Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, the death of Lady Bird Johnson was a sad day for the country. It was also a sad day for my district, and for me personally.

Mrs. Johnson also played a key role in drawing my father, California State Senator Fred Farr, to Washington. She successfully lobbied for his appointment as the Federal Highway Administration's first Highway Beautification Coordinator, wisely drawing his energy and insights to Washington.

Lady Bird was a fervent supporter of so many of the values my constituents and I hold dear. She was a lifelong supporter of the environment, an advocate for preserving the special places in communities around the country. Lady Bird visited California's Central Coast in 1966, where she dedicated Highway 1--now known to all as the Big Sur Coast Highway--as the first scenic route in the state. She even helped plant a redwood tree near Monterey's historic Colton Hall.

Mrs. Johnson was a passionate environmentalist. She argued against the blight of roadside billboards, instead calling for more trees and her beloved wildflowers. And many of the beautification projects that make Washington a gorgeous capital city were the product of Mrs. Johnson and my father. She was responsible for raising hundreds of thousands of dollars for the city's streets.

Mrs. Johnson's beautification projects and scenic designation programs were so important to drawing attention to areas that deserve protection. I encourage all of our communities to continue her work. We need more people like Mrs. Johnson in the world, more people who appreciate the beauty that is around us and who strive to preserve it.

Mr. Speaker, I commend my good friend and colleague, Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton, for authoring H.R. 2956, the ``Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act.'' the Democratic Congress has drawn a line in the sand with this bill. It requires accountability from the Administration that the American people demand and deserve: stop the open-ended commitment in Iraq; stop the surge; and, stop sending our brave men and women in uniform to fight a ``winnable'' war. We have given this Administration enough time, enough U.S. blood, and too much hard-earned American dollars.

Let's call this war what it is--a civil war.

The solution for Iraq is not military. The solution for Iraq is political and diplomatic. We must once again engage our allies and Iraq's neighbors to renew a quest for a peaceful solution in Iraq. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 2956. Support our valiant troops by voting to bring them home. Now.

Mr. Chairman, I represent a minority-majority district with a large Spanish-speaking population. These constituents work and pay taxes just like every Member of Congress. And, even if they are undocumented and work, they still pay taxes.

The IRS National Taxpayer Advocate has found that 6 percent of taxpayers do not speak English at home. For many of my hard-working constituents, having tax material in their native tongue greatly simplifies their ability to comply with the requirements of the IRS. This is the essence of good government and good citizenship. Isn't that what we want to encourage?

I commend the chairman for his foresightedness in directing the IRS to expand the availability of Internal Revenue Service forms and information in Spanish, the second most common language spoken at home by 28 million people. Let's face it--our very complex tax code takes an accountant to figure out. We could all use a little help.

Please oppose the Stearns amendment.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the Monterey Scottish Games & Celtic Festival which is celebrating an outstanding 40-year tradition. A special Monterey County Celtic Week, with a variety of Celtic-themed activities and events, will commemorate this milestone. These events include a Caber Parade in Carmel; the 3rd Annual Monterey Bay School of Piping and Drumming; a performance by the Monterey Bay Pipe Band in the 4th of July Parade in downtown Monterey; a Celtic Concert with musicians and dancers; culminating in the 40th Annual Monterey Scottish Games and Celtic Festival on July 7th-8th.

Featuring fun activities for the entire family, the Monterey Scottish Games & Celtic Festival is a wonderful ``festival for the senses'' which includes authentic Celtic music, colorful Highland, Scottish and Irish dancing, athletic competitions such as the famous Caber Toss, massed pipe bands on parade, children's games, delicious food, great shopping, and more.

The Monterey Scottish Games & Celtic Festival not only is an exciting event to attend, it also raises money to benefit many local charitable organizations. Over the past 40 years, the Festival has donated thousands of dollars to various organizations such as Peninsula Outreach, Alliance on Aging, Monterey Schools, Meals on Wheels, Boy Scouts of America, and the Armed Forces Relief Fund.

The Monterey Scottish Games & Celtic Festival celebrates tradition and family by highlighting and creating music, dance and athletic competitions for the youth and participating community members of the Monterey Area. The festival keeps alive the Celtic culture in Monterey County, promotes the study of Celtic music and dance, and awards funds and youth scholarships to the Monterey School of Piping and Drumming.

Madam Speaker, the Monterey Scottish Games & Celtic Festival provides quality events in a unique, friendly setting to educate, entertain, and inspire the local Monterey community as well as attract visitors to the County. The contributions the Festival has made to the community are invaluable and I am honored to acknowledge July 1-8, 2007, as Monterey County Celtic Week.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 361, recognizing and honoring the life of Jack Valenti and expressing the condolences of the House of Representatives to his family.

Jack Valenti was an American icon who holds a special place in the history of the United States. He was a principled leader, a fiery advocate, but always a gentleman. For over 40 years Jack dedicated himself to one of our country's most enduring and influential cultural exports, the motion picture. While most of the world knows Jack for his work at the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), many of us would be surprised to know that Jack was buried in Arlington National Cemetery, not Hollywood.

Prior to his life promoting and defending the motion picture industry, Jack piloted a B-25 bomber for the Army Air Forces during WWII, founded his own advertising company and worked for an oil firm in Texas. It was Jack's Texas roots that helped propel him into national politics following the assassination of President Kennedy. As a loyal political advisor to President Lyndon Johnson, Jack cemented his roots in Washington, DC. This city and this country have lost someone that practiced the art of advocacy and consensus that is rarely achieved and sorely missed.

My father, California Senator Fred Farr knew and worked with Jack when they both served in the Johnson Administration and I can say from personal knowledge that Jack was indeed a gentleman who would always offer a kind word, even to his greatest antagonists. The difficulty of Jack's job for the MPAA should not go overlooked, for uniting and assuaging the heads of major Hollywood studios would probably drive even the most savvy party leader batty. That ability to form consensus was only overshadowed by the eloquence in his usage of the English language.

Jack is survived by his wife of over 45 years Mary Margaret Valenti and their three children, John, Alexander and Courtenay; his sister, Lorraine Valenti Dinerstein; and two grandchildren.

As Jack's love of classical literature is well known, I find it fitting to quote Shakespeare in honor of a man that lived several lives in one lifetime:

All the world's a stage,

And all the men and women merely players.

They have their exits and their entrances,

And one man in his time plays many parts,

His acts being seven ages.

I was pleased to call Jack Valenti a friend.

Madam Speaker, I stand in strong support of H.R. 2764 and want to convey my appreciation to Chairwoman Lowey for the inclusion of international family planning provisions in the State-Foreign Ops FY08 Appropriations bill. In total, H.R. 2764 allocates $441 million for such programs, which represents an increase of $116 million above the President's request. This increase is designed to ease restrictions on access to contraceptives and family planning information that is crucial to help women and men throughout the developing world make informed decisions on their reproductive health needs.

Since 1984, U.S. international family planning assistance has been stymied by the Mexico City Policy or the ``Global Gag rule.'' The Mexico City Policy prevents any U.S. funding for reproductive health from going towards family planning organizations that provide abortions. H.R. 2764 and the Lowey amendment allows non-governmental organizations to receive U.S. donated contraceptives--not funds--for distribution to millions of people in need of these products. The bill does nothing to alter or weaken the ten provisions in the bill that ban federal funds for abortion overseas. Providing contraceptives to men and women in the developing world helps prevent abortions and unwanted pregnancy as well as sexually transmitted diseases like HIV/AIDS. I urge my colleagues to support a saner foreign assistance package that allows for families throughout the world that are in desperate need of contraception the ability to make important, personal decisions about their families and reproductive health.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the achievements of a man who is a true defender of the needs and interests of injured workers. Michael Rucka's long and distinguished career has proven him to be worthy of the Workers Injury Litigation Group Lifetime Achievement Award, which he will receive on June 23, 2007.

As a senior founding partner of the Rucka, O'Boyle, Lombaro & McKenna Attorney practice, Michael proves to be an outstanding and committed leader. Not only does his hard work make him shine as a perfect candidate for the Lifetime Achievement Award, but Michael's pursuit of reform in worker's compensation systems in the United States also highlights his devotion to his career but especially to his clients-- the working man and woman.

Madam Speaker, Michael Rucka exemplifies exceptional skill and service to a worthy social cause and I am honored to be able to acknowledge him as one of the most valuable lawyers of our time. The contributions and efforts that he has made and will continue to make are invaluable.

Mr. Chairman, I call on Castro to not fear political dissidents in Cuba, nor free press, nor trade or travel with the U.S. But I also call on our government to consider the following: the U.S. has tried 45 years of an embargo and restrictive travel; the State Department has tried democracy assistance programs; and, the Treasury Department has tried restricting U.S. farmers from easily selling their products to Cuban consumers.

All these U.S. government policies have failed to bring about a change of leadership in Cuba. Unfortunately throwing more money at TV Marti or democracy programs is not going to bring about a real change in Cuba. Real change can only be brought about by revolutionizing U.S. policy towards Cuba. Lifting the travel embargo--allowing for the free exchange of ideas and people between our country and Cuba--that's how we will support Cuban political discourse! That's how we will support freedom of expression in Cuba. Support lifting the embargo--vote against the Diaz-Balart amendment and support a saner policy towards Cuba!

Thank you for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to put a little bit of a face on this across- the-board cut, squeeze and trim, the sort of idiotic approach to spending here in this United States government, particularly in this budget.

We happen to have a global war of terrorism going on. In that global war, there are a lot of people that don't like the United States.

But there is a program that the United States has that they very much like. They like it because countries are asking at an all-time high, send us more; we want more. More countries signing up wanting more people.

What is that program? It's the Peace Corps. And guess what? It's funded in this program.

You know what? The American public out there wants to join the Peace Corps at an all-time high. No, it doesn't matter. Just cut the program. Cut the program. Don't separate the good from the bad. Just cut it.

Well, this is why it's also idiotic. Because, as you have heard, this program funds an international military education program.

A few months ago at this roster, we had a Joint Session of Congress; and giving that address was King Abdullah of Jordan. Guess where King Abdullah found his love for the United States? Studying at the Naval postgraduate school in Monterey, California, where 500 foreign officers come and study along with our officers every year.

But, no, that doesn't count. We want to work on trying to get mutual understanding to our allies. Cut that program. Cut it across the board.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have heard from a lot of cut, squeeze and trim fiscal conservatives on the other side of the aisle tonight. I would hope that their hometown press is looking whether they, example of leadership, are cutting their own budgets from what they have spent last year. If they have done that in their own offices, cut their own spending, then they have a leg to stand on. But to come up here and tell everybody else we ought to cut across the board foreign aid is a danger to Americans all over the world.

Thank you, Madam Chairman, for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support and with a congratulatory note to Chairwoman Nita Lowey for her bold leadership on this bill, and also to the ranking member, Frank Wolf.

I am particularly proud of the fact that the committee, for the first time in many, many years, fully funded the Peace Corps. As a returned Peace Corps volunteer, a volunteer that served in Colombia, I am also a strong supporter of that country and the programs we are doing there. I want to thank the committee for rebalancing the United States-Colombia policy in the Andean Initiative.

I believe Colombia is a country of enormous potential. But Colombia's full potential as a democratic nation is not being realized because of its coca production. The Colombia that I know and loved as a Peace Corps volunteer is often not seen through the debate of the coca problems.

Eighty percent of the U.S. assistance has been allocated on military assistance and aerial fumigation, yet 80 percent of rural Colombians still live below the poverty line. Let me say that again. Eighty percent of the rural Colombians still live below the poverty line.

Tragically, after 7 years and $4 billion-plus in U.S. assistance, it is overwhelmingly apparent that we must change our course in this country. Imagine if 80 percent of rural Americans lived below the poverty line. There would be riots in the streets, and every farmer would be growing coca in their backyards to feed their families.

Folks, we need to wake up and smell the coffee, preferably Colombian coffee. It is the poverty in Colombia that breeds the problems. Coca is a symptom.

The bill realigns Colombia-U.S. assistance so that 45 percent is allocated to economic and alternative development, which enables campesinos to grow crops like coffee, tropical fruits and chocolate that command better market prices so they can feed their families.

Why does this matter to you? Because stemming Colombia coca production stops the flow of drugs to Main Street USA.

Yesterday in El Tiempo, a Colombian newspaper equivalent to the New York Times, in an editorial stated ``Alternative development should stop being a little sister charity case to the antidrug strategy, and a substantial part of the assistance should go to rural development.'' This committee does that, and I commend them.

I hope soon that the State Department will comply with U.S. policy and force contractors to reach benchmarks when they must transfer their counternarcotic programs to Colombians to run.

I must urge my colleagues to support the Foreign Operations bill. Help Colombia realize its potential to eliminate the root causes of the culture of poverty. Support these increased funds for economic and alternative development.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I want to first of all compliment the chairman for adding an additional $50 million.

What every Member of Congress ought to worry about is that we have so many bases that have been closed in the United States that have not been able to finish their cleanup. That means that they can't do economic development. They just sit there with fences around them because they have unexploded ordnances. It is what they call ``warm basing'' a property. Mayor and city councils and local government folks are furious about this.

There is a $3.5 billion cleanup necessary. What Mr. Blumenauer is saying is, let's just put $50 million more towards that. That will go a long way toward getting those high-priority communities cleaned up.

Frankly, there is no movement that can be taken until this is done, because the only government that can clean up unexploded ordnances is the Federal Government. You can't delegate it out. It can't be a State or local issue.

If you want to do economic development in your States and home communities which have been affected by these numerous base closings over the years, for those of you that have base closures, just the recent base closure, there is a separate account. But the reason we have to put more money into this is, there are only two ways of getting money into there, either from sales of property or from direct appropriations. The sales of property haven't filled up this account. So the only way, if we are going to address the unexploded ordnance cleanup, to amend the bill is to add an additional $50 million. It is urgent for economic development at the local level. It is good government.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for an ``aye'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I want to just reiterate on what Mr. Blumenauer indicated. This isn't a ``rob Peter to pay Paul'' case. But if you are from the Jefferson Proving Ground, you have been waiting a long time. If you are from Fort Ord, California, where I am from and why I am really interested in this, we closed in the 1992 round, and we are doing massive economic development, and it is foreclosed if you can't get into cleaning up the unexploded ordnance. Fort Meade, Fort McClellan, Savannah Army Depot, the list goes on and on. These are the kinds of projects that are out there, ready to go. Just take the projects off the shelf, fund them and get it done.

I am on this committee and I am very sympathetic. I am very appreciative of what the chairman has done, increasing the account by $50 million. We are going to have an amendment in a minute to cut it, which would be the worst thing we could ever do for all these reasons. Mr. Blumenauer is trying to increase it by $50 million so we could actually have enough money to get some of these projects started. I think it is good government. It is promises made, promises kept, and that is what we ought to do.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to respond to the gentleman from Georgia about his amendment.

First of all, I think it is an ill-conceived amendment, and here's why.

In order to build veterans facilities on former military property, you have to have that property cleaned and cleared and transferred. I happen to represent a base where we have that problem. We have to clear the area. So if you want to provide health care for your communities, you have to do this clearance.

Your statement that this money couldn't be spent is totally false. These are projects ready to go. It is the newest BRAC round that can't be spent until 2008 because they have to have all their plans in place.

You are cutting $50 million out of something that is very critical for a lot of communities and can do a lot of good, and you are adding it to a program where we just put in $3.4 billion. $3.4 billion. So $50 million more in that account is not going to help.

Frankly, we have already raised that account in committee with strong bipartisan support by $1.7 billion over what the President asked for. So you are going to steal from essentially accounts that are critical and put it into an account that has been plussed-up and is fat. The consequences are going to be that people who are wanting to provide health care services for veterans in their community won't be able to build that facility or get that facility refurbished because the environmental cleanup hasn't been done because we didn't have enough money in the old account. And the only way we can get that money in the account, as I said previously, is to appropriate it.

I think this is a very reckless amendment. I would prefer that we even add more, but that was opposed. But this one, I would hope that you might withdraw your amendment because you are going to do more harm than good.

Mr. Chairman, I rise also in opposition, and I'll tell you why. I've been to the border and I've traveled the area that you're talking about. It's in the Barry Goldwater range. It's a very rural area. It's actually an area where you have Indian tribes. I mean, this is so rural you can't believe it. I am really surprised that the gentlewoman rose on this because she doesn't have any border in her State, nor fence. I come from the State of California which not only has a border; it has the busiest border in the world.

I am also in opposition to this because I have talked to the Border Patrol. This is not a fence that they are asking for. What this fence is for is a fence in the military range. It should be coming out of the military budget because it is just in the middle of absolutely nowhere, where there is very little, if any, crossings. You would be much more effective in detection rather than fences. Border Patrol once said, you know, a 12-foot fence, you just need a 13-foot ladder.

I respect the fact that you think that this is going to get you somewhere, but I can tell you that it's not wisely spent money. There are much more cost-effective ways to do border detection than building a fence in the middle of nowhere.

Mr. Chairman, I'm just sorry that my colleague and good friend wasn't on the border with us, because he would have heard from the mayors.

And I'm also kind of shocked at the statements here that this is what the American people want. Who do you think these people along the border are? They're on our side of the border. They're our communities, they're our city councils, they're our mayors. And if this were any other Federal entity coming into your hometown and saying that you don't have to tell anybody about what you're doing or consult with them or get any cooperation, you're going to have border failure.

This is the community that supports the homes of the Border Patrol, supports the children of the families that protect the border, and you're saying that they, with removing this language, the chairman was very astute in pointing out that the administration has not asked for this.

This language does not allow any veto. It allows for a consultation process. And that's absolutely essential, because if you don't have that, you're going to have those mayors coming back here and city council persons and saying, What the hell are you doing building this without talking to us? We're going to try to stop it. And they'll try to file lawsuits and things like that.

So if this border is going to work, it's a living border. My frustration is that we're all paying attention only to one

side. And I can assure you that meanness and arrogance and just trying to plow your way through it is not the way to build a secure border. It's the way to build people that hate the Federal Government.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is an issue that came up when our committee traveled to the border and had discussions with the Border Patrol. And what you are talking about here is striking language that gives some ability for comparing the expenditure of costs on one piece of intelligence equipment versus the other. And what the gentleman didn't tell you is that of all the assets on the border, this is the most expensive, $10 million, $8 to $10 million per unmanned vehicle. The other assets that are on the border, which everybody agreed was much more effective, is the new radar system, which costs about $700,000, that are portable.

We have others. We have balloons. We have helicopters. We have as many assets looking at the border as there are in Iraq. And what the language in the bill says is that before you go out and just buy more Predators at 8 million bucks, there is already $50 million in the account and we want to know before you spend that whether it is cost- effective compared to other issues that you have to do.

You have on the border not only the Customs and Border Patrol, and I would submit that the arrests were not made by that unmanned vehicle, and I don't think that was the only system they used to discover that. It was just one. It happened to be a very, very expensive one. The radar systems are the most effective. The most effective. And you have responding to that Customs and Border Patrol that are in aircraft, in different kinds of helicopters, including Black Hawk helicopters, you have all-terrain vehicles, you have Border Patrol on horseback, you have Border Patrol with SUVs, with four-wheel-drive vehicles. You have all kinds of response mechanisms and all kinds of detection mechanisms.

But to suggest that we shouldn't even ask the question of whether an $8 million expense is more cost-effective than another kind of assets, I think, is just ridiculous.

And, frankly, that is one thing the committee found out, that there isn't all the money you always want to spend on everything here. There have got to be some priorities. And if you have made the priority that of the Customs and Border Patrol, this is not what they would spend it on.

So I think the amendment and the language in the bill is particularly appropriate. It doesn't prohibit the expenditures. It just says before you come back and spend up to another $8 billion, compare this to what other assets you can buy, and you make the suggestion to us as to what is the best expenditure of limited public funds.

Will the gentleman yield?

First of all, the Predator has to be monitored. There is manpower on the Predator. And as I recall, there are three people that it takes to fly it.

But that's not the issue of this, because you would have money to buy Predators. All it says is that the same people that operate them, Customs and Border Patrol, that this isn't a high priority for them. That is all it says.

Mr. Chairman, the language is that the very people that are operating these vehicles, the Customs and Border Patrol, certify that these are the higher priority and the more cost effective than other items included in the Air and Marine Strategic Recapitalization and Modernization plan. It puts the burden on them. If this is what they think is the most cost effective, fine. It doesn't block it; it just says do that analysis.

I am really just surprised, because I sat here all these days and just heard riling after riling, people getting up on the other side talking about money, and we need to be very conscientious about how we spend money. There is language in there that says, Customs and Border Patrol, you certify that this is a high priority for you and it's cost effective. What's wrong with that? Why do you want to strike that language? It doesn't make any sense at all.

Because as the gentleman knows, this is an almost $10 million per cost item. And you know what? The one we had crashed, and the other one we have is about to be delivered. And there is $50 million in the account. If they want to come back and use that $50 million to buy more of them, that's what we are asking. You tell us what is the most cost-effective use. Frankly, and I wish you were there, the new equipment that is coming out, this technology on radar, for 100 miles can detect when even rabbits are crossing the border. It's very cost effective. The Border Patrol is very excited about it. They would like to have more, but they can't because they're spending money like this.

So, with all due respect, these are professionals that are on the job every single day, you want to let them tell you what they think is the most effective tool to do their job. That is all this language does. I don't know why you would oppose that.

Don't read in this language what isn't there. That's not what it is about.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for yielding.

I wasn't even going to speak on this issue, but I have to concur with my Chair and ranking member, and I'll tell you why, Mr. Bilbray. The Deepwater project, the first Deepwater vessel is being delivered to Alameda, California. As you know, the Alameda office is in charge of the entire ocean from California to the Indian Ocean, half the world. The other half is monitored by this side. If you think that that operation isn't about national security with the vessels that are in the entire Pacific and with the drugs that are being run up through the ocean from South America, I don't think we can afford to take the newest vessel which is going through all its trials and sea trials and is going to be stationed in our own State and cut funding that's going to affect that. I hear you. I think we need to do something about identification, but I frankly think that if you're thinking that REAL ID is going to solve that identification problem, all IDs tell you is that you are who you are. There is no national ID. There is no citizenship ID. There's nobody in this room that has a card in their wallet that shows that they're an American citizen. You may have a driver's license. You don't have to be an American citizen to have a driver's license. You may have a Social Security card. You don't have to be an American citizen to have a Social Security card. There is no card. You may have a passport. Very few Americans have them, but those who have them, that shows that you are an American citizen.

The issue is whether these fake IDs which the States are working with can be made more secure, and I think that's important to do, but I don't think that's going to answer your national ID issue. It's not.

Frankly, this is a debate worth having. We are not having it here, we are not having it on your amendment, we are not having it tonight because I think the real debate is: Is this the time in the development of our country where we really ought to form an ID? I have been opposed to it. If you look at the politics, the left and the right have been very much opposed to having a national ID program. But if you are going to do it, it is going to need to make much more sense than 58, our States plus our territories, all having different measurements and not having any one way to tell if it is a citizenship issue which you want to talk about, which is what this Border Patrol and Customs is all about. This is not the way to do it, and certainly not cutting money from a budget that has already been whacked and oversighted and conditioned more than any other budget item than in this bill.

Will the gentleman yield?

It is very interesting. I am from California, and I sit on the committee and I have never heard from the Governor about your amendment, nor anyone else in California. I support the chairman and the ranking member's opposition.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for yielding.

I rise as one of the cochairs of the Travel and Tourism Caucus, and I rise because I think you are trying to fix something here that isn't broken.

We have not had problems with the Visa Waiver Program. In fact, it has worked very well. And the reason you get qualified as a country for the Visa Waiver Program is because the visitors from that country, all who have passports, those passports all are screened and have to pass the screening before they get on an airplane. And so if there is such a traveler that is on the ``no fly'' list, they would be selected out at that point.

The reason these countries have qualified is because they haven't had people visiting our country who have skipped, who have stayed on, who have violated. The visa is time certain. These are frequent travelers; they are from the countries that are our allies, most of whom are members of NATO or other security forces. I think it is a very bad way to go. One is it's going to alienate the travel and tourism industry in the United States that relies a lot on foreign travelers; they spend a lot of money in this country. And, frankly, right now visiting America is a bargain. It is one of the best vacation packages you can buy compared to costs in Europe and so on. And what you do by cutting these funds, you would prohibit funds from this act from carrying out the Visa Waiver Program.

Now, within that program is also the ability of DHS sharing information with the State Department, maintaining records of these visa-waiver applications. Remember, you have to apply for that. You would prohibit the administering of programs which air carriers use relating to verifying travelers as qualified, visa-waiver residents.

So what you are going to do is you are not going to stop the program. You are just going to stop the sharing of inside information. And I think it's a fear that hasn't been demonstrated as a problem. Therefore, nothing is broken that needs fixing. There isn't support for this program among the travel and tourism industry, and particularly the air carriers. And I think the fact that all these visitors have to have a passport and those passports have to meet our standards, that these Visa Waiver Program visitors are very well protected.

Mr. Chairman, none of the facts stated by the gentleman have anything to do with the amendment. The amendment cuts the ability for us to manage a program which is working very well. Every one of these travelers has to get a passport; those passports have to meet our standards. They have to go through the screening at airports. If they are on a ``no fly'' list, they won't be allowed on an airplane. This is not the way to try to prevent good visitors to this country who are allies of the United States.

And, frankly, adopting this amendment is not only going to create an incredible bureaucracy for us; it is going to create an alienation among countries that we get along with very well and have allowed a visa waiver. Without it, every one of these would have to flood a foreign council. And you would have frequent travelers unable to get to the United States and be a good tourist and good visitors of our country and good friends.

I don't think in nation building that this is the way that you want to attack the problem. So I ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and must say it has been very interesting tonight. There has been a lot of discussion about fences and very little discussion about Homeland Security which is what this budget is all about.

It is interesting, in traveling the border and talking to the Border Patrol, there was never, never a request for this. What you are doing, very interesting in this amendment, you say ``none of the funds made available in this act for customs and border protection fencing, infrastructure, and technology may be used for anything but at least two layers of reinforced fencing and roads.''

No technology, no infrastructure, just got to build two fences. Wait a minute. This committee went to a lot of effort to find out how to prioritize spending. What we heard from the experts is follow risk management principles.

And the question was asked in committee: Where is the risk on our border? Where have we seen terrorism? And guess what the head of the Border Patrol said, the Customs and Border Patrol Commissioner said, when asked about how many terrorists we have apprehended or found on the Mexico-U.S. border? The answer was zero. How much material have you apprehended on that border? The answer was zero.

When asked about the northern border the answer was yes, we have apprehended terrorists coming across that border, and we have apprehended material coming across that border.

So based on risk management, if this is about terrorism, the fence is not an issue. I think this fence discussion here has created fence bulimia. That is all we can talk about, and it is only one fence, and now you want to build it double when the customs people don't even ask for that.

We are sitting here as fence managers here in Washington and have nothing to do with trying to patrol that border. This is cutting off funds for technology and infrastructure. If there is anything that is needed along that border, it is infrastructure. This is like building a huge levee on one side of the river and not taking care of anything on the other side.

I will tell you, if you are going to have security, you are going to have to have a much more comprehensive approach. Mexico is our important ally. It is our neighbor. It is our leading trade partner with the State of California which the gentleman is from. It has the busiest border between California and Mexico. More people cross that border every day and more legitimate commerce cross that border than any other place in the world.

And we are doing that with existing resources. Guess what, they are working because the committee has put in some very good detection systems using smart cards and other things.

I think this amendment does absolutely the opposite of what you want to do. This doesn't secure the border, this takes money away from technology and infrastructure development. Without a problem, you don't need to fix it.

If you want to build a fence where the terrorists are coming, then build that fence across the Canadian border.

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

Mr. Chairman, this gold-plated fence costs $3 million a mile. To do that takes money away from technology and infrastructure. It takes money from effective border control. Effective control is where they detect and apprehend. That is what they want the money spent on, being able to detect and apprehend. This takes money away from doing effective border security. I oppose the amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, the problem with this bill is there is never a last word. There is a big debate going on about earmarks, when there are none in the bill. There were none in last year's bill or the year before's bill. This is the first bill to come before the floor, and they attack this bill saying where are the earmarks.

Well, there are none. Speakers on the other side of the aisle can't stand the fact that there is a new congressional leadership here. It's rolling up its sleeves and doing the oversight work, the oversight work for an agency called Homeland Security that was created just a few years ago, the biggest bureaucracy in modern American history, 200,000 employees, $36 billion in expenditure, made up of all kinds of things from airports, seaports, Border Patrol, immigration, the list goes on and on.

The leadership of this committee decided to really put some fact- finding into it. It had more hearings than any committee in history in this subject matter, visited more sites, visited the borders, the hot spots, visited Katrina sites, talked with Customs and Border Patrol, with harbor district patrol, with Coast Guard, with truck inspectors at the Ota Mesa truck center, the biggest truck inspection center in the word; with the San Ysidro crossing, the largest traffic crossing in the world.

You know what every one of those patrolmen and inspectors told me? We can't do our job unless you pass a comprehensive immigration bill. It's not just about more fences and more assets on the border. It's about the whole enchilada, the whole immigration bill.

I think there is an underlying current here. They don't want an immigration bill, and they know that this is the agency that deals with it. So it's a delay tactic.

Now, a delay tactic, we have been here for 24 hours. We have taken up two amendments. The first amendment cuts $79,000 out of the administrative office of Homeland Security, $79,000 out of a $36 billion bill. But, wait, they adopted a second amendment. It was for a cut for $300,000.

We have successfully cut $379,000 out of a $36 billion bill. It's taken us 24 hours, numerous procedural votes to adjourn, to rise, to do anything but deal with the issue. We ought to be very proud of ourselves.

We have been able to cut one one-thousandth of 1 percent. That's what the great might of the United States Congress has been doing on this bill.

Now, I know that the other side of the aisle likes to cut, squeeze, and trim. They are cutting the agency that they like the most. They are cutting an agency created by President Bush, they are cutting the money that President Bush asked for in this bill, and they have introduced another 110 amendments to deal with more cuts, more frivolity.

Where's your leadership? This is an important bill. It's probably the best-combed bill, best-managed bill in the history of this agency. You ought to be proud of it. You were proud of it in committee, because nobody voiced a negative vote.

So it was unanimous in the Appropriations Committee, everybody liked the bill. Where is your leadership? Where is your responsibility?

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

Mr. Chairman, this bill is about finding the answers to interoperability. You have seen that we have interoperability right here. This bill is about responding to first responders, to be a first responder.

The other side of the aisle is neither operable nor responsible for being first responders. Don't call on them next time there is help needed.

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

I rise on this issue with just some concern here that we don't lose perspective of what we're really trying to accomplish.

This was an issue brought up in the committee, probably the most popular issue of all, which was that we wanted ICE, which is the second largest law enforcement agency in the country next to the FBI, at the rate it's growing, it's going to be bigger than the FBI, we wanted them to do their job of being able to determine whether people who had been arrested at the local level and were in jail, maybe not yet sentenced, but were pending trial or were being held, that somebody would review their legal status.

The question is that this program that we are debating and wanting to put more money into, and frankly, the committee doubled the amount of money that's going into it, which is a grant program to local governments, not all local governments are keen on wanting to do this. Why? Because they

have emphasized what they call ``community policing.''

They want the local law enforcement officer to be a friend of the community in order to be involved with the community, to have communities trust them. And if they think that the local law enforcement is also the Border Patrol, they are going to shut up and stop talking to cops. And you get all kinds of issues with this, particularly when it comes to children who are afraid of law enforcement, and so on, if they are the ones that are going to arrest their moms and dads.

So, let's put this into some perspective. What we really need to do is make sure that the ICE, the Federal law enforcement, does their job. Why? Because they are trained.

I have a note here from my sheriff saying that the ICE comes to our jails in Monterey County, a small rural county in California, three times a week. He said the number of confirmed, undocumented prison inmates varies. Last quarter, there were 52 identified undocumented inmates in Monterey County. The previous quarter there were also 52; prior to that, 72.

Some of the inmates claim citizenship status or legal permanent residency and don't have their documentation order. It takes some time to label them and do all that legal background work.

That is not what the legal background work is. We have that information. That is Federal information.

As we pointed out before, we have no national ID. None of you in here can prove you are an American citizens by any card you carry in your wallet, unless you want to show your voting card, but they won't accept that in the airport so I don't know what valid status that has.

The point here is, let's not stop making ICE do their job. They should be doing these local jail checks. If you want to do additional training for local jailers, that is fine. That is what this program is about. But don't substitute it so the local government has to do it, because I think you ought to believe that criminal management up to your local elected officials, your sheriffs and your police chiefs, to make that decision.

This is the second largest police force in the United States. It ought to be doing jail checks. They are the ones that have the qualifications to look into the Federal Information Bank to see whether these people are properly documented, and I think we ought to make sure that they do their job.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, this amendment has been accepted. I am just concerned that we still need to put pressure on ICE to do the real jail checks.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I have been in elected office, local, State and Federal, for 34 years, and I cannot imagine how any of your community got built without earmarks at the local level, the State level and the Federal level.

There are also earmarks in the bill the President sends down. I think you have misstated the whole symbol of earmarks. The reform in here is more severe than any local, State or Federal office has ever had in the history of the United States.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of Mr. Stephen B. Kahn, philanthropist, political progressive, and innovator, who passed away on Friday, April 27, 2007, at the age of 96.

Stephen was born in St. Louis, MO, on June 8, 1910. In his youth he called both San Francisco and New York home, and finally settled in Manhattan with his mother. She was an early feminist and supporter of Margaret Sanger; her political activities surely encouraged the development of his own progressive ideas. He returned to California to reunite with his father and later earned a degree in journalism from the University of Oregon at Eugene. He completed a law degree at the University of Tennessee and worked in the legal division of the Tennessee Valley Authority.

During World War II, he was drafted into the Army and served with the 7th Armored Division in Europe. Stephen and his wife, Ruth, then moved to Carmel and he began a successful career in the timber business as a conservationist and champion of healthy timber practices. He also supported the ACLU,

progressive journals, and noncommercial listener-supported radio in its early years, notably Radio Station KPFA and the Pacifica Foundation.

After Ruth's death in 1994, Steven created the Arkay Foundation as a tribute to her memory. The foundation supports innovative civil, environmental, and health care programs. He was a strong advocate for alternative medicine and helped naturopaths become licensed in California. He also promoted the use of vitamin C and megavitamin therapy for physical and mental illnesses. Remaining remarkably energetic himself, he led this foundation up to the end of his life.

However, he was best known for his progressive style of politics and commitment to the Democratic Party. He believed passionately that individuals could make a difference both at the local and national level by supporting political change. He also believed that songs could change the world. Steve was most proud of his early discovery of Woody Guthrie while filming a documentary in Oregon. Woody's part in producing was what he liked to call ``art with a social message.''

Madam Speaker, the life of Stephen Kahn was full of joy and purpose. He directly impacted the lives of thousands of people who came to respect, admire, and love him. I offer condolences to his two children Karen Kahn and Robert Kahn, his stepson David Goldschmidt; and the rest of his family. Stephen's passion, energy and wonderful spirit will be greatly missed by all who knew him.