Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition of H.R. 420, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2005. This legislation runs roughshod over States' rights, forcing State courts to enact onerous procedures and stripping States' jurisdiction in certain cases. This bill would also force restrictive venue provisions on all State courts, which essentially tells State courts they do not have jurisdiction over certain claims brought by its own citizens. Let State legislatures and State judiciaries set their own Rules. And, by the way, a frivolous, meritless lawsuit is damaging to the system and the offending parties should be punished.

This bill also protects foreign corporations at the expense of consumers in that it unfairly dictates to States where their citizens can enforce legal right against a corporation based outside of the United States. While H.R. 420 allows a victim to file a claim in a court in his or her home State, because of existing jurisdictional rules that State may be unable to exercise power over the foreign corporation.

For example, a corporation in Mexico sells cribs in the United States and those cribs are shipped to Kansas and sold in Nebraska. The cribs turn out to be defective and one collapses on a baby in Nebraska, killing it. It may be impossible, under this proposed bill, for that Nebraska family to file a lawsuit in Nebraska. The family may have to file the suit in Kansas but would have to take the case to Mexico under H.R. 420. I cannot in good conscience support a bill preventing a family in this situation from filing a lawsuit in its own State.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill.

What we have to remember is this is about the children, children whose families are trapped in poverty trying to get a head start on education, which is the surest way out of poverty. It is disappointing to me there are some in here, because we provide some level of flexibility, and perhaps in some community it is a faith-based operation that can deliver the services best to a poor child in need of these services, that there are some willing to kill Head Start because of that level of flexibility.

In my hometown, thankfully, it is the public school systems that have taken over the Head Start program because we suffered through the difficulties of financial problems. The previous Head Start organization managed the program so poorly that they could not pay the teachers and continue Head Start. It had to be taken over by the Federal Government through an entity. Fortunately, Omaha Public Schools have taken over Head Start in Omaha, Nebraska, providing over a thousand children an opportunity to have a coordinated Head Start educational program, a better education program, with assurances to the parents that it is going to be there next year. In fact, they have even got a very progressive system for Head Start children based on EduCare, an outstanding private preschool program that involves a holistic approach of the entire family.

I want to end by thanking the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) because he also recognizes there was a glitch, a glitch that eliminated some of the lower-level rank-and-file service men and women from having their children in Head Start programs because of privatization of military housing. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner) recognized that problem, corrected that problem, and I want to thank him for standing up for our service men and women with children that would be eligible for Head Start.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Markey amendment. As the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) just mentioned, we have been through several attempts in the energy bill to recognize the NIMBY, not in my back yard movement, against LNG. You cannot have it both ways.

This House spoke overwhelmingly to say that we need and will support more natural gas supply within the United States by beating or not adopting the Markey amendments in the energy bill, which I think is the proper place to discuss the topic of liquefied natural gas and its safety.

And, by the way, what we adopted in that energy bill is a streamlined process that does give FERC the ultimate authority on permitting and siting but also in that bill mandates to FERC that they have to take into account the safety concerns. It is stated right there in black and white. They have to adopt or they have to take into account the safety concerns, the procedural concerns from both the local, the county, the State governments and all of the Federal agencies, including the Coast Guard, that are involved in this process.

As the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) mentioned, the Coast Guard is already part of the process. It has jurisdiction over part of the safety plan that makes sure that the ships are safely brought in to the port facility. It escorts those ships, in fact. You know, I just have got to say that we have got to get away from this NIMBY mentality here.

Right now, we are paying $10 per Btu for natural gas. Mexico is a fraction of it. We look at what we use natural gas for in the United States, it is not just heating our homes. Eighty percent of the homes in Nebraska are heated with natural gas. I would presume that the majority of homes along the East Coast are heated with natural gas.

Go tell your folks that you are in favor of their natural gas heating bill going up by 30 or 40 percent this December, January and February. Because that is what we are looking at.

But, also, it is a major element in cost in manufacturing, manufacturing chemicals, manufacturing fertilizer; and I am telling you our farmers in Nebraska cannot withstand the price increases that they are going to have to incur with fertilizer. Chemical plants are pulling out of the United States to avoid the high cost of natural gas.

We need this product in the United States. Let us keep it as this body has already decided with the streamlined approach that already incorporates all of the safety concerns from all of the local and State and Federal agencies.

Let us join the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. LoBiondo), and all of the others that are in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to congratulate Chairman Barton on his leadership in driving this legislation to the finish line.

This comprehensive energy bill is a vision. H.R. 6 aims to boost domestic sources of energy, increase the use of clean renewable power, and diversify the nation's energy portfolio. This legislation will not completely solve our dependence on foreign oil overnight, but it puts in place a number of tools to do just that. I applaud the increase of the use of bio-fuels, especially ethanol, to 7.5 billion gallons by 2012. This is important to our Nebraska farmers as well as a benefit for all Americans.

The repel of the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA) will allow for increased private investment in US. electricity production such as wind farms and other non-fossil energy sources. This is a smart move.

I am pleased to see several provisions that I authorized in this bill including a new provision to speed up the siting of new plants for Liquefied Natural Gas. LNG accounts for 90 percent of fertilizer production costs. Increased access to LNG will help our nation's farmers. I also author a new program to provide incentives for the use of stationary fuels cells and strong increases in renewable fuel efforts. This legislation provides $4 billion over five years to speed the arrival of affordable, viable hydrogen fuel cells; create a new Department of Energy program to encourage the use of on-site energy production from fuel cells and micro-turbines; and allow the use of livestock methane as an eligible source under the renewable energy fund for public power.

And finally this legislation includes tax incentive, which I authored, for increased use of energy efficient products for the home and office. This is a solid bill, much needed by our Nation. This energy bill is an opportunity to ensure a better future. The bill addresses present day energy problems while looking beyond the horizon and I urge my colleagues to vote for the conference report.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Kennedy-Hooley Amendment to H.R. 2601.

The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that 90 percent of the meth available in Nebraska is trafficked from superlabs operated by drug cartels in Mexico, California, and the southwestern states. Local law enforcement officers face that challenge of dismantling home-based meth labs while combating the flow of meth from international drug trafficking.

The Kennedy-Hooley amendment will help give local law enforcement officers the tools they need to combat meth. It requires the U.S. State Department to report and certify that countries heavily involved in the import or export of pseudoephedrine--a key meth ingredient--are cooperating with local law enforcement agencies to prevent its misuse and diversion. Countries that do not comply would be subject to consequences under the Foreign Assistance Act.

In Omaha, Nebraska, seven of nine law enforcement jurisdictions identify meth as the drug that most contributes to violent crime. Omaha policemen tell me that meth is now the drug of choice for gangs in North Omaha, replacing crack cocaine and heroin. Sixty percent of inmates in Nebraska jails have problems with meth, and the toll on families in Nebraska is incalculable.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the Kennedy-Hooley amendment to help stop meth smuggling for Mexican drug cartels, and support our law enforcement officers.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Hooley-Souder amendment to H.R. 2601. I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.

This amendment will authorize $4 million in 2006 and 2007 to help prevent the smuggling of methamphetamine from Mexico to the United States. It authorizes the Secretary of State to work with Mexican government and law enforcement officials to improve their abilities to fight the production and trafficking of meth.

The U.S. Department of Justice estimates that 90 percent of the meth available in my home state of Nebraska is trafficked from Mexico, California and the southwestern states. Nationwide, 65 percent of available meth was smuggled into the U.S. by Mexican drug cartels and gangs.

During a routine traffic stop last January, the Douglas County Sheriff's Office in Nebraska seized five pounds of meth from two Mexican nationals who had concealed the drug inside a spare tire in the trunk. In March, an 8-month investigation culminated in the arrest of five Mexican and Hispanic drug cartel members. Law enforcement officials seized 12.5 pounds of meth being transported to Omaha from California.

Although 90 percent of the meth problem in Nebraska stems from international and intrastate drug trafficking, local law enforcement officers must spend the majority of their resources fighting home-based meth labs. Dismantling hundreds of ``Mom and Pop'' labs operated out of kitchen sinks and car trunks, and disposing of the highly toxic chemicals used to manufacture meth, is a timely and expensive process.

The Hooley-Souder amendment is critical to support our police officers on the front lines in the battle against meth. Reducing the amount of meth smuggled into the U.S. from Mexican super-labs will help our law enforcement officers protect families and children from this insidious drug that destroys lives and ruins communities. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the Hooley-Souder amendment today.

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

Today I rise in strong support of the Velazquez-Slaughter amendment to H.R. 3058. This amendment will restore almost $48 million in critical funding to help States combat lead poisoning in children.

Just as a reference, my interest is in the children and the families who live in older areas of cities, including Omaha, Nebraska that I represent, who have to deal with the lead paint and lead dust in their houses. On top of that, in my city they also deal with contaminated lead. So EPA is coming in, cleaning up the lead soil in people's yards, but yet are not doing anything to clean up the lead poisoning from the paint inside and outside those homes.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimates that as many as 1,600 children in East Omaha have harmful levels of lead in their bodies. There are 86,000 residents in Omaha affected by the lead cleanup.

Parents wonder whether it is safe for their children to play outside, but they must continually check windowsills for lead dust and beware of cracking paint inside their homes to help protect their children from lead poisoning.

The dangers of lead poisoning are well known and heightened for young children. High levels of lead in the body can cause asthma, brain damage, mental retardation, hearing loss, hyperactivity, and developmental delays. The Federal Government will end up paying the costs of lead poisoning in Medicaid, S-CHIP, and IDEA dollars unless greater resources are directed toward lead remediation efforts such as the State grant program operated by the EPA's Office on Lead Hazard Control.

The amendment offered today will prevent a significant cut to this program from $166 million in fiscal year

2005 to $119 million in the Transportation-HUD appropriations bill under consideration right now. This year the EPA was only able to fund one third of the State grant proposals for lead-based paint remediation. The city of Omaha in its dire need lost a $3 million grant for HUD assistance. This situation can only worsen unless the amendment is approved today.

I commend the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) and the gentlewoman from New York (Velazquez) for championing this effort and strongly urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this commonsense amendment to help protect children from the dangers of lead poisoning.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce the Parents' Tax Relief Act, PTRA, to empower parents who choose to stay home with their children.

This legislation will end the longstanding inequity in the Tax Code that encourages day care above stay-at-home parenting. It will also help parents to spend more time with their children by encouraging flexible employment opportunities such as home-based businesses and telecommuting jobs.

Congress should recognize and support the incredible sacrifices parents make to raise their children. I have heard from Nebraska families who struggle to make ends meet so one parent can stay at home and provide the love, care and attention that every child deserves. The high Federal tax burden, which falls most heavily on the middle-class, has unfortunately made this option extremely difficult, if not unreachable, for many families.

Parents perform a tremendous balancing act between work and family responsibilities. It can be difficult for families to survive without a second income, much of which goes towards day care and work-related expenses such as dry-cleaning bills and gasoline, but which can also support grocery bills, medical expenses and savings for a child's future education.

Greater tax relief will make it a more realistic option for parents to stay at home with their little ones in the early formative years that are so crucial to children's physical, mental and emotional development. The legislation that I am introducing today will improve options for parents to contribute to family income while staying at home for their children, including home-based businesses and telecommuting jobs.

It is clear that parents want these options. A comprehensive study on balancing work and family, conducted by four major charitable foundations, found that 70 percent of parents

believe the best arrangement for the care of young children is to have one parent at home. An ABC News poll last month showed that 77 percent of parents agree that while it may be necessary for a mother to work and contribute to family income, it would be better if she could stay home to care for the house and children.

In a parenting survey done for Warner Books, 87 percent of mothers said they would stay at home to raise their children if they could afford it. The Family and Work Institute reported that 70 percent of working parents feel they lack enough time with their children, and nearly two-thirds of all workers would reduce their work hours by an average 11 hours a week if they could.

In addition, 62 percent of parents with preschoolers want policymakers to concentrate on making it more affordable for a parent to stay at home during a child's first few years than on improving the quality and affordability of day care. In fact, 53 percent of parents preferred direct tax cuts to stay-at-home-parents, while only 1 in 3, 33 percent, would cut costs for families using day care. Members of Congress should trust in the judgement of parents, especially regarding the care of preschool children.

The Parents' Tax Relief Act, which I am introducing today with a dozen original cosponsors, contains seven major tax improvements to empower parents and strengthen families in America:

First, this legislation extends the Dependent Care Tax Credit to parents who choose to be at home with their children. Established in 1954, this credit allows families to claim up to 35 percent of $3,000 in documented, non-parental child care costs, and 35 percent of $6,000 in day care expenses for two children. Families who make the financial sacrifice to have one parent stay at home for their children should also benefit from this tax credit.

Second, the Parents' Tax Relief Act will make the $1,000 child tax credit permanent and index it to inflation to retain its long-term value. This tax relief is critical for Nebraska families with dependent children.

Third, this legislation will double the personal income tax exemption to half of its original 1948 value, from $3,100 to $5,000. From 1948 to 1963 when this exemption was equivalent to $10,000 in today's inflation-adjusted dollars, America witnessed a ``marriage boom,'' a ``baby boom,'' and a decline in the divorce rate. There is evidence suggesting these outcomes were significantly advanced by federal tax policy to strengthen families. Doubling the personal income tax exemption provides critical support to families with children, as well as elderly or disabled dependents.

Fourth, the Parents' Tax Relief Act eliminates the marriage tax penalty once and for all. This penalty discourages the sacred institution of marriage by unfairly taxing married couples filing jointly at a higher rate than two single individuals earning the same income. The 2001 tax cut law reduced this penalty by doubling the standard deduction for joint filers, and doubling the size of the 15 percent tax bracket for married couples. Unfortunately, these reforms will expire by 2010, along with the rest of the tax cuts enacted by Congress. The Parents' Tax Relief Act will extend marriage tax relief to all tax brackets to prevent the government from discouraging marriage or forcing both parents into the workforce.

Fifth, this legislation will support parents who operate a home-based business in order to spend more time with their children. The bill establishes a standard home-office tax deduction to replace complicated IRS regulations that prevent many small business owners from deducting legitimate expenses. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that nine. million of the 17.3 million small businesses in the United States are homebased, and 55 percent are operated by women. Many home businesses are started to provide a secondary income.

Sixth, the Parents' Tax Relief Act encourages telecommuting for families with young children. It will create a Telecommuting Tax Credit allowing employers to deduct a portion of a telecommuting employee's wages for income tax purposes. It will also support President Bush's budget request to allow individuals to exclude from income the value of employer-provided computers and related equipment necessary for work from home. Telecommuting is one way mothers or fathers can stay at home with their children while still contributing to family income.

Finally, the Parents' Tax Relief Act protects the Social Security benefits of women or men who choose to stay-at-home with preschool children. When a parent leaves the workforce to be at home with a child, the family's finances may not only suffer, but career opportunities and future earnings potential may be diminished. Parents who stay at home to care for children during prime working years may also jeopardize their future Social Security benefits--especially in the unfortunate case of disability or divorce.

The Parents' Tax Relief Act addresses the realities stay-at-home parents face by allowing up to 10 years of flexible Social Security employment credits for parents who stay at home to raise children age six and under. Public policy should recognize and safeguard stay-at- home parenting as valuable work that contributes to the character and security of our Nation.

These seven tax improvements will empower parents and strengthen families. The Federal government must not tax parents out of their homes at the expense of children. I am pleased to note that Senator Sam Brownback is introducing this legislation in the other Chamber. It is my hope this bill will address the needs of modem families who want to stay at home with their children without decimating their family finances.

I urge my colleagues to support families by cosponsoring the Parents' Tax Relief Act today.

Mr. Speaker, today I want to call attention to the June 25 Bulgarian and July 3 Albanian parliamentary elections. Voters in these developing economies deserve the opportunity to exercise the freedoms that were unavailable to them for so long.

As the world's greatest democracy, we should strive to foster the ideals of freedom in these developing democracies. Free and fair elections are the first essential step in this long and arduous process.

As a member of the International Anti-Piracy Caucus, I am a proud supporter of international intellectual property protection.

As Albania and Bulgaria move through the election process, they should understand that part of the process of becoming free is making sure that applicable laws are in force both locally and internationally. Failure to punish those that disregard laws will mean that these countries will not become accepted players on the world stage for some time to come.

Part of the process for providing free and fair elections is respecting and enforcing the intellectual property rights of American businesses assisting in these elections.

Therefore, I call upon the sitting governments of these two nations, including their justice ministries and central election commissions, to condemn the distribution of counterfeit Gallup polls that are being used to distort the democratic process during their parliamentary elections.

Promotion of democracy is one of the core pillars of our national security policy. Bulgaria and Albania are both important allies in the war on terror. It is essential that the elected leadership of these two great nations remain committed to defeating, preserving, and extending freedom and the rule of law. The citizens of these great countries have already made substantial progress in the fight for democracy. It is unfortunate, however, that a small segment of society has chosen to act nefariously in an attempt to distort the election process by misuse of the Gallup name.

George H. Gallup, the founder of the Gallup Poll, felt that providing a voice to all people around the world would strengthen societies to help ensure accountability of elected representatives. Unfortunately, Mr. Gallup's mission is being tainted by a group of counterfeiters in both Bulgaria and Albania.

These organizations are conducting electoral polling under the Gallup name without permission or license, while all the while receiving American support through USAID. These actions constitute a clear violation of Gallup's intellectual property rights and, perhaps more importantly, taint the reputation that Gallup has rightfully earned during its 70 years of existence.

While it is true that Gallup is a major employer with its headquarters in my district, Gallup has been active across the country during their existence, providing polling in every Presidential election and several senatorial and congressional elections during that time period. Gallup might employ a number of my constituents, but it is a strong national company with a solid international reputation as well. To see this reputation tarnished with the aid of taxpayer dollars is not only a serious mismanagement of government funds but reprehensible conduct as well.

Mr. Speaker, USAID ought to provide better oversight of the work conducted under their name overseas, and I have called upon them to provide an explanation regarding this matter. Additionally, Congress should do all it can to help ensure that American companies and American intellectual property rights are protected overseas without the willful and wanton negligence of American governmental institutions.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that my colleagues will join me in this call for free and fair elections in Bulgaria and Albania, and support my request to stop the counterfeit polls from being distributed.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I am honored today to offer this amendment to now fully fund Byrne-JAG grants with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert), the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne). And I also want to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and others for their help in this.

I also want to congratulate or show my appreciation to the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Wolf), who certainly has been an advocate in the fight against drugs and methamphetamines in our communities and, from the President's budget that zeroed out the Byrne-JAG grants, was able in his subcommittee to put back $300 million. I am here, with my colleagues that I just read off, to take that back to the $600 million that was in there before.

Let us put this in context. This amendment, unlike the last amendment that went after just one or two areas, this is an across-the-board reduction of .448. So as the subcommittee's report, the bill that comes out, the funding remains at 99.55 percent, in essence, of what the committee has asked.

Just to show that there has been incredible impact in our communities from methamphetamines, and the Byrne-JAG grants go directly to our police departments, our sheriff departments to fight the drug dealers on the ground, they are our front line in the war on drugs, and it just makes no sense to me that we are moving towards a policy of nationalizing our drug crime fight at a time when it is our police officers on the streets that are fighting meth and other drugs.

At least in the Midwest it started off as a drug that was easy and cheap to make. They just needed ammonia, Sudafed, other chemicals to make this. It is highly addictive, and it is highly destructive to our communities and to our families, and I would encourage support for this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Larsen).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Reichert).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in favor of the Byrne-Justice Assistance Grant, JAG, amendment that we will debate and discuss in tomorrow's appropriation, Justice appropriations tomorrow.

This is a grant that our local police and sheriffs have relied on to form task forces, multijurisdictional task forces to fight our drug problems in our communities, particularly meth. At least in Nebraska, the State that I have the responsibility and honor to represent, meth is by far the number one drug of choice. It started mostly as a rural drug where the ingredients were fairly easy to get, anhydrous ammonia, pseudoephedrine from your local grocery store or pharmacies. The Sudafed that they can break down, the components, and using a variety of other

chemicals, even ammonia, they would be able to manufacture in small labs using basic chemistry sets to make this drug.

This drug has spread throughout the rural communities across our Nation, devastating these communities, devastating families. The drug is highly addictive. Part of the symptoms of the drug while you are high on this drug is the tendency to be violent, staying up for long periods of time, and in fact, because of the toxicity of this, it even breaks down your skin. It breaks down your gums and your teeth and your hair. You can have open sores. As I mentioned a minute ago, the consequences of this highly addictive drug run deep in our social and family infrastructure.

I am pleased that we have so many Members on both sides of the aisle that are coming forward to help our local police and sheriffs with their part being on the front lines in the drug war.

I have the honor now of recognizing the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) who represents the Law Enforcement Caucus and is a great supporter of our local law enforcement, and I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's assistance and help on this.

The gentleman from Michigan did make one point that I want to highlight before I call on my next speaker, and that is the cuts in funding.

Remember, about 2 years after I got here, we were funding our criminal justice grants to our local police and sheriffs at about slightly over $1 billion. In 2005, we condensed several of those grant programs, like local law enforcement block grants, Byrne and JAG, into one, and lowered that to 600-, and it was zeroed out. And chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf), did a good job of doing what he could to get 300- of that 600- put back. But as the statistics that the gentleman from Michigan just read off, that means even at the current level of funding that will come to the floor tomorrow, of about $300 billion, a 60 percent reduction, a 70 percent reduction from just 4 years ago, at the time that meth problems are increasing in our communities, I cannot fathom the impact it is going to have to eliminate these drug task forces.

The gentleman also mentioned that local police officers make over 90 percent of the drug arrests. And it just astounds me that we are, in this war against drugs and meth, taking our front-line people off the front line. It would be like fighting the war on terrorism by just funding the Pentagon and not funding the Army and the Marines and the Air Force and properly equipping them. So I do appreciate those comments.

It is now my honor to call to the microphone my colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), who has been a continuous fighter in his terms here. He has raised the meth issue and been consistent in bringing the message to all of us here of how to fight and why we should fight methamphetamine.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I yield once again to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

And just to take that thought and put it in context for someone like our colleague, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), who represents 68\1/2\ counties, this funds the multijurisdictional aspects that the local jurisdictions would not be able to fund because of their rules on funding. So this allows intra-agency and counties in the district of the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) to actually work together.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague from Nebraska.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne). The gentleman did a great job of laying it out. The Justice Department provided statistics, and last year we saw a decrease in the numbers of labs. There is one way of looking at that, that these Byrne grants have done their job by helping local law enforcement.

The reality is that while it is our local law enforcement that is finding these labs and breaking them up, and there is one that just moved away from my house, and a month or so before that they found one in the trunk of a car at super department store in a very affluent neighborhood in west Omaha, so these can be anywhere.

But what my local police officers are telling me is while the labs are a major part of the supply or a significant part of the supply, it is actually more now from the gang drug network coming in from the superlabs in Mexico that the gentleman spoke about. So as we are fighting the good fight and shutting down the labs, the drug dealers have found a new way to create supply in a different country across the border. They are using the already existing cocaine distribution system, and are using our kids to do that, which I think is one of the most horrible things that has happened in our society.

Mr. Speaker, with that I yield to the gentleman from western Iowa (Mr. King), also a member of the meth caucus, and has been one of the loyalists in our fight to protect our families from this horrible drug.

I appreciate the gentleman's efforts on this cause. It is a great training center, by the way. He mentioned the patches. I happen to know that at least several, if not every one, of the departments that I have the pleasure of representing from the Second Congressional District have patches up there.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), who also is the head of the Speaker's Drug Task Force and probably the most impressive person in this body on his granular knowledge of the war on drugs.

Absolutely. I really appreciate your forceful and passionate words on the floor tonight and just how staunchly you have stood on this fight. I thank you for those efforts.

Just one little bit of trivia. You talked about how our own police officers on the front lines have to be trained to deal with meth. In fact, one of the new things adopted by the Omaha Police Department, they are now having the emergency response or the snipers go with the officers when they exercise a warrant on a meth bust now because usually when you break into somebody's home or you are smashing the door down exercising a warrant, these people are so extraordinarily violent that we have had to go to those level of measures in the metropolitan area.

I am pleased to have as one of our last speakers for tonight the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy), who has also been a very forceful fighter against meth and is a member of the Meth Caucus and actually one of the coauthors of the amendment that has been referenced several times tonight.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman from Minnesota for his comments.

And this is Angela from Iowa. Like the little girl in Minnesota, this is her school picture. I do not know if our C-SPAN cameras can get tight on this or not. This is her 12-year-old picture, her school class picture. This is her at 13, a year later, after similar friends turned her on to meth. And this had a little different, tragic end. This little girl, after her mother found her and tried to clean her up, could not kick the habit of meth and committed suicide. And, unfortunately, that is the way that many of these tragedies end.

Mr. Speaker, at this point I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the gentleman's coming over to the floor and speaking in favor of this amendment against meth, and he certainly has had some worldly experiences that he can speak from.

Offered By: Mr. Terry

Amendment No. 20: Page 2, line 7, after the dollar amount,

insert the following: ``(reduced by $568,763)''.

Page 3, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $604,800)''.

Page 3, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $492,800)''.

Page 3, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $966,269)''.

Page 3, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $5,474,560)''.

Page 4, line 7, after the first dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $299,268)''.

Page 4, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $50,176)''.

Page 4, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $2,982,878)''.

Page 5, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $28,372)''.

Page 5, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $647,140)''.

Page 6, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $7,285,134)''.

Page 6, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $960,521)''.

Page 7, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $5,466)''.

Page 7, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $3,585,142)''.

Page 8, line 26, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $43,272)''.

Page 8, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $96,177)''.

Page 10, line 1, after the first dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $2,271,091.)''.

Page 10, line 15, after the first dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $25,720,271)''.

Page 11, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $90,070)''.

Page 12, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $7,643,655)''.

Page 13, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $4,137,786)''.

Page 16, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $21,932,508)''.

Page 17, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $314,102)''.

Page 18, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $15,075)''.

Page 19, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $1,735,987)''.

Page 22, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $1,019,048)''.

Page 22, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $4,485,806)''.

Page 22, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(increased by $285,758,856)''.

Page 23, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(increased by $285,758,856)''.

Page 25, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $224,000)''.

Page 26, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $2,329,855)''.

Page 28, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $1,495,030)''.

Page 30, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $21,880)''.

Page 30, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $18,207)''.

Page 34, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $200,610)''.

Page 35, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $281,129)''.

Page 36, line 11, after the first dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $1,823,024)''.

Page 38, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $344,960)''.

Page 38, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $900,413)''.

Page 38, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $119,096)''.

Page 39, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $134,508)''.

Page 39, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $359,762)''.

Page 39, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $931,970)''.

Page 39, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $2,076,910)''.

Page 40, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $719,542)''.

Page 41, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $79,368)''.

Page 42, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $8,960)''.

Page 42, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $7,630,784)''.

Page 44, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $28,941)''.

Page 44, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $1,781,893)''.

Page 45, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $474,880)''.

Page 45, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $201,600)''.

Page 45, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $10,949,120)''.

Page 47, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $4,193,280)''.

Page 48, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $224,000)''.

Page 50, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $212,648)''.

Page 50, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $101,956)''.

Page 53, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $24,927)''.

Page 53, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $43,571,360)''.

Page 55, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $30,073,792)''.

Page 55, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $145,152)''.

Page 57, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $19,611,290)''.

Page 58, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $866,208)''.

Page 58, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $3,615,360)''.

Page 59, line 7, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $1,120,000)''.

Page 59, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $17,920)''.

Page 60, line 1, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $51,520)''.

Page 60, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $16,787,089)''.

Page 62, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $3,089,063)''.

Page 62, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $574,618)''.

Page 63, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $134,324)''.

Page 63, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $1,838,592)''.

Page 63, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $37,099)''.

Page 63, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $42,067)''.

Page 64, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $2,703,725)''.

Page 64, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $4,077,696)''.

Page 64, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $44,800)''.

Page 64, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $3,190)''.

Page 65, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $2,719)''.

Page 65, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $88,484)''.

Page 65, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $590,016)''.

Page 65, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $5,224,630)''.

Page 66, line 26, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $4,639,040)''.

Page 68, line 26, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $120,960)''.

Page 69, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $23,744)''.

Page 69, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $42,560)''.

Page 69, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $98,560)''.

Page 69, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $44,800)''.

Page 71, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $26,880)''.

Page 71, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $224,000)''.

Page 71, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $2,777,600)''.

Page 72, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $48,801)''.

Page 76, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $5,251)''.

Page 76, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $2,236)''.

Page 76, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $40,750)''.

Page 77, line 6, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $14,336)''.

Page 77, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $9,094)''.

Page 77, line 20, after the first dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $8,512)''.

Page 78, line 15, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $1,483,901)''.

Page 79, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $1,298,174)''.

Page 80, line 8, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $945,280)''.

Page 81, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $4,480)''.

Page 81, line 19, after the first dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $1,481,997)''.

Page 82, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $8,355)''.

Page 82, line 25, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $3,978,764)''.

Page 84, line 18, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $1,424,770)''.

Page 85, line 10, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $60,480)''.

Page 85, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $12,817)''.

Page 85, line 17, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $4,480)''.

Page 86, line 11, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $559,825)''.

Page 86, line 16, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $356,330)''.

Page 86, line 22, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $222,728)''.

Page 88, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $8,960)''.

Page 88, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $17,920)''.

Page 88, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $102,368)''.

Madam Speaker, I have the honor of extending a warm welcome to Father Val J. Peter, our guest chaplain in the House of Representatives today. And I also want to thank him for his heartfelt moving prayer.

Father Val is a native Nebraskan and has been the fourth executive director for Girls and Boys Town USA, with 20 years of service to Girls and Boys Town. Father Peter is renowned as one of the principal supporters of youth in the world.

Father Peter once said, ``We are like strong swimmers. When a child is floundering, we have a moral obligation to plunge in and help the child out of harm's way. Girls and Boys Town is not only to save children from harm but to make them whole again so they can become a strong, positive force that will touch other lives.''

As the Bible's Book of Psalms, chapter 127, verses 3 through 5 says: ``Behold, children are a blessing from the Lord. Like the arrows in the hand of a warrior, so are the children of one's youth. Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them.''

Father Val is undoubtedly one of the happiest and most devoted men I have ever had the privilege to meet. Father Val Peter began his service to Girls and Boys Town in 1985. Twenty years later, as he now nears his retirement, the following words he wrote about Girls and Boys Town's ongoing work have never rung truer: ``In the midst of apathy, we bring enthusiasm. In the midst of despair, we bring hope. In the midst of burdensome bureaucracies, we bring an entrepreneurial spirit. In the midst of violence, we bring the hope of peace.'' Father Val Peter has earned the gratitude of thousands of children and families across America.

Madam Speaker, I know I speak for my colleagues when I say we are honored to have Father Val Peter here with us today.

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 the subject of my Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, the subject of my Special Order this hour is how meth is ravaging our communities in the United States. Yet in our budget, in our appropriations, it is called on to eliminate what are called Byrne grants and the HIDTA program reduced by 56 percent.

Let us talk a little bit about what meth does. I have a picture here from the Des Moines Register of a 13-year-old Iowa girl, a very pretty little girl. Unfortunately, she became hooked on meth. This is the before. This is within a year later. It is kind of a grainy picture, but you can see a stark difference. Unfortunately, even though her mother tried rescuing her from this life-style, this little girl committed suicide. Meth is just an incredibly difficult drug to try and break free from.

In my home State, Duaine Bullock, the captain of narcotics unit in Lincoln that the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry) represents, gave a sobering assessment of the growing meth problem in Nebraska and just said pointblank, we have got a gigantic problem. He is right on the mark. According to Nebraska Attorney General John Bruning, 60 percent of the inmates in Nebraska jails have a problem with meth. The number of people in Nebraska jails for possessing, selling, or manufacturing meth has more than doubled since 1999.

When we talk about this fight against meth in our communities, the front line of this war, of our war on meth and drugs, the fastest growing drug in the Nation, meth has produced a wider and more extensive array of problems than any other narcotic we have ever faced before. It is no longer just a rural or Midwestern issue. The Byrne grants that I mentioned casually goes directly to our front line warriors, our local police and our sheriff. It is those folks that are going to know where the drugs are located, which houses perhaps in a certain community have meth labs or will see some of the characteristics within that family unit or that home that can lead them to the conclusion that perhaps a meth lab is in operation there.

And so it makes no sense to me, Mr. Speaker, that we have a proposal in front of Congress to completely eliminate the Byrne/JAG grants which are the dollars that go to local police departments to help them become prepared and enter into task forces all the way up to the Federal level. What we are seeing is a system of centralization of our war on drugs away from our front line warriors to the Nation's capital. While I certainly can maybe not respect, but at least understand, why a drug czar, a department, would want to consolidate its own power, I think is doing it against the best interests of this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce another gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne). Frankly, he has been on the front lines bringing this issue to the attention of just about anyone that will listen over the last 3 years. It is my pleasure to introduce my friend and colleague from the Third District of Nebraska.

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate the gentleman's time in playing hurt. I am sure there have been times when he was coaching that he encouraged people with sore throats to get out and take one for the team; so I appreciate that.

The gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) raised several good points that I will take some time on. He talked about some of the rather toxic ingredients. In fact, where I live in Valley, Nebraska, at least for the next day or two before we moved, the Saturday night before last there was a meth bust just about a half mile outside of town, and it was rather interesting in driving by and seeing the number of fire trucks and Hazmat units that are there. And what people do not understand, although the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) outlined the recipe in some of the ingredients, including bleach and anhydrous pneumonia and other ingredients, it is highly toxic but it is also highly flammable, which is why it is incredible to me that during some of these meth police busts they raid these homes and there are toddlers in these homes.

So it has an impact not only on our police departments but our fire departments who have to coordinate these drug busts where they find these labs. And as the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) also mentioned, we can find them just about anywhere. In fact, in a very affluent area of west Omaha just a few months ago, they made a drug bust of a mobile lab literally in the trunk of a car at a department store. So there are people that will build them in any place they can.

As I introduce the gentleman from Lincoln, Nebraska, I want to explain to anyone who is listening here tonight when we talk about the HIDTA grant, it is an acronym for high-intensity drug trafficking area. That is the grant that comes to local police departments to train them in how to handle a situation. Obviously, as we talked about the very volatile toxic explosive nature of a meth lab, since it is the local police departments that are on the front line that will be reading that particular house, that will be making the arrest, they want to make should that they understand the totality of the circumstances they are engaging in and how to protect themselves.

Also, as the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) pointed out, it is such an intense high under meth that these folks literally do not know or understand what they are doing, and they have a high propensity for violence. But yet sometimes they look completely normal for that particular instance that a policeman could be walking by. So they have to be trained in the subtleties of what to look for to see or determine if someone is under the influence of meth and in understanding that even though that person may appear calm for that particular instant in time that that person becoming violent is just inherent to the nature of the drug. So they have to train them how to handle that violent situation with a person under the influence.

Also, part of the HIDTA grant trains them how to work with other law enforcement agencies. In fact, HIDTA is set up into territories where they can literally have agencies across jurisdictions, whether it is Douglas County and Lancaster County official working together or our local police departments or even into Iowa, the gentleman from Iowa's (Mr. King) district, who wanted to be with us here tonight but, like our colleague from the third district, is suffering from the same ailment. So it allows them to learn how to put the task forces together and share each other's talents and resources.

With that, so he can get on with his evening, let me introduce the gentleman from the First District of Nebraska in his first year here but nonetheless is jumping right into the issues that are affecting the people of Nebraska the most and the deepest. So I appreciate his instantly getting involved in the meth issue of Nebraska.

Therefore, I yield to the gentleman from the First District of Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry).

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I had read from our State Attorney General Jon Bruning, who is doing a fantastic job in that position, that it is 60 percent. But I did too have a local law enforcement officer that suggested it is higher than that, at least when we add the totality. He said, first of all, there are many of the folks in our State prison that are there because they are involved with meth; that they are dealing, cooking, distributing; or that they committed a crime while high on meth or, getting up to about that 90 percent figure, they are out burglarizing, robbing, plundering to get money to buy the drug. So many of our local officers feel that it is as high as 90 percent, whether it is directly related to the distribution or cooking of meth or just that they are so hooked that they are out robbing money to get it.

I yield to the gentleman from Nebraska.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman for his efforts in this.

I too have a police and sheriff task force like he has put together; and it is amazing, just 2 years ago when we met, asking what the most significant issue was facing them on a daily basis or what some of the trends are. They said, well, definitely meth. But we are not necessarily seeing it in the inner city of Omaha, the gangs there that are still running the traditional drugs of cocaine, crack, and marijuana.

Mostly what we are seeing is they were telling me 2 years ago is that the meth is more of a rural issue, but it is starting to come in through the suburbs and they are seeing a great deal of the problems as we had just mentioned, the crime that is associated with the addiction, whether it is crimes committed while high or crimes committed to get high.

When I met with them probably about 9 or 10 months ago again I asked the same question. They said the drugs the gangs are running are almost exclusively meth now. They are coming from two different directions. We still have the rural issue, where some of the ingredients are so readily available and you can go to your corner drugstore and get the pseudoephedrine out of Sudafed and other materials to make it, but the gentleman mentioned that that is incredibly important in our fight here.

Meth has become basically a war on two fronts. You have got the labs that are being operated by individuals, because they are so easy to put together, the ingredients are very accessible, although in Nebraska our State legislature, fortunately, is dealing with it, and probably by the end of this week we will have Sudafed behind the counter. It is too bad we have to do that to our local retailers. But that is one border.

Traditionally what we have tried to fight is the pop-up labs, particularly in rural areas, or mobile labs. But now you have the super labs in Mexico that are running the drugs up, and it is the same pattern we have seen with cocaine others. It comes from Central America into L.A. and Phoenix and the other gang headquarters and through their distribution schemes throughout the rest of the United States. That is where we are seeing it come into Nebraska now, and that is why it is becoming an inner-city drug as well. Now it has just infiltrated every part of our community in the last few years.

The gentleman mentioned something else, the brain damage that is caused from this. You begin that deterioration of the brain cells, as the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) mentioned, with the dopamine, the rush that gets you. It is such an intense rush of that chemical that it literally fries the synapses and cannot be restored. You are literally frying your brain. Those cannot be absorbed.

The first area that goes is your ability to make decisions. That is the first part of the brain that is affected by meth. That is why we see an incredible tolerance to the drug. You start craving it and craving it. The Catholic Charities in Nebraska, when I toured them about 3 years ago, it was all alcohol and some cocaine. Now it is almost exclusively, 90 to 95 percent, meth cases that come in there now. They told me when I toured a few months ago they cannot cure them. Even those that have only smoked or ingested or injected or however they used it a few times, it has done enough damage to the decision- making part of your brain that you cannot reason; you cannot say this is bad for me, so I am going to quit. You just lost that ability. So you have a drug that forces you, I should not say forces you, but you have lost that ability to say ``no'' to it anymore.

This is what happens. This poor little girl was 13-years-old. The gentleman has a daughter that is only a couple years younger than her and I have a son a couple years younger. I think of the gentleman's daughter and my son as just little kids, but yet they are being exposed to this.

Mr. Speaker, getting back to cutting the Byrne grants and HIDTA, this statistic shows how our local law enforcement officers working in task forces with the Federal agencies have been able every year from 1999 to 2003 to steadily discover and demolish a vast number of meth labs. But, as you see here, even though this is not full reporting, it is going to be pretty close, in 2004 a slight drop.

I think the slight drop can be accounted for in two ways: Number one, I would say that the Byrne funding was working and helping our local law enforcement find those labs, but also then as I mentioned with the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Fortenberry), we are seeing now this has become in drug trade like cocaine, where it is imported through Mexico into the major cities and then distributed through the gang distribution system.

Now, let me get to a couple of final points here. In the White House's fiscal 2006 budget that was delivered this year, it requested to eliminate the Byrne Justice Assistance Grants Program, which provided $634 million to law enforcement agencies nationwide, including almost $2.2 million for Nebraska.

The Nebraska State Patrol estimates that nine of eleven State antidrug task forces that were created with this Byrne grant funding would have to be dismantled. The White House's budget also recommends reducing the HIDTA program by 56 percent. Again, those are the multi- State and local drug trafficking meth training programs. For Nebraska, ours is located in the Kansas City region.

The Byrne and the HIDTA programs are the primary tools through which the Federal Government integrates State and local law enforcement into the national drug control strategy. Tom Constantine, a former head of the Drug Enforcement Agency, recently testified to Congress that he could not recall a single case during his tenure that did not begin as a referral from State and local law enforcement, including many through Byrne and HIDTA task forces. So when we talk about the centralization, pulling the power from the local enforcement agencies to the Federal Government, you are talking about really emasculating our drug enforcement policy. Tom Constantine said every one of their referrals started at the local level.

There is a clear link between drugs and violence that I think we have covered fully here tonight, and these Byrne grants are providing cities and counties with the resources that are necessary to share the information and dismantle regional drug distribution rings. And before Byrne and HIDTA, by the way, when our local police members were out on their own, they did

not have the power to work with the Federal agencies and task forces to take the meth and trace it back to their origination and be able to dismantle these incredible drug rings.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude this tonight with a couple of somewhat lengthy, but I will read fast, the works of some of our local police officers.

I will start with Police Chief Melvin Griggs in Gering, Nebraska. He said: ``I am the police chief of a city of 8,000 people. We are bordered by a town of 13,000. In 1989, the increase in the cocaine drug traffic prompted us to start a drug task force. The wealth of the people dealing allowed them to purchase property, semi-trucks and farms. They were becoming very powerful. They were also starting to challenge each other for control of the drug trade.

``One family we put away caused a drop of all criminal activity by 33 percent. Within a year, people were already starting to fill the void. But before they could reach the power base, we were always able to stop them because of the task force.

``Meth replaced cocaine. I have lived in this area for 60 years. We did not have murders, and now we have several every year. Our drug task force also helps investigate violent crime. We have seven agents highly trained. They have been able to solve most of these crimes. If we had ever been able to increase the task force, they may have been able to stop some of them. Yet the task force has remained the same.

``It has taken years to develop this team, to develop the cooperation and expertise. Taking away the funding to keep it going will defeat the progress in a matter of months. The dealers will again gain strength, and by the time our leaders realize the mistake they have made by taking these funds, many communities will have developed catastrophic results. Then the leaders will return the funds. It will take years to develop the level of response we now have, and we may never get it, as the problem may have well become beyond our reach.

``I have talked to other police chiefs, and we are not the only community facing this problem. Maybe we have not been vocal enough. We have seen this every day, it is in all of our newspapers, it is on CNN. It is hard for us to believe that anyone cannot understand this problem. It is hard for us to believe that they really plan on a significant reduction in funding. It is hard for us to believe that whoever wrote this article on task forces being ineffective has any idea what a task force does. I hope reason prevails. Reducing this funding is a serious mistake.''

Another Nebraska police chief, Stephen Sunday of David City, heads up a 12 county, 28 agency multi-jurisdictional drug task force funded with Byrne dollars. He told me, again it is a rather lengthy quote, ``Those grant dollars are the only, and I mean only way the task force was able to form as a group. In South-Central Nebraska there are nothing but small, rural law enforcement agencies that cannot afford to deal with drug investigations to the degree that we are able to do with Federal grant funding.

``Our primary goal is to investigate the individuals who are dealing drugs in our communities. The drug of choice is meth, and I am here to tell you that meth is a killer, a killer of families, of lives and of health. Health costs for dealing with meth users is terrific. Families cannot afford it.

``The drug task forces are the only effective means of going after the drug dealers. On our own, we cannot handle it. The first problem is that most of the drug dealers in rural Nebraska know all of the law enforcement officers by name and know that we are spread thin. Working with undercover investigators, our task force is able to get next to the drug dealers, but it takes money to have your own separate, dedicated drug investigators.

``By banding together with the Federal Government through Federal dollar grants we can fight the drug dealers. The task forces share intelligence information, which did not happen prior to the creation of Nebraska's drug task forces.

``The intelligence information is so important to us that if the drug task forces are shut down due to lack of Federal funding, then we will be in serious trouble. If the drug dealers find out that the government is cutting off grant funding and as a result the task forces fold up and go away, they will be holding a big party to rejoice at this news. If Federal funding is taken away, the drug task forces in the State of Nebraska will fold up shop and disappear.

``We cannot fund the task forces by ourself. If Congress wants to hear an angry outcry from rural America, take away our task force funding. See what happens. Our Federal elected officials will be eaten alive by the voters. If Congress wants to be progressive and deal with illegal drugs, give us back our funding.

``The Federal Government needs to take care of issues at home more than anywhere else. Public safety needs need to be a high priority. If the drug task force is shut down from a lack of Federal funding, the illegal drug problem in rural America will get out of control and you will pay dearly in ruined lives. Don't take away Federal funding that was coming from the Byrne grant dollars.''

As the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) mentioned in his talk a few days ago myself, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne), the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder) and the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) met with the Speaker to express our frustration with any proposed cuts to Byrne grants and HIDTA funding. The Speaker was completely knowledgeable and empathetic with this and promised to help us work with it. So I really appreciate that the leadership in the House of Representatives shares the concern that the speakers did tonight during this special order, as well as the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) and the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), who could not be here tonight.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 30 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday, May 24, 2005, at 9 a.m., for morning hour debates.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment increases the EPA's Superfund dollars by 10 percent over the amount in the underlying bill. This extra funding would help provide the cleanup of the Nation's worst hazardous waste sites.

I thank the gentlemen from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) and Washington (Mr. Dicks) for the $11 million Superfund increase in the committee- approved bill, but I believe more should be done.

My amendment provides Superfund with an additional $130 million. This extra funding is offset from the EPA's Science and Technology Account which received $765 million in the committee-approved bill.

My district is home to one of America's largest residential environmental cleanups. In early 2003, a large section of East Omaha, Nebraska was placed on the Superfund list after hundreds of children and thousands of yards tested positive for high lead levels. A nearby lead-refining plant, which operated from the early 1870s until 1997, is likely to blame for what HHS estimates to be as many as 1,600 children in eastern Omaha with harmful levels of lead there in their bodies.

Let me be clear. I support the philosophy of polluter pays. While I am encouraged that more than 70 percent of all Superfund sites are cleaned up by those responsible for the pollution; in some cases, such as in my district, Omaha, Nebraska, and in about 20 other States other than Nebraska, those who did the actual polluting are either insolvent or no longer in business.

More dollars in the national Superfund is the only hope for 86,000 Omaha residents, including 15,000 children who live within the Superfund designated area. Without adequate funds, this cleanup could take more than a decade. These children and these families should not wait that long.

But the same is true for the other 1,243 Superfund sites across this country. Nationwide, it is estimated that 11 million people, including 3 million to 4 million children, live within a mile of a hazardous Superfund site. All these Americans need assurances that sufficient resources will be dedicated to their cleanups.

Some will oppose the amendment. I expect the chairman of the subcommittee, my friend, the gentleman from North Carolina, to perhaps oppose this amendment. Now, while I support the EPA's Science and Technology Account, it is not my mission to destroy this fund, but simply create or state what the priorities should be, and that should be to clean up these hazardous areas in the fastest time possible to protect those families.

Make no mistake: the Superfund needs more than these additional funds. It also needs structural reform. Earlier this year, I introduced what would not only boost the Superfund by $620 million over 5 years, but would also cap the Superfund's administrative costs at the 2002 fiscal level so that more Superfund dollars could be spent for actual cleanup. This is in response to a recent report by the EPA Inspector General revealing that the Superfund administrative expenses have increased $37 million over the last 5 years, while actual Superfund cleanup expenditures have decreased by $174 million.

Today, however, we must focus on the funding of this vital program. I urge my colleagues, especially my colleagues who have Superfund sites in their districts, one of the 1,243 sites, to support this amendment. It is time we dedicate the resources necessary to protect our children by cleaning up the Nation's worst and pressing environmental and health risks in a timely fashion.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I certainly respect my friends from Washington and North Carolina, and I understand the delicacy of the numbers which have been assigned to these respective programs.

I stand here for the families that are affected in these, or next to these, Superfund sites, including the constituents in my district and their children, the 1,600 children estimated to have high levels of lead in their bloodstreams, creating immediate risk and health risks to them. Immediate, now.

The fund, the science and technology fund, does provide a great service to America, including the $60 million worth of earmarks to a lot of our universities, as well as paying the salaries for 2,513 bureaucrats within this agency.

My thought is that perhaps for this one time we can just slide a little bit of their $765 million budget to the more immediate and pressing health issues facing constituents, our constituents, and American families, and that is what I am here asking.

I understand the delicacy of balancing these type of numbers in this type of bill. So I do ask that my colleagues, for the sake of these families that have immediate health risks, that we increase the number of dollars by $130 million to begin cleanup or continue at a faster pace the cleanups that have already begun in those areas.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.