for, special contracts that went out that we never knew a thing about. Who got rich, who didn't get rich? That's never an issue on the House floor. That's never an issue. A couple hundred thousand dollars to a good community group in North Carolina, that's an issue. Yes, it is an issue. It's a good issue. It's a positive issue. It's the way dollars should be spent.

I oppose the gentleman's amendment, and I support the gentleman's initiative.

I yield back.

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

Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, part of the argument that the gentleman from Arizona has been making in addition to the ones he has made before is how do we choose this particular program.

Well, that is where the wisdom of the local Member comes in. The Member is asked, is faced with these decisions, and that is how we make them. And, again, it seems to suggest that when grants are handed out at the Federal level, I mean, how many people apply for Federal grants? Hundreds of thousands? Millions? And only a handful get them. We don't question how those grants are handed out. We don't say necessarily that the Federal Government and that agency handed out the wrong grant. It was their decision to hand out that grant. No different, the wisdom used by the Member in his local community, her local community, to understand the needs and ask for a grant, ask for an earmark, and that is what the gentleman from West Virginia has done.

Mr. Chairman, with that in mind, I would like to yield to my colleague and classmate from New York, classmate in the State Assembly (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. Chairman, just to kind of give the gentleman good news and make him feel good, we are ready to accept his amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, very briefly, this is a very interesting and important issue that the gentleman has brought up. I am just thinking, as I had prepared this bill, and sent it over to the executive for a signature, maybe I should declare myself as part of the executive for that period of time and get all the Secret Service protection and all that goes with it. If we start doing that, we could get to a big problem. He brings up an interesting point. It has to be dealt with. The Vice President has to decide if he is part of the Senate or is he a part of the executive branch. We can deal with it later once he tells us what he wants to do.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, now that the gentleman from New Jersey has shot down any chance of me being part of the executive branch, reminding me that the Constitution doesn't allow it, I will just keep quiet on that and yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), our caucus chairman.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, the gentleman is correct. This is a very serious matter. This administration, this Vice President, whether on torture, whether on prisons, whether on their behavior in spying on Americans, has told us over and over that they are above the Constitution. What this says is that they are not above the Constitution. No one is. The Vice President certainly is not.

Mr. Chairman, can the gentleman clarify what it is he is asking for?

Mr. Chairman, we have no objection.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is using a very interesting approach. He was part of a group that spent time questioning how we presented earmarks. At that time, we had already, under the leadership of Mr. Obey, come forth with a proper plan where transparency was the order of the day, where vetting each program, each request, was the order of the day. But that was not enough for the gentleman. It was not enough for the group that stood here day after day badgering us about earmarks.

Now the approach is to say that notwithstanding the fact that the earmarks are part of a very open process, that not withstanding the fact that there is a new day in how we handle earmarks, that notwithstanding the fact that we have cut earmarks by 50 percent, notwithstanding any of that, no earmark is good and all earmarks should disappear.

What is sad about that is that is not what we were originally presented with. We were not presented with that. We were presented with a belief that we had to do things differently. Notwithstanding the fact that the chairman, Mr. Obey, already had proposed a plan that was totally different from the past. They felt that it should be better or different or colored different, or whatever.

Now they want no earmarks. Well, people should be reminded that Member projects have been vetted through each Member's office. I have said over and over again that Members know the needs of their districts and Members know how to present an earmark through the committee staff to committee leadership.

Second, every item has been reviewed by the Appropriations Committee. The staff has taken long hours on both sides working in a bipartisan fashion to look at all requests and come up with the final list. We looked at your requests and you looked at our requests. We both looked at all of them. That is how we came to this. So we are pretty sure that everybody's concerns are taken into account here.

Members who sponsor these projects believe that they are worthy and that the taxpayers' money is being well spent. Again, whenever an agency spends money on giving out a grant to a community group, we don't have a discussion on the House floor, we don't have discussions on talk shows on TV or radio discussing those grants.

Billions of dollars are given out every year by the Federal Government to local groups and local projects, everything from building highways to supporting local initiatives. There is no discussion of that.

There is no oversight of that as such. But here, when a Member decides that he or she knows what is good for their district, we have to attack it. But again, the important point to note here as far as making an argument is that the argument was made that the process was not right, notwithstanding Mr. Obey having changed the system. Now we are being told that no matter what we do, the earmark is just not good.

I wonder if the gentleman is going to be supported by all other Members of his party who asked this chairman in writing for earmarks and were granted those earmarks. I wonder how they feel about this, and if they agree with you that all earmarks are bad.

Overall we have a diversity of projects in this bill. They touch urban and rural America, all regions of the country, women and minorities, as well as both sides of the aisle. We have technical assistance for start-up businesses, technology training, business attraction programs, small business incubators and job skills development. Members of this House have been able to identify many commendable projects.

The projects that the amendment's proponent is targeting are important projects to those Members and those communities.

I would say to the gentleman to really rethink this approach. If this approach is, with all due respect to him, a message for the 6:00 news, fine, I can't argue with that. You have done well, you have won on that issue.

This is really about saying that each individual colleague that surrounds you on your side and on this side does not know what is best for their district and that the process that we used to come to this point is a process that does not take into account everything that we could be worried about. Also, that it is not a process that has allowed Members to put forth their vision and at the same time have committee staff and other Members check to make sure. This may come as a shock to some Members, but there were projects where we felt either the vision or in some cases even the title had to be dealt with because we didn't want to do the wrong thing and we certainly didn't want to embarrass anyone. We did not accept every single project.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

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

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

I yield to the gentlelady from Ohio.

I thank the gentlelady from Ohio for her comments and for raising these important consumer protection issues. I totally agree with her that this Congress must place a new emphasis on consumers and ensuring that defective and dangerous products, particularly from overseas, are kept from the marketplace. I commend the gentlelady for raising these issues. I look forward to working with you.

I may say that if you were to look at our bill and read through the language in the bill, the one thing you will see is a desire by this chairman and the subcommittee to begin anew to look at a whole new way of how consumers should be protected. I think that for too long in this country, we kind of pushed away consumerism as a true issue. We're coming back to that. This bill speaks strongly to that. I commend you for bringing up these issues.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition.

No, I withdraw my point of order.

It's somewhat a hesitant approach to being against it for the simple reason that we're not sure on this side if his amendment accomplishes anything. The way the amendment is written, some would argue that what the gentleman does is remove In God We Trust from the coin. But it doesn't say that it places it anywhere else. And I know that's not his intent, that surely would not be my intent, and that would be a terrible talk show topic.

I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.

Reclaiming my time, the way the statute is written, it would not allow that to happen. And in this case, we're actually trying to help you. We're suggesting that what you are doing will in some if not all cases remove In God We Trust and does not make provisions to place it anywhere else. That's our interpretation. That's why I said reluctant opposition because otherwise I would not oppose it.

Secondly, your bill speaks to an item put forth by the mint. Nowhere in this bill does the Mint come up. We don't deal with that. And so that also is an issue. But it's a kind of thing where opposing it will be misunderstood as badly as what you're proposing is totally misunderstood on this side. Your effect may be that you will go down in history as the gentleman who took In God We Trust off the coins and didn't put it on anywhere else.

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

No, but I would like to speak myself. I have no other speakers.

I am informed that the original law was sort of set aside when the law was passed for these particular sets of coins. In other words, these coins speak to In God We Trust on their own in that law, as I understand it. If you now remove that language here, then nothing kicks in from the previous law and you end up with the possibility of no In God We Trust on the coin. Please understand, we're not arguing against putting In God We Trust on the coin. We support it. We're suggesting that your amendment as written may accomplish just the opposite of what you want to accomplish.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to inform the gentleman that we will accept his amendment.

I move to strike the last word.

First of all, if this is not a political stunt for the public and for those talk shows to carry in support, then why are we debating for 40 minutes an amendment that I accepted at the beginning and almost interrupted the gentleman in accepting it?

Another thing that's very interesting, if you don't believe that you have great support in the electronic media right now, if you don't believe that those stations have gone out of their way to give the conservative point of view and leave out those of us who may be considered liberals and who consider themselves liberals, then why are you so afraid of something called the fairness doctrine? If there's nothing to get fixed because there's nothing broken, what's the concern?

Well, obviously, you must know that there's something that you may stand to lose, otherwise you wouldn't make a big fuss about it.

Now, let me tell you something. Probably any so-called liberal you would get on radio, if one was hired by any of those stations, would probably be a moderate. You have nothing to worry about. Mr. Kucinich and I are not leaving Congress. We will not have a radio or TV show any time soon, and therefore, it won't be what you think it is. It'll be pretty moderate.

But, again, what is the problem with going against an issue where you claim that there's a problem and, in fact, we know no issue exists. Now, that seems to be a prevailing behavior here today. You have seen amendments and you will see more coming later that speak to something that's not an issue. It's not a problem. And this one, I'm actually accepting it. I'm saying let Rush and the other guys, you know, continue to be fair and balanced in their approach. That's fine with me. And here you want more and more and more of the same.

But, again, not to be flippant in any way, I assure you that neither in Spanish or in English have I been offered a radio show that would make your skin crawl moving it to the left where the debate should be at times. Have no fear, I'm staying in Congress for as long as I can be in Congress, and you have nothing to fear but your fears itself.

I yield back.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I was beginning to feel left out. We were moving along with this bill, and I had not seen the usual cast of very intelligent and proper folks come to the floor to attack the bill and to try to cut it. And I have to tell you, I'm a very sensitive guy, I was beginning to feel left out. But now I realize you care. Except that you care to an extreme. You want to cut this bill by 8.9 percent. And I noticed that you didn't say what you usually say, which is, that this is a small cut because you know that this is a devastating cut.

It is part of a mantra that's been taking place every day, where a group of you come and say that these bills are way over budget and they have to be cut. Now, I've been on the Appropriations Committee many years now. And during the 12, 14 years that the Republican Party was in control, just about every single year that I can remember every appropriations bill went up by a certain amount. And it was easy to see Republicans would have President Bush come in with a certain amount, and they would add more to it. And that's before it got to the Republican Senate. I'm not allowed to talk about the Senate, but you know what happens over there. But now, all of a sudden, these bills are way over budget, and you folks are so concerned.

Still, not a single one of you will vote for the real budget breaker, or against it, which is the war in Iraq. Yes, we have a deficit. But you know the truth, whether you like to admit it or not, when President Clinton left office, we had a surplus. That's not my comment, that's a fact. We had a surplus. We squandered that surplus. How? By going into a war built on lies and bad information, and now we're caught up to here in that war in many ways. The tragedy of lost life. But we're paying half a trillion dollars for it. No one on that side gets up to say that budget has to be cut. The budget that has to be cut is for the employees at the Treasury Department. It's for the FCC. It's for the Small Business Administration. It's for the agencies that help people in this country.

Now, interestingly enough, I thought that you were going to spare me, and I don't want to contradict myself that I felt left out, but that you were going to spare me because we came in below the President's request. Let's make that clear. Your President, my President, but your party's President, came in at $243 million above what we have in this bill. In other words, had I done exactly what President Bush wanted, this bill would be $243 million more. I came in at $243 million below, and you still want to cut it.

But you're not cutting it half a percent as some will do, or 1 percent, which is bad enough, but 8.9 percent. So what is this? Most of the funding in this bill, more than 80 percent, is for the administrative operations of about 25 Federal agencies. A cut of this magnitude called for in this amendment would devastate the Treasury Department, the judicial branch, and the Small Business Administration. Yes, the judicial branch. Our courts would be hurt.

We are in a war against terror. Part of what the Treasury Department does is to follow the money to see where terrorists could be moving money around in this country and overseas, money that could hurt us.

You are trying to cut this by 8.9 percent. Then what you will do is you will say, well, this is one cut. But then if you add all the amendments on cuts today, it will be close to 15 percent if we were to approve all of them. Just like if you add all the cuts on all the bills, we would just have to close up the government and go home. That may be a good idea for some of you. But right now, the Yankees are not winning as much as I want them to, so I may not want to go home for a while.

But understand something. I may at times make light of some of this. It is not a desire to say that this is not important. It is a full understanding that what you are doing is just to score political points. Because you can't, on one hand, vote to continue to approve half a trillion for the war in Iraq and at the same time say that you want to cut money from the Treasury Department, the Small Business Administration, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

On the other hand, you can't continue to support tax cuts that went to the richest people in the country and at the same time say that you want to cut this. It doesn't make any sense. Just the same way that you support tax cuts for the rich, but resisted until we had to drag you, kicking and screaming, to approve a minimum wage increase of a couple of bucks for people who haven't had one in 40 years.

So let's be honest. Let's be honest. You want to be serious? Let's be serious. Come to the floor and present some things that are serious in nature. You are devastating this bill. We are not going to stand for it. That is why we urge everyone to reject this amendment.

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

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. There will be more speakers on this side, but the gentleman has a wonderful cast over there. I am sure they could go for a while before we go over here.

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

Mr. Chairman, I truly do apologize if the gentlewoman thought that the word ``cast'' was improper. I will speak to our Hollywood friends and ask them if it's improper to have a cast of individuals. It could be a cast of bad characters, or a cast of good characters. I am sure it is a cast of very dedicated folks who have a point to make and are trying to make it.

As far as whether or not we live away from our districts, any time that anyone on that side wants to compare backgrounds to how I grew up and how I got here and why I thank the good Lord that I am here every day, we can debate which public housing any member of the Republican Party grew up in, as I did, where they were born and how they grew up. So I take great pride in the fact that I managed to keep in touch, because it is very hard to lose your roots once you get to a certain place.

Now, the other thing we hear all the time is that whenever we say that we are wasting money in Iraq, that somehow is an insult on the troops. The greatest support we can give our troops is to bring them home tomorrow morning. That is the true support.

I want to see folks, 2, 3, 4, 5 years from now, when we have to pick up the tab and, rightfully so, deal with the wounded who come back from Iraq, if we are going to be standing here also trying to cut budgets the way we are now. But I suspect that it will be the same way that it happened after the Gulf War, where the folks who were all hot and bothered about sending folks off to war then didn't want to put any money into the Veterans' Administration or for services for our troops.

So using a phrase that my chairman would use, Mr. Obey, don't lecture me, don't lecture any of us, on who cares for the troops. We all care for the troops. I would never question whether you care for the troops. It is just that we differ. You think that you care for the troops by keeping them there for as long as they have to be there, which may be 10 more years. I care for the troops by bringing them home tomorrow morning.

Lastly, it was my city that saw the largest part of the terrorist attack on September 11. The gentlewoman said we are in Iraq because we were attacked.

No. We are in Afghanistan, which I voted for us going there, because we

were attacked. We are in Iraq because we were lied to and half the Congress believed it. And now no one, not even the administration, admits in any way, shape or form that Saddam Hussein or anything that happened in Iraq had anything to do with September 11th.

The American people know that. They may think that we have to stay there a little longer. They may have whatever opinion they have. But the American people know that there is no relationship between Iraq and September 11th, and that is a fact. So we can continue to talk about how we have to keep spending this money. Not true.

This cut is a devastating cut to this bill. This bill is a responsible bill. This bill did what you claim you wanted to do. It came in below the President's request. I haven't heard one person get up and say, ``My God, the President wanted more than Serrano. Serrano gave less than the President wanted, so he did pretty good, because boy, that President is a big spender.''

No. He continues to be the fiscal conservative, and somehow we are the big spenders.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I believe I have the right to close, so I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, much was said by the gentleman who spoke before about the earmarks once again. Well, he will have an opportunity, and so will all of us. There is an amendment by Mr. Campbell pending striking all the earmarks from the bill. I certainly will be voting against that amendment, but I will be watching with much anticipation how folks on that side vote on that amendment, because that will get rid of every single earmark from the bill.

Secondly, it is a devastating cut. All of these are devastating cuts. Whether we like it or not, we will continue to remind you that the great amount of money that has been squandered here was the major tax cut that went to the wealthiest, the richest people in this country, and that you continue to support, and, secondly, the fact that you will not join us in getting out of Iraq so we can save that money that we are spending over there. That is a fact.

To bring that fight home on this bill, which came in below the President's request, is really a totally improper way to attack it.

Mr. Chairman, I hope every Member votes against this amendment.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I will take a couple of minutes, and then what I want to do is reserve the balance of my time with the right to close, so there probably won't be a need to ask me if I have any more speakers for a while, or at all.

But this is, again, the same thing. It is yet another cut, another desire to say we should have gone deeper in our cuts. When I think of this, I wonder, if we should have come to where the President wanted. The President wanted $243 million more. We decided in a proper way to come below the request of President Bush. Maybe we should have come at President Bush's level, and then you would be cutting his request more and more, rather than what I bring you today.

But, again, this is a devastating cut. There is no other word for it. You are going after a bill that is a bare-bones bill. There is no fat in here. Mr. Regula, who worked on this with us, knows there is no fat in here. The cuts just pile up, and I understand what you are doing.

With that, I just hope that everybody will vote against this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, you know, I have been in this House 17 years. During those years, I have done what comes natural to me, which is to be a gentleman. In addition, I have tried very hard whenever I know that you may lose your temper a little bit to be a diplomat. But I think when people try to twist people's words it is pretty sad.

The gentlewoman spoke about being out of touch. I said that when you grow up in a public housing project you stay in touch. She quickly did that right-wing thing about growing up on welfare. My parents worked hard. My father had 2 years of schooling. My mother was the highly educated one. She had 6. Both of them died before their 65th birthday.

They raised two kids. One has been with the Commerce Department, way before I got into Congress by the way, for many years; and this one is not doing too bad being a Member of Congress.

That wasn't welfare. It was a form of housing. To insult people who live in subsidized housing for the poor as some sort of welfare cheats is to demean the nature of the debate in this House.

I will always be proud of the years I spent in the Millbrook Projects in the South Bronx. I will be proud of my years in public school. I will be proud of the fact that I came to the United States not speaking English and that I learned to speak whatever it is that I speak now, whether it is good or bad English. I am proud of that.

But to suggest somehow that what we are doing here today in promoting expenditures in Iraq that are a waste of money, not in how we use them for the troops but how we got into that war, or suggesting that because in 2010 people making millions of dollars in this country may have a sunset provision which was set up by the Republican Party on their major tax break when it comes to an end so that they, the ones who make 20, 50, 100, 200 million a year, a billion, may have to pay a little more so that someone else can get a little health care, if that is what this debate is about, then we have reached a very, very low point.

Now, I probably will sit down after I speak and regret having said what I said because I don't like to engage on a personal basis, but if you ever want to know what public housing is like, it is not a vacation. It is not a cabin in the Catskill Mountains or on the Outer Banks of anywhere. It is a very difficult life, but a wonderful life because it teaches you a lot. I am the man I am today because I grew up in public housing. It was not welfare. It was not a gift. It was just the way it was. I resent personally anyone who tries to cheap-shot this situation by hiding behind any comments that I might have made.

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

How much time do I have left?

I won't take that, but I want to close. The gentleman has no more time on the other side, I understand?

I just want to follow up on what Chairman Obey has said because that's the first thing that came to mind when I heard my friend, Mr. Kingston, make the comments that he made. One of the in- house publications said, and I'm trying to remember the headline, after reading our bill, said ``Democrats move towards more consumerism,'' or ``to protect consumers.''

You know, Mr. Chairman, if we do nothing else in this subcommittee for the next 20 years and all we have,

Chairman Obey, as that headline says, that this subcommittee moved to protect the consumer, we did the right thing.

Under Chairman Obey's leadership, we were asked to hold a series of thematic hearings. Those hearings were to see how government can come closer to the people and the people closer to the government. Those hearings were set out to find out the best way over a 5, 10-year span of time to see how we can begin to gear government to service the people.

So what did we do? Yes, we increased dollars for the agencies to protect the consumer. Agencies that have been devastated for the last few years. Devastated. And now we simply are saying that those agencies will now begin to pay more attention to the consumer. That is a good thing.

You've heard people on this House floor talk about issues having to do with products that come in from other countries that are not safe, everything from food items to toys to clothing. This is a good thing. And I tell you one thing. If you pay attention to what we do this year, if you pay attention to what we will try to do in conference, if you pay attention to next year's bill and the year after that, there will be a prevailing theme in language and in dollars, but mostly in language, directing the agencies to pay attention to the protection of the consumer.

We also did something else that goes hand in hand with that. We looked at the agencies and said, you know, there are things you can do to help the average American understand government and be serviced by government. So some people may take it lightly that we've asked all agencies to see how much time they can spend in the classroom, in schools, visiting schools, participating with the men and women of the future. They may say, ``Well, that's not a function of government.'' It is. These agencies can go and participate in the schools.

We asked the Election Assistance Commission, for instance, to encourage schools at every level to use the same voting equipment that is used in local elections. Why do we do that? Because it's not improper to have a child in the eighth grade or in high school using the same equipment that he or she will be asked to use when they turn 18 and they're eligible to vote. These are not bad suggestions. These are pro-consumer suggestions. And so we stand proud behind them and we think it's a proper thing to do.

These cuts attack all of that. These cuts attack our vision for bringing government closer to the people. That's why I oppose this amendment, and I would hope all other Members do the same thing.

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

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

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

And I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

I will be brief, but I think part of what you hear from the other side is an innovative way of using the English language. So they speak about cuts and increases and tax increases and in a way which doesn't necessarily speak to reality. So let me try the same thing then. I might as well.

The President wanted $243 million more than this bill that comes to you today.

Therefore, I would say, I cut the President. But I haven't seen one of you get up to say that was a good thing.

The President wanted $243 million more in our bill than what we are presenting to you. Therefore, the President took a cut. Mr. Chairman, I know I am not supposed to speak to them, I want to see them do the same thing when the President proposes more money for Iraq and for that war that was based on lies and bad information, and see if you are willing to cut that.

Secondly, you keep saying that this bill is 8, 9, 10 percent above last year. Again, a play on the English language, because this bill did not exist last year.

This is a new subcommittee. This committee is composed of different agencies that were put together for this committee.

Therefore, technically speaking, this is the first budget we give you. Next year, you can either say that I cut it or I increased it, but not this year, because this bill did not involve anything from last year.

Now, you could say, now he is getting picky. But if you listen to their proposals for the last couple of weeks, that's what they have been doing. They have been discussing these issues that have nothing to do with anything.

Again, you are going after a bill that came in very tight, a bill that came in below the President's request, a bill that funds basic services, a bill that has 80 percent of its funding for administrative operations in 25 different agencies. There is no fat here; there is no waste of money here.

Do you want to discuss waste of money? Later on we can discuss the war in Iraq, and we can discuss the tax cuts for millionaires that we have in place. That is the real waste of money, but we won't touch that. We will continue to bash this poor little bill that came in under the President's request.

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

Mr. Chairman, I still reserve.

Just to close.

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I just want to, first of all, comment that I must have hit a nerve in telling the truth, because the gentleman from Georgia got so excited that he made some noise that I'm trying to figure out later what it means. Something, hee-haw or haw-hee or

something. I'll try to figure it out later.

But anyway, the point is that no one is lecturing anyone. The ones who've been doing lecturing, Mr. Chairman, have been people saying that these bills have to be cut. These bills are bare-bone bills. This one in particular came in under the President's request, cut the President's request by $245 million.

We set out to help agencies to help people. We demand, we encourage them, actually, to come closer to the people. We do a lot to allow the District of Columbia to deal with some of its issues, something that Mr. Regula and I believe in strongly. That's what this bill does.

But we still can't get away from the fact that when we deal with cuts, you could present it any way you want. There's only one cut where the American people will actually feel something happening, and that is if you cut this continued ability to allow only the richest people in the country, the millionaires and the zillionaires to get incredible tax cuts where they take home 160,000 more dollars than they took last year, or 220,000 more dollars than they took home last year; or if you ever get the courage to say to President Bush, this is your war, you started this war, we have to end the pain of the war, but in the process, we have to end the continuing waste. And I say waste, because it shouldn't have been there in the first place, of half a trillion dollars. That's a lot of money.

Cutting the Consumer Product Safety Commission, cutting the FCC, cutting the SEC, cutting the Small Business Administration, that's not going to make a difference, and you know it.

Let's have the courage to tell the President to get out of Iraq and save half a trillion dollars that he will now spend if we stay there, and then we're talking real dollars.

I hope that everybody will oppose this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I was going to rise in opposition.

And I guess for all intents and purposes, I have to do that, except that when I read the amendment, I realized that, with all due respect to the gentleman, it doesn't change anything because it speaks to something that doesn't exist. There's nothing in this bill that says that anything can be done that he doesn't want done.

I know that's confusing. I showed it to Chairman Obey because I wanted to make sure. He agrees with me. I showed it to staff and, to my amazement, I was right with everybody. This amendment speaks to an issue that is not an issue; therefore, he's asking to undo something that is not done. Nothing's broken that needs to be fixed.

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

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Madam Speaker, I send to the desk a privileged concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 179) and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is the kind of amendment that shows up every so often. It plays to our patriotic feelings and to our feelings of wanting to be good Americans. So what you tell Americans is that if a language other than English is used anywhere in the country for any purpose, somehow, as the gentleman says, it attacks our democracy and threatens our democracy.

We are not saying that we want people to stay away from learning to speak English, and I think it is important to note that when people come into this country and what some folks go through to come into this country, that is a statement about how much they want to be in this country. Is it true that Mom and Dad may take a little longer to speak English? Absolutely. But the young man that comes in or the young woman that comes in at the age of 8, 9, 10, 12, whatever, I assure you that 10 months after they are here, they are acting very American and a year or two later they are speaking English. That's a fact of life.

In fact, I know this for a fact as one who spoke Spanish before he spoke English. When Hispanics sit around the dinner table and the issue of language comes up, it has never been a plot against the English language. It is usually the lament by the grandmother that the grandchildren no longer speak Spanish. That is the reality of America. That is how it has been from day one. That is how it is always going to be.

Now, what is it that we provide here? We are saying that if you still have not reached that point where you feel comfortable enough in English to deal with government services, you can go to a Web site, listen to this, and say, Where is my tax refund? That in itself makes a statement. It says you are working in this country, that you are paying taxes in the country, that you have a refund coming, and you want to know where your refund is. So to make it easier for you to communicate and get that service, the IRS has seen fit to put together that kind of a service.

Now, folks who deal with the IRS on a regular basis like the IRS National Taxpayers Advocate, in the annual report earlier this year, commended the IRS for the efforts to establish a Spanish-language version of Where's My Refund?

So if you don't like the fact that this service is provided, say that. That's fine. But don't make it sound like this is a threat to our democracy. This country is strong for what it is and who we are, not because we have a website that allows people, who speak Spanish and feel a little more comfortable as they transition into English, get this kind of information.

What is ironic is that we come to the House floor and make all these comments about government agencies offering Spanish as a language, but, Mr. Chairman, none of our colleagues from the other side ever get up and criticize their friends in corporate America who on a daily basis advertise in Spanish.

Do you know that there is an ESPN in Spanish, there is an ESPN Deportes in Spanish? There's a Fox, yes, a Fox News in Spanish. There's a Fox Sports, I said Fox, in Spanish. There's a People magazine in Spanish.

Now, is that government doing that or is that corporate America, who at times hangs out more with that side than this side, doing what they know is correct to sell their products? All these folks are saying is to give a service to the people, we will do it in Spanish too. Trust me, this does not threaten the democracy at all.

I am, on a personal level, kind of a little shocked at my friend, the only man who ever passed a ball to me in a congressional basketball game because he knows of my lack of talent, and he knows he's my friend, but you would think he comes from another State. He comes from Florida.

I don't know how you are going to explain this back home. I am trying to help you here. Maybe you want to withdraw this amendment so you can save a lot of headaches back home.

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

May I inquire as to how much time I have left?

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Reclaiming my time, the gentleman from Massachusetts, my friend, makes the best point of all. If you can just imagine, and I think you do because Lou Dobbs and other people show you all the time, what some people go through to get to this country, not to mention others who enter here with documents. You don't go through all of that to decide later that you don't want to be part of this society and not speak English. That is a fallacy. That is not true. And I can tell you firsthand it doesn't happen.

I can tell you that I go to community meetings now in my district where there is no need any longer to say a word in Spanish other than to sound cute at the beginning by saying, Hola. Como esta, Ustedes?

This is not a problem. And I am trying to save you, once again, from all this wrath you're going to get back in

Florida for proposing this. So I still give you a chance to withdraw this. I hope everybody will vote against this amendment.

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

Will the gentleman yield?

If you're willing to join me in a further amendment that says we should do 125 languages, I would be glad to join you because I believe in that. That's fine. That's because I don't know what you're really saying there.

125, that's what you said; we should do it for everybody. So that's 125 languages.

My other point, because I don't want to take up your time, is, it's interesting to note how the language changes. Now you're saying they're getting money back from the government, they should be happy to do that in English. Just a few minutes ago, for 3 days, for 3 weeks we heard how the government only holds the money from the taxpayer. So only this group is getting money back from the government, the rest of the Nation is just having the government hold their money.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

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

I yield to our majority leader, Mr. Hoyer.

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

Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and report the bill back to the House with sundry amendments, with the recommendation that the amendments be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

I realize that with a house full of colleagues, I should make a profound and eloquent statement, but here it goes.

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out to the Members of the House that adoption of the motion to recommit offered by the gentleman from California will kill the bill. The motion instructs the committee to report the bill back promptly rather than forthwith.

Madam Speaker, section 1002(b) of the House manual states, ``Unlike the case of the motion to recommit with instructions to report back forthwith, the adoption of which occasions an immediate report on the floor, the adoption of a motion to recommit with instructions to report back promptly sends the bill to committee, whose eventual report, if any, would not be immediately before the House.''

Madam Speaker, a vote for this motion to recommit kills the bill. A vote against the motion will allow the bill to go forward to final passage.

I urge prompt defeat of the motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2829 and that I may include tabular material on the same.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during consideration of H.R. 2829 pursuant to House Resolution 517, the Chair may reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting under clause 6 of rule XVIII and clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX.

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

I'm pleased to present, Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues, the first Financial Services and general government appropriations bill to the House. This is my first time as chairman, and it has been an honor and a privilege.

The subcommittee held multiple hearings this spring to explore the issues facing agencies funded through this bill. As the hearings progressed, a common theme emerged in my mind for improving these agencies. It became clear that the subcommittee needed to work to bring government closer to the people, to better fit its services to their needs.

The American people expect and deserve the best services their governments can offer. For example, with respect to the Internal Revenue Service, we, as a subcommittee, addressed the fact that the IRS needs to be fair and evenhanded in whom it audits. We also ensure that the IRS works to provide real assistance to the taxpayer who cannot afford the services of an expensive accountant.

We want the Election Assistance Commission to help promote the use of voting machines in student and school elections as an educational tool. Because these are our future voters, we must do this. We felt that government must do more to protect our consumers, and so we have directed the Federal Trade Commission to examine identity theft with an eye toward ending this hurtful crime.

We directed the Consumer Product Safety Commission to strengthen its consumer product monitoring capabilities. We have also increased funding for the community development financial institutions to help expand the availability of credit, capital and financial services to underserved communities throughout the Nation.

I feel that through funding initiatives and congressional guidance contained in this bill, government will be more responsive and more proactive on behalf of the American people whom it serves.

The total funding recommended by the bill is $21.4 billion. This funding level is tight. While the bill is $1.9 billion above the fiscal year 2007, it is $243 million below the President's budget request.

It was a challenge to reduce funding from the requested level for two reasons. First, most of this bill, over 80 percent, funds basic administrative accounts, such as the salaries of the Treasury employees who are managing the Nation's finances. These accounts cannot be reduced without reducing the most basic government services.

Second, there were a number of holes in the President's budget that needed to be filled. This bill increases funding for programs where we believe money will be well spent and will benefit, for example, disadvantaged communities or small businesses. These are important priorities that needed to be addressed.

To summarize, this bill includes $12.3 billion for the Department of the Treasury. Within this amount, $11.1 billion is for the IRS, a $550 million increase above fiscal year 2007, and $52 million above the President's request. This increase includes more money than requested for taxpayer services and the IRS Taxpayers Advocate Office.

The bill also includes $100 million for the Community Development Financial Institutions Fund's program to increase economic development and financial opportunities for folks living in disadvantaged communities.

The bill includes $722 million for the Executive Office of the President, of which $460 million is directed to the Office of National Drug Control Policy and its programs. This includes increases for the Drug Free Communities grants program, and the High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas program, which are critical efforts in the war on drugs.

This bill, however, rejects the 31 percent increase to the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign requested in the President's budget. Recent studies have called in question the effectiveness of the campaign, and it does not make any sense to give this program the substantial increase requested in light of these questions. The recommendation reduces funding for the campaign by $6 million from last year to $93 million this year.

The judicial branch will receive $6.3 billion, which is $278 million above 2007, but $254 million below the request. While this is a reduction to the requested level, we believe that the amount in the bill will be sufficient to fund all necessary operations and staffing levels for the judiciary.

Programs related to the District of Columbia will receive $648 million, including $309 million for the District of Columbia court system. Within this figure, the bill assumes an increase in the reimbursement for attorneys who defend indigent clients so that their compensation rate is closer to the rate for defense attorneys practicing before Federal courts.

This will help ensure fair and just representation for these defendants. The bill also includes funding for the D.C. public schools, the Tuition Assistance Grant program, the Water and Sewer Authority, construction of a forensic lab, and other critical items requested by the D.C. Government.

General provisions for the District of Columbia are fewer in number and have been changed based on our discussions with the D.C. government.

My basic principle is that the Federal Government should not dictate to the city how to manage its own affairs or spend its own money. Therefore, you will find that we have removed or changed riders that have been in past bills that closely prescribed to the city what it should or should not do. In some cases, I would actually like to go further than this bill goes. But I consider the changes we made to be first steps toward eliminating some of the restrictions Congress has placed on the District.

Let me take this opportunity, as an aside, to mention that my ranking member, Mr. Regula, has been excellent also on this issue. He, like I, believe that since the District of Columbia has a new mayor and an exciting

new leadership, we want to do everything we can to allow them to grow within their own boundaries, make their own decisions and develop their own vision.

The bill includes funding for numerous important independent agencies. Some, such as the General Services Administration and the Office of Personnel Management, support all government agencies in their day-to-day operations. Other agencies are smaller but equally vital. For example, the Election Assistance Commission deals with issues that are extraordinarily important to the Nation and its ability to have reliable, secure and accessible elections. This bill includes, Mr. Chairman, $300 million for payments to States to help them meet the requirements of the Help America Vote Act of 2002.

The bill also includes money for essential regulatory agencies, namely the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the Federal Communications Commission. We have provided a total of $78 million in increases over 2007 for these agencies. We are recommending funding to ensure that they have the ability to oversee, investigate, and take necessary actions relating to their respective missions. For example, the Federal Trade Commission would receive $36 million above this year's level and $7 million above the request to enhance consumer protection activities, including investigations of subprime lending and identity theft and to keep the marketplace free from anticompetitive business practices.

Another important agency in this bill is the Small Business Administration. The bill includes $582 million for the SBA, including $100 million for Small Business Development Centers, which is $12 million above the current year. The bill also funds a 7(a) loan guarantee program by providing an $80 million subsidy to make loans more affordable for small businesses.

We also include $17 million for a Microloan program, including $2.5 million for the subsidy cost of these loans, as well as funding for SBA programs that target businesses in disadvantaged or low-income communities. These include the HUBZone program, the PRIME program and the 7(j) program, which provides assistance relating to accounting practices or bidding on Federal contracts.

This bill also has numerous general provisions that apply to funds in the Act or governmentwide. The mark includes some changes in these provisions from previous bills. It includes, for example, some changes to the provision on public-private competitions, known to some as A-76, or outsourcing, that will strengthen protections for Federal employees.

Mr. Chairman, this bill will not make everyone happy. It is not even doing all that I want it to do. We have had to make compromises in order to ensure that this bill will make it through the process and to the President's desk. However, the bill is a good step towards making some important changes to funding and policies. I encourage everyone to recognize that this bill is part of a process that will take time to complete. We will not be able to do everything in our first year.

Mr. Chairman, I would like at this time to thank my friend and colleague, Mr. Regula, for his work and collaboration. We may not always agree on everything in this bill, but we worked together where we could to develop the best possible bill. I truly appreciate his leadership and support.

I also want to express my appreciation and thanks for the dedication and hard work of our subcommittee staff, both the majority and minority, especially today when they will be here past 1, 2 o'clock in the morning.

Dale Oak, Bob Bonner, Karyn Kendall, Frank Carillo, Deb Bilek, and Jim Curry with the majority staff; John Martens and Alice Hogans with the minority staff; and Rick Limardo with Congressman Regula's personal staff have devoted countless hours. That is why this bill is before you today. I would like to recognize their many contributions. I would like also like to acknowledge and thank my personal staff under the leadership of Nadine Berg.

Mr. Chairman, I urge support for this bill.

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN07.007

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN07.008

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN07.009

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN07.010

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN07.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH27JN07.012

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during further consideration of H.R. 2829 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to House Resolution 517, notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no further amendments to the bill may be offered except:

Pro forma amendments offered at any point in the reading by the chairman or ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations or their designees for the purpose of debate;

An amendment by Mr. Stearns regarding currency manipulation;

An amendment by Ms. Hooley regarding funding for High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas;

An amendment by Mr. Poe or Mr. Cuellar regarding funding for the Federal district courts;

An amendment by Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia regarding funding for District of Columbia schools programs;

An amendment by Mr. King of Iowa reducing funding for election reform programs;

An amendment by Mr. Cardoza regarding funding for the General Services Administration;

An amendment by Mr. Cardoza regarding funding for the General Services Administration;

An amendment by Mr. DeFazio regarding funding for the Selective Service System;

An amendment by Mr. Sessions striking section 738;

An amendment by Mr. Boozman regarding High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas;

An amendment by Mr. Boswell regarding studies by the Office of National Drug Control Policy;

An amendment by Mr. Conaway regarding use of reductions made through amendment for deficit reduction;

An amendment by Mr. DeFazio regarding funding for the Selective Service System;

An amendment by Mr. Ellsworth prohibiting funds for certain contractors with tax debt;

An amendment by Mr. Emanuel limiting funds for the Vice President's office;

An amendment by Mr. Garrett of New Jersey limiting funds to enforce certain requirements under section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act;

An amendment by Mr. Goode limiting Federal funds for registration of unmarried couples in the District of Columbia;

An amendment by Mr. Hulshof regarding funding for High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas;

An amendment by Mr. Jordan of Ohio reducing funds in the bill by 8.9 percent, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes;

An amendment by Mr. Kingston limiting funds for contracts to entities that do not participate in a basic pilot program related to illegal immigration;

An amendment by Mr. Lucas limiting funds to seize coins made or issued by the U.S. Government prior to 1933;

An amendment by Mr. Moran of Kansas limiting funds to enforce certain regulations related to exports to Cuba;

An amendment by Mr. Miller of North Carolina regarding Executive Order 13422;

An amendment by Mrs. Musgrave reducing funds in the bill by 0.5 percent, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes;

An amendment by Mr. Neugebauer limiting funds for the Federal Election Commission regarding certain certifications for the Presidential Election Campaign Fund;

An amendment by Mr. Neugebauer limiting the collection and distribution of funds from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund;

An amendment by Mr. Pence limiting funds to implement the Fairness Doctrine, which shall be debatable for 40 minutes;

An amendment by Mr. Price of Georgia reducing funds in the bill by 1 percent, which shall be debatable for 30 minutes;

An amendment by Mr. Souder limiting funds for needle exchange programs in the District of Columbia;

An amendment by Mr. Souder limiting funds for certain entities in the District of Columbia;

An amendment by Mr. Stearns limiting funds for the IRS ``Where's My Refund'' program;

An amendment by Mr. Upton regarding use of Energy Star certified light bulbs;

An amendment by Mr. Wicker limiting the use of funds to implement section 5112 of title 31, United States Code;

An amendment by Mr. Wolf regarding establishment and funding for a budget and entitlement reform commission;

An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for a project of the Barracks Row Main Street;

An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the Fairplex Trade and Conference Center in Pomona, California;

An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the Grace Johnstown Area Regional Industries Incubator and Workforce Development program;

An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the Mitchell County Development Foundation, Inc. for the Home of the Perfect Christmas Tree project;

An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the Oil Region Alliance of Business, Industry and Tourism;

An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research Association, SPUR Urban Center;

An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the West Virginia University Research Corporation for renovations of a small business incubator;

An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, Belvedere Business Park project;

An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the Historic Downtown Retail project, Valley Economic Development Center;

An amendment by Mr. Flake limiting funds for the Advantage West Economic Development Group Certified Entrepreneurial Community program;

An amendment by Mr. Campbell of California limiting funds for Abraham Lincoln National Airport Commission;

An amendment by Mr. Campbell of California limiting funds for the Wittenberg University East Asian Study Center;

An amendment by Mr. Campbell of California limiting funds for 147 projects requested by Members of Congress and disclosed pursuant to the rules of the House;

An amendment by Mr. Regula regarding the IRS;

An amendment by Mr. Obey regarding earmarks; and

An amendment or amendments by Mr. Serrano regarding funding levels.

Each such amendment may be offered only by the Member named in this request or a designee, shall be considered as read, shall not be subject to amendment except that the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Appropriations and the Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government each may offer one pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate; and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

Except as otherwise specified, each amendment shall be debatable for 10 minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. An amendment shall be considered to fit the description stated in this request if it addresses in whole or in part the object described.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Missouri for raising some important concerns about the effect of the digital transition on broadcasters in his home State. I will be glad to work with the gentleman and the ranking member to try to come to a satisfactory resolution of the matter.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).

Reclaiming my time, the gentleman has made important observations regarding the necessity of keeping Congress' commitment to repay this long-term debt to the Postal Service. I agree with my colleague that failure to meet this commitment would adversely affect the future financial stability of the Postal Service and eventually force it to take actions that would increase cost for postal consumers. I want to assure the gentleman that I will work hard to reach an agreement with the Senate that produces a conference report that provides the $29 million payment.

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to take this opportunity to call on the administration to resume including these funds in its budget requests. The revenue forgone appropriation has not been part of the President's budget request since fiscal year 2004.

As I have previously stated, this bill's budget allocation is $243 million below the President's request, so we are placed in a very difficult position when we have to find money for critically important items that have been left out of the President's budget.

I strongly urge the administration to recognize the importance of the revenue foregone appropriation and include it in future budgets.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Ruppersberger), a distinguished member of the subcommittee and famous Orioles fan.

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

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

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

The rule states in pertinent part: ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment imposes additional duties. Therefore, I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Would the gentleman yield?

I will continue to work with you on this issue. I know how important it is to you and to our country. You have that commitment from us.

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

Mr. Chairman, I understand that the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza) will agree to not offer his other amendment, which would call for deeper cuts to the account, if this one is agreed to.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

In that case, Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to this amendment.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Yes, I do.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Decreasing funding to the Selective Service by $10 million would effectively shut down the agency, and we need to understand that. Regardless of how you feel about this issue, the effect would be to shut down the agency.

Now, everyone know that I'm no fan of this war. With my votes that's been made clear. But we must recognize the value of the Selective Service as an inexpensive insurance plan to back up our Active Duty and Reserve Armed Forces. We have a war going on, and we have to have in place many institutions, if you will, and programs that will, at any moment's notice, respond to a congressional call for a draft or any other involvement.

Now, there's also something that we need to understand here. The gentleman wants to take $10 million and give it to the Small Business Administration. I think it's important to note first that prior to full committee markup, we had already increased the Small Business Administration by $40 million. That was above the President's request. In full markup we added another $80 million to the Small Business Administration.

So right now they are at $120 million above the President's request and additional dollars that were brought to light during this whole procedure.

So to send it over to small business is not only an interesting statement because it is a way to get support for something that may be unpopular like a draft, but the fact of life is that there probably could have been another 20 agencies that one could have selected to send money to if that was the point.

So I think that, number one, the Small Business Administration has been taken care of very well in this bill. Number two, there is no need and there should be no desire to cripple the Selective Service Administration, and for that reason, I would hope that our colleagues would vote against this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).

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

Mr. Chairman, the provisions of this bill ensure that when Federal employees compete with private contractors, it will be done on a level playing field.

The administration's push to contract out Federal employees' jobs is part of a massive push towards private contracting by this administration. Federal contracts rose from 207 billion in 2000 to roughly 400 billion in 2006.

The New York Times reported in February that the increase in contracting is driven by a philosophy that encourages outsourcing almost everything government does. I may add that the day is not far off when they will try to outsource the Congress.

The administration claims that it wants a smaller government, yet it has promoted a hidden workforce of private-sector contractors and grantees who get rich off the government, but are not accountable. The number of contractors increased by 2.5 million since 2002, which is 98 percent higher than the slight increase in the Civil Service workforce.

Congress has raised serious questions regarding the cost- effectiveness in this level of contracting and of outsourcing many Federal employees' functions. In many cases we see government employees working side by side with contractors with the same responsibilities, yet their compensation, benefits, protections and accountability are much different. These are serious issues.

This amendment would strike the modest improvements in the competitive sourcing language that has been carried on appropriations bills for several years. These improvements would help protect the rights of Federal employees.

And let me just comment on the fact that this amendment not only takes out the language that was included in

this bill, but, in fact, takes a full step backward and undoes that which we have done in past bills, even during the time that the Republicans were in control of the House.

What we do here is ensure that a contractor does not receive a cost advantage by not offering a health plan, or offering an inferior health plan or retirement plan to its employees, assuring appeals rights for Federal employees in cases of privatization decisions that adversely affect them just as contractors currently have appeal rights, and ensuring that OMB doesn't direct or request agencies to conduct competitions if they otherwise would choose not to.

This is really just an unnecessary amendment. It is directed at destroying the last bit of opportunity the Federal employees have for full protection. That has to be made clear. There is no need for this amendment other than to try to outsource everything and destroy the Federal workforce.

We all have great respect for our Federal employees. Throughout the history of this Congress and in recent years, we've worked in a bipartisan fashion to reduce spending here and there, but this just goes at the heart of this assault that this administration has on Federal employees. And for that reason, and so many others, I urge a strong ``no'' vote on this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I have the utmost respect for the gentleman. He knows how much I respect his desire to improve every bit of the educational programs in D.C., but there are a couple of things we need to know.

First of all, this program is funded at $35.1 million. Interestingly enough, when we approached the D.C. government about this program, we asked what amount they wanted, and this was exactly the amount which was the President's request. They told us that they did not want or need any more. So it is funded at the President's request.

The big problem with this, and what I want to speak about, is the message that this cut sends to the public and to those folks who like to spend a lot of time attacking Members of Congress on both sides. The Special Counsel's Office is involved at this very moment in some very sensitive and high-profile investigations having to do with whistle- blower issues, having to do with the Hatch Act and having to do with so many other issues that we have read about and talked about for a while.

If you are talking about a bipartisan way of inviting attacks on Congress and criticism of Congress, this is probably the best way to accomplish that. Because for $1 million to a program that is funded at the full presidential

request, a program where the District of Columbia has said they didn't want any more money, for that $1 million, to give the impression they were somehow trying to put a damper on the investigations taking place is just the wrong message. For that alone, we should oppose it on both sides of the aisle.

In fact, I would hope, after listening to what I know the gentleman has maybe already paid attention to in the past in putting together this amendment, that he would actually consider withdrawing the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman, had I not done my homework, you would have helped me do it, because you started out by telling us you wanted to help D.C., but then you did tell us that it was that you were having problems with the Special Counsel. Well, that is the issue. The issue is you want to get at the Special Counsel.

I am suggesting this is the wrong time and the wrong place to do it, because they are involved in very serious investigations, and the last thing we need is for the public and the talk show hosts to say that Congress, because they won't say you or I, that party or this party, that Congress is trying to put a chill on these investigations.

During the hearings, for the record, we asked the D.C. Government if they wanted more dollars. We gave them the opportunity to tell us if they wanted more than the President's request, and they said no.

The Special Counsel has been asked to look at various issues, including violations of the Hatch Act.

All of the above.

That is true.

If the gentleman will yield further, my point to the gentleman is he started his argument by saying he wanted to help the tuition program, but, in fact, he has a problem with the Special Counsel. I am suggesting hat for the good of this House, we should not be doing anything that appears like we are trying to chill.

If the gentleman will continue to yield, my point would be until at least one of those investigations has concluded, which has gotten quite a bit of publicity in this country and been discussed widely, we should not be cutting what is not a large budget.

I yield back my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. The gentleman has raised some very serious issues that need addressing, and I would accept the amendment and support it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I 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 appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.'' The amendment requires a determination.

I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is one of those amendments that leaves you scratching your head. This really is an issue that has been visited for so many years and well understood by the medical profession and activists and citizens throughout this country. We are not promoting the use of drugs. In fact, every needle exchange program that I am familiar with, including the one that exists in my congressional district, encourages people to seek treatment, demands in many cases that you seek treatment. But all it says is that while you are a drug addict, while you are trying to get off that addiction, that you not spread the HIV virus by sharing needles.

This is a very sensible medical approach to a very serious social issue and a medical issue. When you have folks who are addicted, the impression that some people get is that this is some sort of a party that people go to and they get drugs by getting needles. What you get is a medical procedure that says you're addicted, we want to help you, we want you to submit yourself to treatment, but in the meantime we will ask you to use this needle rather than one that you can share with someone else and either get the HIV virus or pass it on to someone else.

Washington, DC, is number one in the Nation in AIDS cases right now. All this language says is that the local government will be able to use its local funds to put forth a needle exchange program. My God. To what extent will we continue in this House as we have in the past to take every social issue that we can't win in our local districts and bring it and put it on the people of the District of Columbia and say this is how we want you to behave, because this is what I believe in and back home I can't do this, so I'm going to do it on you and I'm going to do it to you.

The mayor, city council, the leadership, has asked over and over again, give us the opportunity to deal with this issue on our own, in our own way, and in our own terms.

We are not, if I had my way, I would have said that Federal funds could be used for a needle exchange program. That's who I am. But that's not what this says. This simply says that those dollars that are raised locally by the people in the District of Columbia, that they can use it for a program that can save lives, that can stop the spread of AIDS, that can deal with an issue in the most proper and humane way.

This is one of those issues where you have to go deep into your soul, into your heart and not deal with the rhetoric of what sounds right in a 30-second sound bite, but what is proper for public safety, for public health, and for the human dignity of a person that already has a major problem.

I have dealt with a lot of people who are addicted for a long time in my district. I know the pain they go through. At the expense of perhaps making light of it, when they show up at a needle exchange program, they are not dressed in tuxedos with martinis in their hands having a ball. They are people who are hurting, hurting and trying to survive somehow. This may just give them a chance not to get sick, but perhaps just as important, or most importantly, not to make someone else sick.

I would hope that the gentleman fully understands what this is. One, it's local control over the destiny of the District of Columbia; and, secondly, it is a proper medical way for this society to deal with an issue.

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

Mr. Chairman, just one comment. First of all, the committee received a letter in support of removing the prohibition signed by 29 leaders of medical, public health and social service organizations.

In addition, while drug use is illegal, users should not have to pay with their lives. Studies conducted by the CDC, NIH, National Academies of Science and the GAO, which demonstrate that needle exchange programs reduce the incidence of HIV. I mean, this is an array of serious government agencies saying that this, in fact, reduces HIV.

So, on the one hand we spent a lot of money in this country, both here at home and overseas. To the President's credit, he has picked up the ball lately on that issue, and has responded better than in the past on the idea of fighting this disease throughout the world.

Well, right here at home, right here in the Nation's Capital, where the largest number of people infected exist now, the largest ratio, we could deal with this by simply allowing them to do what they must do.

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

Mr. Chairman, in anticipation of the possibility that we would allow them to use their local dollars, the District of Columbia already has put together a plan, a very comprehensive plan to deal with this issue.

That is the plan presented to the committee by Dr. Greg Payne, the Director of the Department of Health. In it, they speak about the dollars they want to spend and the agencies they want to deal with at the local level. They are very serious about the fact that they want this done, and we should be supportive of it.

I did not, in my comments, intend, nor do I now, to question the gentleman's commitment to his belief that this is not a good program. I respect that. I disagree with you, but that was never my intent, if that's what you got out of it.

But I know that you would not be able to present this kind of an approach anywhere else except when it comes to dealing with the District of Columbia because it is, for all intents and purposes, a territory or a colony. And I take that very seriously because I was born there, an America colony. And I'll be darned if I'm going to be the Governor, now in charge by the Congress of a colony. I don't want to do to D.C. what I feel has been done to my birthplace for 109 years. I fight every day to make that a better situation.

And I think what's happened is somewhere along the way we discovered in Congress, and at times it's been done by everybody, we discovered in Congress that there was a playground, there was a place where we could put forth issues that we thought were important issues. And so if you look at the provisions that prohibit local and/or Federal funds from being used in D.C., you see everything from the abortion issue to the gay issue, to the domestic partners issue, to the needle exchange issue; just about every issue that we have ever decided is important in this country, we've used D.C. as the example. And why? Because they can't fight back because they're powerless because they are, indeed, a colony.

Well, I don't know how long I'm going to be chairman of this committee, but as long as I'm chairman of this committee, I will work hard on many issues, and one of them is to alleviate the burden of the District of Columbia to have to be treated like a colony of the U.S. Congress.

Let us do this locally. Let us all decide that if you really believe in something like this, do it locally.

Let me read to you something that Mayor Fenty wrote to us. And I always mention the fact, and I don't want to put my ranking member in a difficult situation, although, you know, he's tough enough to handle it, but he and I are big fans of this Mayor. We're big fans of the vision he presents. We're big fans of giving the District every opportunity to succeed. He says it more than I do. In every opening statement, at every committee hearing, he brings up D.C. as something, a group of people he wants to help.

The Mayor says, statistics in 2005 show that D.C. has the highest rate of AIDS cases in the country, a rate that is over six times the national average. An estimated 1 in 20 D.C. residents is infected with HIV. Nearly 1 in 50 has full-blown AIDS.

My God, if this is true, and it is, then why wouldn't we let them at least use their local funds to deal with this issue?

You know, I don't know 50 years from now how we're going to be judged, but I think that an issue that may not get the importance it gets now, like this one, will be one of the ones that will judge all of us as to what we did when we had an opportunity to do something.

Absolutely.

Well, with all due respect, and reclaiming my time, you may not feel that it's treated like a plantation, you may not feel that it's treated like a colony, but let me tell you, I don't know a plantation, but I know a colony, and we do treat it like a colony.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 12 o'clock and 23 minutes a.m.), the House adjourned until today, Thursday, June 28, 2007, at 10 a.m.

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

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to yield to our distinguished chairman.

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

Mr. Chairman, it is amazing. If folks on the other side keep saying tax increase, they are actually going to believe that there is a tax increase.

What I notice is that they very rarely mention deficit because when they do, they leave themselves open for discussion on the deficit. Yes, there is a deficit and the American people are quickly finding that out. The deficit was not created in the last less than 6 months that Democrats have had control of this House. The deficit was created by taking us into a war that we shouldn't have been involved in where close to $600 billion has been spent, not to mention the loss of life, not to mention the fact that when our troops come home over the next 10, 15, 20 years, we will be paying in deficit spending to make up for medical care and all the needs that I certainly will be supporting for them.

Now, it's interesting, Mr. Chairman, how the other side mentions that this bill spends money. Well, in a way that's redundant because that's what the Constitution says the Appropriations Committee is supposed to do. It is supposed to come to the Congress every year and spend dollars. How much we spend, that's a discussion.

But if there was ever a place where you can justify a modest increase, it would be when you deal with the energy issues in our country. There are dollars here, no one is mentioning, for research. There are dollars here to deal with the energy issue.

Now, every American knows that probably at the center of issues in this country is the high cost of fuel in this country, whether for driving or heating our homes. So when you take some of those tax dollars and you spend them, a very modest amount, on research to see if there is a way that in the future we can cut out our dependency on foreign oil, that is a great investment. That is no different than investing in a college or education for the children. It is the same kind. But again, we are not going to hear that. What we are going to hear is this repetition about how money is being spent, and that there is a tax increase.

I don't remember a tax increase in the 6 months that we have been here as Democrats. What I do remember that caused a deficit was, one, the war; and two, that we did have a tax decrease in this country, a tax cut, we did. But it wasn't for anybody that we know, certainly no one I know. It was for millionaires and zillionaires, including some of them who told us that they didn't even want a tax cut. Those are the people.

So if indeed those tax cuts reach their sunset and die, I guess you could play with words and say that taxes will go up. Yeah, for somebody who has $100 million, he or she might pay more taxes later on. But the working class, the people who are getting help for their education, the folks that are getting a better deal on energy propositions in the future, those are the facts, the people that we are looking for. Now, you want to cut the deficit down? You want to create a situation where we will spend less money in this country? Stop the war now. Stop spending another dollar on the war in Iraq.

But it has been forgotten. It's all about tax-and-spend Democrats. My God, when you hear this, Mr. Chairman, you would think we were in control for the last 14 years. No, it's 12, 14 years against less than 6 months. And in those 6 months we have spoken to parents about their kids' education. In those 6 months we've made attempts to bring down the cost of gasoline. In those 6 months, yes, we gave a minimum wage increase to the lowest earners in this country. That's what we've done. And we will be proud of that. You want to cut the deficit that you created over 12 years? Stop the war now. That's the best way to do it.

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

It's clear, it should be clear to Members what this amendment does and what this program does. This, in fact, has local law enforcement enforcing immigration law.

This is the most unpopular and rejected program within law enforcement in this country when it comes to these types of programs. Department after department, police department after police department, sheriff's department after sheriff's department has said we don't want this responsibility, we don't want this job.

In fact, that is the reason why the number of communities that have participated in this program is not anywhere where the proponents would want it to be, because the mainstay, the strength of local law enforcement is the ability to fight crime, to protect the community, and, yes, even to flush out possible terrorist acts by getting information from the community.

Granted, there is an immigration issue. But the police departments, the local law enforcement do not want to play the role of immigration officers because they want the ability to be able to speak to members of the community and get information.

Now, that information may be who did you see near that car that is now missing from that corner. But that information can also be, where did you see and who did you see going into that building where we later found equipment to make bombs that could in fact be involved in a terrorist attack.

Local law enforcement have told us, in big cities and in small cities throughout this country and the rural communities, that they want the ability to work with their communities, and they don't want to be hampered by being asked to enforce immigration law.

And how it works is very simply this. There are people who are in this country without proper documentation. You call them illegal aliens; some of us call them undocumented. But they still live in the community. They still have information and law enforcement needs to work with them.

If they now know that the local police officer, if they now know that the local sheriff's deputy is going to be dealing with them in terms of an immigration situation, they will not open up to that person and give them any information. And in the long run, we will suffer as a Nation.

That's why I think that this is a bad program. I'm sorry it has even a penny assigned to it. But to add more money to it would be a total waste of time.

To you, always.

It may be voluntary, but what happens is that local elected officials who sound like some of us here begin to put pressure on the police department to get into the program when, indeed, just about every law enforcement agency, local law enforcement in the Nation has gone public to say we don't want it. And in this case, we don't even want people to ask us to join it.

Reclaiming my time, it's just, with all due respect to my brother, Mr. Rogers, it's just bad policy. It is not the way to get at an issue.

We are now dealing with the Senate, and we will be dealing in the House with an immigration reform bill. We will eventually deal with that issue. In the meantime, we have other business to take care of in this country, other protections to offer to our citizens.

To have the local police officer, on top of the fact that they're busy already, now you're going to give them another assignment. But to have them enforce immigration law, I can't tell you how much all the people I speak to say they don't want that. They want the freedom to get information at all levels of the community and not be seen as an immigration officer.

There used to be a bad joke about somebody would come into a restaurant and yell out ``immigration'' and a lot of people would leave and jump out the window. And that's funny, and it's sad at the same time.

But if you adjust that to a police department in a neighborhood looking for information and having people run away from them because they see them as immigration enforcement agents, then we lose the opportunity to really protect our communities.

I have a problem if we set in motion a wave of desire and push to force local people to do it. And what we hear from local law enforcement is that they're under incredible pressure, political pressure, from elected officials to join a program that they know is not a good program.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I think you said it well. The problem here is that we have in place documentation that is acceptable for these kinds of crossings. Yes, as we go forward, we have to make sure that we secure our borders. But to undo that which has been working for a while and that which is accepted by our State Department is just to take a step backwards. And rather than doing that, we should accept what we have now and build on it. And what you are proposing is really to take a step that would only hurt us.

Throughout the years, the State Department has worked, in the case of the Mexican Government, to bring about a proper crossing of the border for work purposes and family visits and so on. That has been in place for years. That has worked. That is not the issue that we deal with when we talk about undocumented immigration into the country. That is not the issue we deal with when we talk about terrorist acts. This is the crossing of the border in a proper and safe and legal manner, and that is what we have in place, and we shouldn't be reinventing the wheel at this stage.

Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to the bill, and I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, this may be one of those classic moments where we are dealing with something that really isn't broken. The fact of life is that everybody at every local government and in every locality throughout this country knows what the law is and knows how to react to that law. People are not withholding information from the Federal Government.

What happens, however, on many occasions, is that local communities will make a statement, and basically it is a statement in many cases, in most cases, saying that that area is a sanctuary, meaning that they look at the immigration issue differently than you may in other parts of the country. But it doesn't mean that they flaunt the law, that they laugh at the law, that they will not participate.

I assure you that in the case of New York City, where the scene of the crime took place on September 11, no one in that city government, no one in that State government, is interested in doing anything else but complying with every law that will help us secure our borders and protect our city.

But we in that city look at immigration different than other people in other parts of the country, perhaps. We don't see immigrants as a problem to society that we have to somehow create a problem for them.

So sanctuary movements, which incidentally are growing throughout churches of all denominations throughout the country in very conservative and in very liberal areas, those movements are simply statements by communities saying we see the immigration issue from a humane point of view. We see it differently than other people. We don't think these people are problems for the country. Let's work to resolve the problem in a proper way.

This, again, is a classic case of coming to the House floor and saying, one, we are going to tell local governments what to do, something that side does not usually like to do, and in this case freedom of speech. Simply a statement by many communities that they see immigration in a different way and we should not be badgering them and creating issues where issues do not exist.

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

Mr. Chairman, I'm opposed to the amendment, and I rise to claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, this may go down as the meanest and most misguided amendment of the evening. TPS has been known and worked as a proper legal statement by the U.S. government to give protection to people who are in situations where they cannot go back home. These people did not come into the country illegally. In fact, in many cases, our actions being involved in those countries invited them to come here, and this is why we offer that protection.

The countries that would be affected are countries where we either have had a standing tradition of being involved in trying to resolve some difficulties in those countries and participated militarily and otherwise in those countries and, as a result, gave them this protection. And secondly, there are also a set of countries which are going through very difficult situations.

I'm thinking, as I hear the gentleman speak, if Mr. Frank Wolf was here now he would be up on our side talking to you about the Sudan and talking to you about other places where we should continue to give the temporary protection status.

But here's the main point which I've already mentioned and needs to be mentioned again. This is a situation where these folks should not be looked at as people who are here illegally. They're here legally. They're here because this Congress, this administration and other administrations, have seen fit to give them this protection. They're here because they can't go back home.

And again, we may disagree on this, and frankly, there might be people on this side that disagree with me, but in some of those countries our policies have played a role in creating a situation where they can't go back home. So to lump them in with the undocumented immigrant situation of the country is totally unfair because it's two different issues. This one is sanctioned.

Interestingly enough, I notice that there's always a little bit of politics involved in this because the gentleman doesn't suggest that all Cubans go back to Cuba and that they should not get special treatment as they do under the Cuban Adjustment Act. We never touch that one. We touch this one.

Well, that's sad. It shouldn't be, and we should continue to protect these folks and try to make situations back home bearable for them. In the meantime, we should not be throwing them out of the country.

And lastly, we're not talking about 12 million people. We're not talking about 15 or 20 million people. We're talking about a much smaller number of people who need our protection.

There's a lady in the harbor to the city where I live and where I've grown up. That lady, known as the Statue of Liberty, tells us to bring to these shores the people that are hurting.

This is a fine example of America at its best. Don't lump it in with any other problem. That's not fair and that's not right.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, last night and most of yesterday we saw a very unfortunate situation take place on the House floor: discussions, anger, tempers, and very little on the substance or the bill or the work of the committee.

I rise today to remind us of the work this committee has done in a bipartisan fashion before we came to the floor. I have been a member of the Homeland Security Committee since it was formed. So has Mr. Price, Mr. Edwards, and Ms. Roybal-Allard. I know for certain that on the other side the former chairman and ranking member, Mr. Rogers, has been a member since the creation of the committee. From day one, the committee has taken its work very seriously.

This year, under new leadership, the committee continued to take its work seriously. We held 20 hearings plus a couple of field hearings, over 50 hours of public hearings. Decisions, information was not gathered in private. These were public hearings. Over 70 witnesses came before us both from government and those who have the knowledge to advise us on these issues.

During those hearings, every member was treated fairly. In fact, one of the highlights, I think, was the way in which Mr. Price worked with Mr. Rogers and the way that Mr. Rogers continued to play such an important role in these hearings in presenting his views, his knowledge and his expertise.

That kind of bipartisanship, that kind of presentation, that kind of work led to the bill that we have before us. It is one of the few bills in this House where those of us who are part of the committee know well how serious the issue is and how much we have to do to try to assign the proper dollars.

When the bill left committee, there were, of course, a few disagreements. But there was a bipartisan belief that we were doing that which we were challenged to do, that we were asked to do, which was to put forth a bill that secured the homeland, that protected the homeland.

Yet, what we saw yesterday did not speak to that at all. What we saw yesterday was personal attacks. It was discussions about issues that were not involved in this bill. Interestingly enough, the number one decision yesterday was to attack earmarks. Yet Mr. Rogers set a precedent, which was followed by Mr. Price, that if there is a bill that does not deal with earmarks, it is this bill.

Now, that needs to be repeated. Of all the bills to pick on to deal with the issue of earmarks, this is the wrong bill. This was something instituted by Chairman Rogers and continued by Chairman Price on a bipartisan level. This is so serious, this issue at hand, and these dollars are so serious and so dedicated in the way they are appropriated that the earmarking process perhaps should not play a role at all. And it hasn't, up to now, I assure you. Otherwise I would have gone to Chairman Rogers and gotten something in the last few years. I didn't because it just did not exist.

So now we find ourselves with a decision to make today: Will we continue to behave on the floor as if we were discussing the reelection for Congress in 2008, or do we really want to send to the President's desk a bill that speaks to the needs of our community in securing our homeland?

I represent the Bronx, New York City. I was in New York City on September 11. I was not here with my colleagues. As I have said often, my son was running for the New York City Council on that day, and the election was cut off at 11 o'clock in the morning because of the terrorist attack. That is something no one writes about, that the terrorists were able to stop our electoral process in the biggest city in the Nation around 11 a.m. The elections were run 2 weeks later. So I was there helping my son on election day. I remember the pain and the horror that you all know about of seeing my city attacked.

I take this bill personally very seriously. I take the bill as a Member of Congress personally very seriously. This committee has taken this bill very seriously. This committee, on a bipartisan basis, takes protection and the safety of the homeland very seriously.

Let's make sure that all Members take it seriously. Let's pass the bill.

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

Mr. Chairman, I was doing some math, and I am sure my colleagues are aware of this. If you are not, you might be shocked. We spent 10 hours on a debate to cut $8 million from the general counsel. Now, you talk about waste. This place runs, the electricity runs, the people are on salary, and that side made us spend 10 hours just to cut $ 8 million, with eight motions to rise to stop the work.

Now, nowhere does anyone get up and discuss the issues in this bill. The bill continues to be a good bill. No matter how much you attack it, no matter how much you avoid dealing with the true issue, the center issue, it continues to be a good bill. I think what is happening here is, as time goes on and different folks and different Members pay attention, we have to continue to repeat some of the things that we have said before, because you put us in that situation.

So, with that in mind, let me remind you that this is the Homeland Security bill. This is the bill and this is the issue that, according to a lot of folks on talk radio, the Republican Party is supposed to be very strong on. Democrats are supposed to be strong on some issues and Republicans are supposed to be strong on some issues, but according to what you tell the world, you are stronger on this.

Mr. Chairman, they claim to be stronger than anyone else in the universe on homeland security, yet you have spent all night, all night, trying to destroy this Homeland Security bill which protects the homeland.

As I said before, I represent New York City. I was in New York on the day of September 11 and we personally, as the rest of the Nation well knows, suffered the pain of having a terrorist attack. Immediately thereafter, we came to the House floor and we created the Department of Homeland Security. That's what this bill is. This is not a bill that talks about earmarks.

Let's try it again.

Now, as you know, I speak two languages, but out of respect to the stenographer, I won't use Spanish, so I will remind you in English, there are no earmarks in this bill. I would say it in Spanish, but I don't know how to say ``earmarks'' in Spanish. As soon as I do, I'll find a way to say it.

But I'll say it in English again: There are no earmarks in this bill. There's only security for the homeland. There's port security. There is work for border agents. There is strengthening of cargo shipments, of our airlines, of finding ways to protect ourselves from the possible next terrorist attack. That's what this bill does.

And you spend hour after hour after hour with procedural motions to adjourn to go home, to stop working and telling us that there are somehow earmarks in here that have to come to the light of day and telling us that a new process and a new system has been invented. Yes, a new one is in place. It's one that is going to tell us who, which Member of Congress, asked for money to go to a certain program in his or her district and throughout the Nation.

And let me tell you something. I don't have a problem with that. I don't think that the administration or the bureaucrats are the only people who know how to spend money. I think I know how to spend some dollars in my district. And all an earmark is, is that we tell the agency, spend so much money, usually a very small amount in that particular group, to help that particular group of students, or that particular environmental issue, or to clean up that particular toxic waste. There's not a problem with that.

But when you stand here and tell us that this is what this bill does and that somehow there is a system that has been set up that is horrible, you're kidding yourselves. And so I must do something that I didn't want to do, and I'm not going to mention names because that's not proper. But do you know, my fellow Republicans, that 65 of you have written letters to me, chairman of a subcommittee, asking for 137 projects totaling close to $350 million?

Now, I didn't get a chance to ask my chairman, Mr. Obey, but the committee that I chair, Financial Services and General Government, is not one of the larger budgets. I shouldn't admit that in public, but it isn't one of the

largest budgets, and it doesn't have that many areas where you can earmark even if you wanted to. But 65 of you have asked for 137 programs for $340 million. Some of you have spoken on the floor.

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

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

Mr. Chairman, we have been down this road before in this discussion, and it's easily something that the other party wants to do in spite of the fact that their local governments tell them they don't want this done. I think the public and all Members really need to understand what this is about. This is about the fact that there are people in this country who are undocumented. That's a fact. How do you remove them out of the country is another issue.

What happens while they're living in this country is the issue at hand. Now, throughout the discussion on immigration, we've had questions like, if a person is here, undocumented, and they have a child, do you say to that child, you can't go to a public school because your parents are here undocumented?

Well, if you think they're leaving tomorrow or next year, that might work. But if you think that eventually whatever plan we come up with allows X number of children to stay in the country, then you can't deny them education because you're just creating a generation of Americans who won't get education.

Then you move on to step two. At times, we have said that if a person is here undocumented, they should not get any kind of emergency medical care. Well, besides the humaneness of that, that we should never deny medical care to anyone, there is the issue of, so do you want the person working at a local hamburger place serving you food while they are ill and not able to treat their disease and the germs they may spread around. That is an issue.

This one is really a classic one. This is where you say to your local police department, we want you to enforce immigration law. And just about a unanimous cry throughout the Nation has been from police departments saying, Don't give us that responsibility. We don't want it. We don't need it.

The reason they don't want it and they don't need it is for a very proper crime-fighting purpose. A local police department, a local law enforcement department, makes contacts in the community, finds out who's committing crime in the community by talking to folks. Traditionally, undocumented folks have known and have felt secure in that they can tell a police officer that a crime has been committed and point a finger at the person who's committed the crime, knowing very well that their conversation is about crime and not about documentation or about their status as a citizen or a noncitizen, an illegal or undocumented person within the country.

That is the reason why just about every police department in the Nation, sheriff's, whatever they are called in different communities, have said, don't give us that responsibility; we don't want it because we want to keep this relationship going with this community, knowing well that we can get information out of them.

And they are not dealing with us on an immigration law issue. That's why we have ICE. That's why we have all other people in the country that enforce immigration law.

But now we bring it, since September 11, to a new point, and that is, what if in the gathering of information that could lead to the prevention of a terrorist attack, you can't get information from some folks because they're afraid that while speaking to you, their immigration issue comes to light rather than their information on the fact that there could be a terrorist plot being planned somewhere.

This is a classic case of the old line throwing the baby out with the bath

water. Yes, there is an immigration issue, and we are trying to deal with it, all of us. And, yes, I know that there are some people that are very upset about the fact that there are people here who are not legally in the country.

But now to go and say that you're the party for law and order, Mr. Chairman, and at the same time say, but we want to tie the hands of our local law enforcement in gathering information, is a terrible mistake.

You will continue to do what you want. Eventually more and more police departments will tell you that they don't want this job; they don't want this responsibility. And somehow we will continue to get it wrong. Don't tie the hands of our law enforcement folks. Let them continue to gather the information they need.