Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, there is bad news and good news this Veterans Day. The bad news is the study by Harvard Medical School that there

are 2 million veterans who don't have health insurance and are not eligible for veterans care, 2 million veterans. What makes it worse is that President Bush is banning 273,000 veterans from receiving VA care because they are not income eligible. So he is balancing the budget on the backs of middle-class and working veterans.

The good news is that this Democratic majority passed the largest increase in VA health care in the 77-year history of the VA. We are going to add 1,800 new claims processors to make the long lines a little shorter and the wait shorter as well.

Now, we have to go even further. I'm urging my colleagues to sign a letter that I've sent to the President demanding that he reverse the policy of denying health care to 273,000 veterans and not means-test them. We didn't means-test when we asked them to fight our battles. We should not means-test them when they have to come home for health care.

I thank the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

Madam Speaker, this bill does, in fact, combine various other appropriations measures. But those measures in their totality clearly reflect the top priorities of the American people. In fact, every one of those bills separately passed with significant Republican support by significant bipartisan majorities in this House.

The reason that this bill in its totality makes sense and should, with all due respect, attract the support of my friends from the other side of the aisle is because it does, in fact, fund the global war on terror. It funds our defense. It funds military construction. But it also funds America's other priorities. It funds our troops but it also takes care of our veterans, the largest increase in veterans health care in the 77-year history of the VA. It funds our defense with a robust military. But it also funds the war on cancer with increased investments in the NCI and the NIH.

It funds our military so that we can achieve global stability, but it also gives working families and middle-class taxpayers a little bit of a break, actually, more than a little bit of a break, a significant break on their college expenses so that our kids can compete in a globally competitive environment.

I would conclude, Madam Speaker, by suggesting that the differences between where the administration is and where we are should not be minimized. They are significant. As the chairman said, this administration is arguing over a $22 billion increased investment with one hand, and, on the other hand, telling the American people they have to come up with another $200 billion for Iraq. We are spending $12 billion a month in Iraq. The difference between where the administration is and where we are on these other priorities is 2 months in Iraq.

We want $880 million in increased investment for LIHEAP so that senior citizens don't have to shiver in the cold because their heating costs are too high. That is 2\1/2\ days in Iraq, that $880 million. If we want to invest $1 billion in medical research for people with

cancer, with Alzheimer's, with Parkinson's, that's 3 days in Iraq.

Our $1 billion investment covers an entire year. The administration's strategy covers 3 days in Iraq. We want $1.4 billion for the entire year for improved health care access. With this administration, the equivalent cost is 4 days in Iraq. We want $1.8 billion in increased investments to keep American streets safe with additional law enforcement and additional police. The administration says we can't afford to keep America's streets safe but is willing to spend an equivalent amount over 5 days in Iraq.

Madam Speaker, this bill reflects the priorities of the American people. Separately, the components passed with overwhelming Republican support. This should be a bipartisan effort. It should be a bipartisan effort because, number one, it supports our troops, provides for robust defense, and takes care of our priorities here at home as well.

I thank the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I must say I am hearing some conflicting priorities on the floor today. We have heard that the appropriations process is not moving fast enough, despite the fact that under the leadership of Chairman Obey in the House, we passed every single one of our appropriations bills, I believe in record time. We are hearing that the appropriations process isn't moving fast enough on the one hand, and now we have a motion to instruct the conferees to actually slow it down, to take pieces out of this bill, to stop it. You can't have it both ways. We are trying to get things done. We are trying to move our priorities forward.

Now, I understand that some of my friends don't want to deal with the labor, health and human services aspects of this bill, and they are concerned with the President's argument that we have plenty of money to fund Iraq but can't afford veterans health care here at home and educational priorities here at home and low-income heating for the elderly here at home.

I understand those arguments, but let me suggest to my colleagues that they read a study that was just released yesterday by Harvard Medical School. That study shows there is, in fact, a critical connection between the VA pieces of this bill and the health and human services aspects of this bill. The two should be considered together. That study found that, today, there are 2 million veterans who have no health insurance. And they aren't eligible for

VA benefits. Not eligible for VA benefits and too poor to afford health insurance. The number of uninsured veterans jumped to 1.8 million in 2004, and the population of uninsured veterans is increasing at twice the rate of the general population.

Now, the Labor-H aspects of this bill provides $1.4 billion above the President's request for programs to improve health care access. So taken in its totality, this bill, without segregating the human services components, taken in its totality, this bill protects our troops in the field and also provides access to veterans at home who may not qualify for veterans benefits. As has been stated before, our veterans are a whole. They come back from the war, the last thing they should worry about is not having health insurance. It's the labor, health and human services aspects of this bill that could provide additional access to health care, and that is why this bill ought to be considered as it is.

I would make one other point. We have already considered these bills separately. Each of these components were, in fact, debated, deliberated and passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in the Appropriations Committee and then debated again, deliberated again and passed with significant Republican support on the floor of the House.

There is no reason to move backwards. There is no reason to delay. There is no reason to stop this process. We want to get these bills to the President. We should do so.

Madam Speaker, one of the greatest financial assaults on America's middle class is the alternative minimum tax. Originally, it was meant to ensure that several dozen of the richest families in America paid their fair share of taxes, but it wasn't indexed for inflation, so it's robbing middle class taxpayers, like our union members, our cops, firefighters, teachers and nurses. Now, after too long, finally a real effort at reform is developing.

The Ways and Means Committee majority has unveiled a repeal of the AMT. Now, it's too early for me to say that I agree with every single element of this proposal. I am convening a panel of experts to assess it. But I am pleased that finally we are seriously addressing this middle-class rip-off. I want to thank Chairman Rangel. I hope to work closely with him in achieving real reform and real relief for America's working families and middle-class taxpayers.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my good friend and colleague, Mr. Bishop from Long Island, for asking several of us to pay tribute to Lieutenant Michael Murphy, who received the Medal of Honor.

Madam Speaker, I did not know Michael Murphy personally, but I knew of him. I have a love of history, and particularly military history. And I know that every generation of Americans has confronted challenge and threat, grave and great, with the heroism of Michael Murphy. Every generation has produced its Michael Murphys.

In August of 1776, in the Battle of New York, there were men like Michael Murphy. They were surrounded by the most powerful navy in the world, the British Navy, And American democracy could have been snuffed out at that point. But men like Michael Murphy took risk, sacrificed their lives, fought on, and replaced British monarchy with American democracy. They fell, Madam Speaker, so that I could stand here in this body, the Congress of the United States, the people's House of the oldest democracy on Earth.

There were Mike Murphys in Gettysburg, in the Fighting 69th and other brigades, at Shiloh and Fredericksburg. There were plenty of Union generals who told President Lincoln that they didn't really need to fight the Civil War; you could have slavery on one side of the line and we could have freedom on the other and that would be fine. But there were men like Michael Murphy who understood that slavery in the United States was not an option. They fought on; they refused to retreat. They would not surrender. They would not lose their ground. They fell so that my children could grow up in a country of liberty versus tyranny.

Madam Speaker, there were Mike Murphys who grew up on Long Island. When Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Madam Speaker, stood where you are now and summoned America into the greatest battle of the 20th century, against Nazism and fascism, there were Mike Murphys from Long Island who stood up, who stormed beaches, who leapt hills, who ran through Europe, freed France, liberated concentration camps, went to the Pacific, freed the Pacific and came back, looked at the Moon and said, we could go there, too. Many of those heroes, Madam Speaker, are from Long Island, and we value and thank every one. Only 18 Long Islanders, Madam Speaker, have received the Medal of Honor, Mike Murphy and 17 others.

Madam Speaker, Mike Murphy fell in a long and noble tradition of those who made the ultimate sacrifice. He is linked in time with those I mentioned: in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Vietnam, in Korea, in Normandy, and stretching back to the earliest battles and the first battlefield.

Let me close, Madam Speaker, with a passage that could have been written about Michael Murphy, although it was uttered almost 2,500 years ago. This is what Pericles said at the funeral of fallen soldiers:

``In the fighting, they thought it more honorable to stand their ground and suffer death than to give in and save their lives. So they fled from the reproaches of men, abiding with life and limb the brunt of battle, and in a small moment of time, the climax of their lives, a culmination of glory, not of fear, they were swept away from us.''

So and such they were, these men, worthy of their city. Madam Speaker, Michael Murphy went to Afghanistan to defend the City of New York, which was attacked out of Afghanistan on 9/11. He joins a proud and noble tradition of history's best. My thoughts, my prayers and my condolences go to him and his family. And he will always be remembered in this Congress as the citadel of freedom in the world, for fighting for that freedom.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize the students of Half Hollow Hills High School East for their thoughtful letters on the war in Iraq. I appreciated hearing their views and reading their individual letters which contained their ideas and perspectives on our involvement in Iraq.

I want to applaud their interest in this critical topic and appreciate that they took the time to share their opinions with me.

Madam Speaker, last week, despite the best efforts of the Democratic majority and about 44 Republicans, we were unable to override the President's veto of health insurance for the children of poor and working families. Now, I listened to the argument that we can't afford providing health care for our children, despite the fact that our SCHIP program was entirely paid for.

Look, Madam Speaker, I believe that a strong Nation can do both. You can be fiscally responsible and you can take care of your children. Good families manage to be fiscally responsible and take care of their children. It is just a matter of priorities. I will say, Madam Speaker, that I was struck by some of the mispriorities that I heard about. The same people who said that we can't afford health insurance for our children increased spending 7 percent a year since 2001 and voted to increase our debt limit 4 out of the past 5 years. The difference is that they spent on the wrong things. No spending? We can't afford health care for children but billions of dollars in tax cuts for the most profitable oil companies on Earth? We can't afford spending for health insurance for our children but billions of dollars in spending in no-bid contracts for Halliburton? We have increased the debt. We are putting it on our kids' shoulders, and now we are telling our kids we can't afford to help them with the x-rays.

Mr. Speaker, I have always believed firmly in the qualities of civility in this House, and bipartisanship and constructive dialogue and engagement and respect for one another's disagreements. In fact, last night I spent an hour on this floor with Members on both sides of the aisle talking constructively in a bipartisan Center Aisle Caucus Special Order on Iraq. And we managed to put our political differences aside and talk not about left or right, but moving forward. And so civility is critically important to me and has been since coming here nearly 8 years ago.

But I must say, Mr. Speaker, that when I heard of the comments of Rush Limbaugh, when I heard him impugn the integrity of our soldiers, when I heard him call them phonies, I had just about had it. How dare he attack our soldiers. How dare he impugn their integrity. How dare he attack their credibility. There is no place in America for anyone to attack our soldiers while they are fighting in combat or when they have come home. I don't care what the reason, Mr. Speaker. There is no place in America for that, particularly coming from someone who believes that he is the ``gold standard'' of patriotism, who believes he has a monopoly on patriotism, who has accused anyone who dissents with a particular policy with which he disagrees as a traitor. What is patriotic, Mr. Speaker, about calling American soldiers phonies? What is patriotic about that?

If ever there was anything that suggested to me a dissent beyond the line, I would never call it traitorous, but I can't think of a better example of giving aid and comfort to our enemies than somebody who would call our soldiers phony while they're fighting, who would attack them while they're defending us.

He crossed the line, he crossed the line of fair play, he crossed the line of hypocrisy. This standard-barer of patriotism attacking American forces, it is unacceptable. It is unacceptable. Not only because it is hypocritical and not only because it is an attack on our Armed Forces, Mr. Speaker, but because it comes from somebody who never fought for our country, unless you consider being a disk jockey to be worthy of combat pay. Mr. Speaker, the American people are sick and tired of this kind of hypocrisy and this kind of attack.

I went to Walter Reed Army Hospital yesterday, and maybe that's why I'm so fired up, Mr. Speaker. I visited Walter Reed Army Hospital yesterday and with young men whose limbs have been amputated, whose futures have been changed. How dare anybody suggest that because one of them may disagree with a policy that that person is a phony. Thank God we live in a country that gives us the right to agree with a policy to go to war. You have the right to disagree, you even have the right to remain silent, but no one has the right in this country to call any member of our Armed Forces ``phony,'' and Rush Limbaugh owes them an apology.

Mr. Speaker, tonight we do something different, something out of the ordinary. The American people are accustomed to tuning into C-SPAN and watching Democrats yelling at Republicans and Republicans yelling at Democrats. There is a Democratic Special Order and there is a Republican Special Order. C-SPAN has become a channel that requires a parental advisory before kids are able to watch. It has become unsafe because of all the screaming and yelling.

Tonight we do something different. Tonight we have a bipartisan Special Order. Tonight Democrats and Republicans will spend some time not focusing on our disagreements, not fighting with one another, not talking about the left and the right, although this is a place where there should be discussion about left and right, but focusing on moving forward, focusing on specific solutions and ideas with respect to Iraq that will move us forward.

The plain fact is that Democrats and Republicans are are going to disagree on some fundamental issues. Maybe we are going to disagree on 60 or 70 percent of the issues, but we do agree on the 30 to 40 percent that is left. The problem is that we have allowed ourselves to be paralyzed on our agreements because we are so busy disagreeing with one another.

Well, 2 years ago we found the Center Aisle Caucus, a bipartisan group of 50 Democrats and Republicans who meet routinely not to talk about our disagreements, we know where we are going to disagree, but to see if we can carve out areas of agreement. To talk not about the left or the right, but to talk about the way forward.

We have convened a series of meetings specifically pertaining to Iraq. Tonight I am joined by the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), a Marine veteran who has been involved in those meetings and talked about bipartisanship and finding common ground and important solutions.

I am joined by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) who has become very active, a leader in the Center

Aisle Caucus, who also understands the importance of engaging one another and talking about moving forward rather than left and right.

We will be joined by other colleagues. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent) who has been proposing with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) that we integrate the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group into policy as we move forward.

I will be talking about two bipartisan solutions that I have been submitting. One, directing that the President submit a status of forces agreement to the Government of Iraq as a signal that we are not in Iraq to stay, to occupy, but that Iraq is a sovereign government responsible for its security. I believe that status of forces agreement, which we have in almost every country where we have a military presence, would be a very important signal to the Iraqi people and to our own forces.

Secondly, I will be talking about bipartisan legislation that I have introduced with the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) to expedite the process of bringing a variety of Iraqi refugees to the United States, those refugees who have served coalition forces as interpreters, as translators, who have risked their lives and now have to go through a bureaucratic nightmare to leave Iraq and come here. We will talk about that as well.

The final point I want to make before I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson) is this: yesterday I visited the Walter Reed Army Hospital. I visited with about seven soldiers who have sustained some very serious wounds in Iraq. I visited with one of my constituents who had his foot amputated. I visited with another Long Islander who found it very difficult to talk, very difficult to breathe. I visited with a soldier who was being discharged yesterday afternoon and will now begin outpatient treatment.

Ultimately, I believe and the Members who will join me this evening believe that our obligation is to them. It is not to the left or to the right. It is to them. They do not want the United States Congress to be engaged in partisan paralysis and bickering. That will not end the war. They want us to try and find common ground. I am under no illusions that whatever we discuss tonight, and the gentleman from Maryland and the gentleman from Texas and the other Members and myself, will end the war tomorrow. I wish we could end the war tomorrow.

The fact of the matter is that for as long as we are here together on the floor of the House, we have an obligation to try and work with one another on areas where we can agree. We can fight honorably, we can disagree respectfully on all matters of policy; but we have an obligation to move forward on areas where there is agreement. That is what the Center Aisle Caucus was formed to do.

One of our members from Texas served for many years in this distinguished Chamber and has returned to the Congress after a 2-year hiatus. He is somebody who personifies bipartisanship, who has been a leader in this body, whose constituents also expect him to be working hard to move forward rather than left or right, and I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and I can assure him that he will have ample time this evening to elaborate on his views.

We have been joined by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent) who I know is going to speak on some of his priorities and his efforts to bridge the gap between both parties.

I would like to yield to one of the most distinguished Members of this House, as I said before, a veteran, someone who I've come to know only recently. I've served in this House for nearly 8 years, and the gentleman from Maryland and I got to know each other only recently with respect to trying to reduce the polarization of this debate. We've had dinner. We met in my office some 2 weeks ago, and I want to commend him for his leadership and his bipartisanship and his desire also to find a way forward rather than right or left, and with that, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Maryland and I want to underscore the point that he's making.

The center aisle is right here, right here in front of me. Those on my side of the center aisle can scream at those on the other side and those on the other side can scream at my side. That's not going to end the war. Again, this is a place, this is a House where we encourage debate and even dissent and disagreement, but the screaming and the vitriol and the partisan attacks will not bring this war to an end.

Those of us who are here this evening would prefer to spend our time engaging with one another, disagreeing respectfully on some issues but trying to find that common ground, trying to build that consensus that will bring the war to an end.

One of our colleagues who's here, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent), has been working very, very hard on a proposal to integrate the recommendations of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group into current policy. That was a perfect example of an advanced and high plane of bipartisan dialogue. Members from both parties, experts from around the country, convened in that Iraq Study Group, made recommendations to the administration and to Congress. Many of those recommendations received widespread praise and support but have not been implemented, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania has been working to attempt to take those recommendations and move them forward, take them off the shelf and move them forward in our policy.

I yield to my good friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

I yield time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Lampson).

I thank the gentleman.

Let me focus on just one very specific bipartisan solution that the Center Aisle Caucus has proposed. The gentleman from Pennsylvania alluded to it. It's a status of forces agreement.

At the end of the cold war, the United States had permanent status of forces agreements with about 40 countries. Today the number has grown to more than 90, which means that the United States Government has status of forces agreements with nearly half of the countries comprising the world community. Now, what is a status of forces agreement?

A status of forces agreement is essentially a negotiated document between the United States Government and a host government where we have a military presence that governs the relationship between the military and that government. It governs our criminal justice issues. It governs a variety of diplomatic and protocol issues.

Now, I have been told on my visits to Iraq and in my conversations with Iraqi officials here at home and with American officials that one of the concerns that the population of Iraq has is that we are going to be there forever, that we want to occupy Iraq forever.

We don't want to occupy Iraq forever. We don't want to be there one day longer than we need to be. If I had my way, we would be out tomorrow. The fact of the matter is that if the Iraqi people believe that we are there running the place and that they are not a sovereign government, they will never have the capability to stand up their own ministries, to take care of their own security.

I have proposed on a bipartisan basis a resolution that asks the President to begin negotiating a status of forces agreement with the sovereign Iraqi Government. You can't expect a government to have a capability if we can't even negotiate an agreement between that government and our government with respect to the presence of military forces.

Iraq is a sovereign entity. One of the very important signals that we can send to the Iraqi people and to our population at home is the negotiation of the status of forces agreement.

Now, one of the great levels of frustration that I have is that whenever I raise this issue, I am told that we are pushing up against an open door. I am told that mostly everybody agrees that we should have a status of forces agreement in Iraq.

In fact, the Jones Commission, which was constituted as a group of highly expert military people assessing the condition of Iraqi security, when they made their recommendations, the number two recommendation in the Jones Commission report was, in fact, the submission of, and I will read directly from the report: ``The second recommendation the Commission wishes to offer is that consideration be given to pursuing an agreement akin to a status of forces agreement with the Government of Iraq. Appropriately drawn, it would have the effect of codifying our relationship with the host nation, reinforcing its sovereignty and independence, and would be consistent with other such agreements we enjoy with many nations where we have a military presence.''

So here you have yet another bipartisan commission recommending yet another idea that everybody can agree on, the Iraqis can agree to it, we can agree to it, Republicans and Democrats can agree to it, except that nobody is making it happen.

So I have proposed, as I said before, a resolution, a bipartisan resolution, that simply tells the President to submit a status of forces agreement to negotiation with the Iraqi Government. It begins this process. It signals the Iraqi people that we have no intention of owning Iraq. We are guests there, and they are the host government.

This is just one simple move in the right direction, a bipartisan move in the right direction; and I am hoping that the administration will listen to it and vigorously negotiate a status of forces agreement with Iraq.

I want to thank my friend from Pennsylvania, who has been active with me on that resolution, for his assistance, and would yield to him if he wants to comment further on it.

I would like to raise another very specific solution, bipartisan solution that the Center Aisle Caucus has with respect to Iraq.

Last week, and I know my colleagues may be shocked to hear this, or perhaps they won't be shocked, perhaps they have had the same experience I have, but last week I met with an Iraqi refugee and his family. This individual was a translator for coalition forces, risked his life as a translator.

The work that he was doing was saving the lives of our forces, of our military people. He has a wife, a son and a disabled daughter. He decided that Iraq was no longer a safe place for his family. Why? Not just because of the war, but because of the service that he performed for the American military. So he applied for a special immigrant visa, and this is what he was told:

First you have to find a general to sign the form. He said, well, I don't know many generals who can sign this form.

Can I find someone else? He was told, no, the regulation is that you have to find a general. Well, he found a general who signed, who vouched for his credibility.

Then he was told, well, you can't apply for a special immigrant visa here in Iraq. You actually have to leave Iraq, go to another country and apply.

Well, that's just mind-boggling. Again, this is somebody who risked his life translating for American forces, and they have saved their lives, when they have translated what the bad guys were saying and what they were planning, and he was told, you have to leave Iraq to submit your visa application. So he found his way with his family to Amman, Jordan.

Then he was told, by the way, when you apply for this special immigrant visa, you have got to pay fees, hundreds and hundreds of dollars. This young man didn't have that kind of money. Can you imagine, he was, again, interpreting for our military and then told to leave the country and perhaps save his life; he had to pay a fee for himself, his wife, his son, his disabled daughter. Guess what, he came up with the money. Then he sat for a year in Jordan and waited for them to process the application.

I want to make sure that you understand the point that I am making. We are not saying we should open the doors for every single refugee, let them in without being properly vetted, without the proper security checks, without the background checks; but certainly someone who is providing services to the United States military, who had already been vetted by the military, who was saving lives, deserves better than, you have got to leave the country, you have got to find a general to sign the form, you have to pay hundreds of dollars for the form, you have to wait for a year, and then we will see if we can let you in.

To top it off, when he finally arrived here, this individual, who has critical military skills, the ability to read and understand what our enemies may be saying about us, was told, well, you have got to find a job somewhere, maybe you can drive a taxi. I think the State Department and Department of Defense ought to be rolling out the red carpet for this individual.

One of the most glaring deficiencies we have in our military right now is an inability to translate documents, to hear what our enemies are saying about us. We ought to be hiring these people at whatever salary we can afford to pay them.

Then to add insult to injury, when he came here, he asked, well, how do I get various documents? There was no one area to give him some information, nothing.

So Frank Wolf, who was the ranking Republican of the State and Foreign Operations Subcommittee on which I now serve, and I have introduced legislation that would make this system a little easier for people who have already established that they can help the United States.

Number one, we would allow our Ambassador in Iraq to have more authority so that he can vouch for the credibility of those who assisted U.S. efforts.

Number two, we allow those people to apply for visas at the U.S. Embassy or U.S. Consulate in Iraq. We don't force them to go to another country, Jordan or elsewhere.

Number three, we waive fees for those who have demonstrated their support for U.S. forces, their assistance, who have been properly vetted. We help find translators find work in the United States in the military and State Department, and we broaden relocation benefits.

Now, who can be against somebody who helped our Armed Forces by translating for them? I can't think of a single person who would say, no, they risked their lives, but we have to make them stay there. We have to make it harder for them and suggest this is another area of bipartisan agreement that we can agree on.

I am hopeful that the Israel-Wolf resolution will be passed by the House, passed by the Senate, and signed by the President.

I don't know whether any of my colleagues would like to comment on that particular legislation or share some of their thoughts, but I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

I thank the gentleman.

Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on one point that the gentleman made, and then I'm going to yield to the gentleman from Texas and the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

Madam Speaker, the gentleman talked about the importance of having a dialogue here on the floor of the House, and I agree. I don't know how we can expect Sunni and Shia and Kurd to reconcile their differences when we seem to be incapable of reconciling our differences. I think we should lead by example.

But in addition to engaging one another on the floor of the House, I believe that leadership also involves bringing communities together. And one of the unique things that the Center Aisle Caucus will be doing under the leadership of the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Cramer) and the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson) is to have town hall meetings in each others' districts on Iraq so that we can listen together to the broad range of opinions that are in our districts and bring that back in a bipartisan fashion.

And I'm very pleased, Madam Speaker, to have learned that our first bipartisan town hall meeting will be in the district of the gentleman from Maryland. Mr. Cramer from Alabama, Mrs. Emerson from Missouri and I will be traveling to the gentleman's district in Maryland to have a bipartisan town hall that he is convening, and I'm very much looking forward to engaging in that dialogue, and hoping that the gentleman will be educated by what my constituents believe, and that I will be educated by what his constituents believe.

With that, I will yield to the gentleman from Texas.

I thank the gentleman. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

And before I yield to the gentleman, I do want to point out that one of the proudest achievements that I believe this Congress has had is that we passed the largest single increase in veterans health care in the 77-year history of the VA. We did that several months ago. I think that's another shining example of bipartisan cooperation that puts the interests of our troops first and subjugates any partisan interests that sometimes occur here.

And with that, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

I thank my friend.

Madam Speaker, our time is drawing to a close; so I would like to summarize some of the points that we have made and some of the very specific solutions that the Center Aisle Caucus is pursuing.

Number one, we have a bipartisan resolution that would direct the President to submit and negotiate a status of forces agreement with the sovereign government of Iraq.

Number two, we believe that if you are a refugee who was providing a critical lifesaving service for U.S. forces as a translator, as an interpreter, or some related position and that you have received death threats and that you want to get your family out of harm's way that we shouldn't make it almost impossible for you to do so, that a compassionate nation would reward you rather than building roadblocks. So we have proposed legislation cosponsored by Mr. Wolf from Virginia and me that would make it a little bit easier for those who have provided a service to the United States military to seek special immigrant status here.

Number three, we believe that the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group report ought to be incorporated into policy and not just sit on a shelf, the recommendations for a diplomatic surge and all the other recommendations. Now, we may not agree on every single one of these elements, and we may not agree on every single one of the bills that the Center Aisle Caucus has put forward, but we are trying to build that critical mass and develop consensus on some clear directions.

Next, the Center Aisle Caucus will be visiting one another's districts to hold bipartisan town hall meetings because we may not have all of the ideas here. Our jobs are Members of Congress, but we are representatives. We are supposed to represent the views that we hear. So we will be going out on a bipartisan basis to one another's districts to hear those views.

One other thing that I didn't have an opportunity to mention and we will mention it in the future is that our colleagues from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) and from Pennsylvania (Mr. English) are working on a bipartisan Center Aisle assessment of the War Powers Act. As our colleague from Tennessee (Mr. Cooper) said at one of our dinners, ``I fear that one day we as Members of Congress will wake up and find out that we have just launched World War Three and we are reading about it in the newspaper.'' He is very concerned, as is Mr. English, that the War Powers Act needs to be assessed. We want to make sure that we are exercising our constitutional oversight responsibility and that we don't find ourselves in a war without that proper congressional authority and oversight. So they will be convening an assessment of the War Powers Act and making some legislative recommendations.

I want to conclude by reiterating something that I said when we opened up, Madam Speaker. We are not going to end the war tomorrow through the Center Aisle Caucus. None of these resolutions will end the war tomorrow as

much as many of us would like to end the war tomorrow and may vote to end the war tomorrow. But we have had enough screaming at one another from both sides of the aisle, and that has not ended the war up to now. We have an obligation to the people that I saw yesterday, that my colleagues Mr. Dent and Mr. Lampson and Mr. Gilchrest have been visiting at our military hospitals and at funerals. They don't want us to harp on left and right. They want us to figure out a way forward. They want us to put aside disagreements that have paralyzed us and move forward on what we can agree to. That is exactly what we intend to continue focusing on.

I thank my colleagues for spending time on this very late evening, and I hope, Madam Speaker, that the American people understand the importance of this engagement, this reconciliation, this dialogue to move not left or right but forward.

Did the gentleman want to close?

Madam Speaker, we will never be the Disney Channel, but it is a good start.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished friend and partner in this critically important project, and I thank her for her leadership on this legislation. I know that she has been so dedicated and so devoted to this cause.

Mr. Speaker, on September 11, the President of the United States spoke to the Nation, and here is what he said: ``The American people have faced other grave crises in their history--with American courage, and with American resolution. They will do no less today.''

I am not talking about President Bush saying those words on September 11. Believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, I am talking about President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who said those words on September 11, 1941, 60 years before the attacks on our Nation.

We have witnessed that resolution and that courage all around us since September 11. We witness it almost every day in our own interactions with the rescue workers, with the first responders, with those who could have fled and gone in another direction, but instead showed up and said that they wanted to help.

I know of an ironworker, Mr. Speaker, his name is John Sferazo. John Sferazo went to Ground Zero to help. He refused to leave. Today, John Sferazo's voice sounds like gravel. His breathing is labored. His chest hurts him. I know that my friend is well aware of John Sferazo.

John Sferazo contracted some very serious medical problems at Ground Zero. He probably knew then that he would have these problems. But still he didn't leave. He stayed there. And as a result of his courage and his commitment, his resolution and his determination, today his breathing is labored, it is difficult for him to speak. Our obligation to John Sferazo is to make sure we take care of him, to monitor his health, to improve his quality of life, to take care of him, because when the time came, he was there to take care of us.

I know of another worker, Mr. Speaker. I met him at a Ground Zero workers conference in my congressional district at the State University of New York at Farmingdale. I met him about a year ago.

I was a speaker at that conference; and as I was leaving, he stopped me in the lobby, and this is what he said. He said, Congressman, I am not sure I am going to be here next year. I am embarrassed to say, Mr. Speaker, that I thought he was saying that he wasn't

sure he could attend the conference next year.

I said, Well, I am sure that you will be able to come back. He said, No, you don't understand. I'm not sure I am going to be alive next year, is what he said. He said, What I am supposed to do with my family? Who is going to take care of them?

It may sound melodramatic, Mr. Speaker, but these are real people. Can you imagine doing what you thought was the best thing you could do, serving your country, serving your colleagues, going to Ground Zero, sacrificing yourself, and now you are not sure you are going to be around a year from now?

What is our obligation to these people? Our obligation is to take care of them and to take care of their families. Our obligation is to make sure that they get the health care that they need. Our obligation is to let them know that we will not forget them.

I will close by suggesting that next week many of us in Congress will attend 9/11 ceremonies. I plan after votes to fly home to be at Commack High School in my district for a 9/11 vigil. We are going to light the candles, and we are going to talk about what a grievous day that was and our commitment to having a strong Nation.

But, really, we should not think about these people just on 9/11. This should not be an anniversary commemoration. The legislation that the gentlewoman has introduced with my friends from New York will make sure that this is not just an annual commemoration, but that every single day, those workers who were there on 9/11 at Ground Zero get the health care that they need and that we are securing their future.

We had faced a crisis that day, a national crisis. They face a crisis every day, a personal crisis; and it is up to us to help and to secure their future.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman again for her leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in great concern over the ongoing Qassam attacks on the southern city of Sderot, Israel. Sderot is a community that has been plagued with frequent and intense firing on its inhabitants and infrastructure since Hamas's takeover of Gaza. These Palestinian militants are attempting to destroy an entire population and bring everyday life there to a halt.

Even today, two Qassam rockets landed in the vicinity of Sderot. One of these rockets was aimed at and landed near a kindergarten, on the first week of the new school year. Imagine the dilemma parents in this region face--they don't know if their children on any given day are safer at school, or at home given the continued rocket firings.

These homemade rockets cannot aim solely at military targets because they do not have any degree of precision. They are primitive, short- range, home-made rockets that do not have the technical capability to be guided, and consequently, strike innocent civilians. They have indiscriminately destroyed the economy and physically and psychologically devastated family life.

The current situation is unacceptable--the terror organization Hamas is clearly violating Israel's sovereignty and overriding Israel's right over its land and people.

A city of no more than 24,000, Sderot is less than a mile from the border with Gaza, where Israel withdrew its troops in the summer of 2005. Since then, thousands of these rockets pummeled this city and terrorized men, women and children on a daily basis. Sderot citizens are unable to go about their normal lives and should not be expected to live under this permanent threat.

Israel has shown considerable restraint and patience in dealing with those terrorist firing, despite the severity of the situation and the casualties and injuries they have taken. However, Israel has the complete right to defend itself against these intolerable attacks. No belief, however misguided, can justify the victimization of innocent people.

I would like to express my solidarity not only with the citizens of Sderot, but with victims of terrorism around the world. We need to do everything we can to bring an end to this unjust situation and help create a lasting peace so that the citizens of Sderot can go about their lives.

Mr. Speaker, today there is going to be lots of talks about process and procedures and walkouts and delays. The American people don't want us to focus on process. They don't want us to walk out. They want us to move forward.

One way we can move forward on both sides of the aisle is to pass an energy bill today as a matter of national security. Because 2 years ago the Department of Defense spent $10.6 billion to fuel itself to protect us. The Air Force spent $4.7 billion on one thing: Fuel.

We are in a situation right now where we are borrowing money from China to fund defense budgets to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to protect us from China and the Persian Gulf.

This is not the time to delay or walk out. This is the time for us to work together, move America forward, pass an energy bill and make us safer.

Madam Chair, point of order.

Madam Chair, we have been debating this amendment for 1 hour. We accepted this amendment within that 1 hour.

Madam Chairman, how many times can our friends on the other side of the aisle raise nongermane issues after the Chair has ruled that they must confine their remarks to the underlying bill?

Madam Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I yield to the distinguished chairwoman of the subcommittee.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, with violent crimes increasing for the first time in 15 years, with more pressure on the Federal Bureau of Investigation, less resources and less investments in keeping our communities safe is not the answer. Cutting programs to the FBI, cops on the streets, anti-meth programs is not the answer.

Our communities want safer streets. They want a vigorous response against crime. That's what this bill does.

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

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman said that we can afford to cut or shave budgets for anticrime programs like COPS. The gentleman did not support attempts to cut or shave the $90 billion in tax shelters that allow offshore companies to shelter their profits, open up P.O. boxes in Bermuda so that they don't have to pay their fair share of taxes. We invest a fraction of that $90 billion tax shelter, $693 million, to add 2,800 cops to the streets of neighborhoods. We want to make neighborhoods safer by adding more cops. The gentleman wants to make corporate offshore profits safer. That's a difference in priorities between our bill and theirs.

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

Mr. Chairman, violent crimes increased 3.6 percent in the past 2 years for the first time in 15 years. The gentleman's response is to cut spending for police officers, child abuse programs, domestic violence programs and antidrug programs by 3 percent.

With that, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I have the right to close; is that correct?

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

Well, here we go again. We've been here week after week after week and entertained amendment after amendment after amendment. I respect my colleagues for trying. Unfortunately, a majority of their caucus disagrees with them, as does a majority of Congress. These amendments keep coming up, and they keep getting defeated, and there's good reason for that, particularly with this bill.

Let me share some statistics with you, Mr. Chairman. I alluded to them before. Violent crime is increasing in the United States today for the first time in 15 years. In 2005, violent crimes increased 2.3 percent. 2006, violent crimes increased another 1.3 percent. From 2002 to 2005, Mr. Chairman, there were an additional 100,000 new meth users over the age of 12.

Now, there is a dangerous correlation, because at the same time these violent crimes are increasing, Federal investments in safe communities have been cut. From 2001 to 2006, funding for local law enforcement grants was cut 42 percent. This isn't just a cut in the rate of increase, this is a wholesale cut in Federal support for anticrime programs, 42 percent, from $4.4 billion to $2.5 billion. And not only is crime going up as a result of these Federal cuts, but local taxes, which in many cases are the most regressive form of taxation, are going up as well. Because the fact of the matter is that when you cut Federal law enforcement resources, the criminals don't go away. They stay on the streets. They keep robbing banks. They keep beating people up. They keep stealing. They keep conspiring. And so while the Federal Government has abandoned its commitment to keeping our streets safe, it's the local governments who are now responsible for trying to keep those streets safe. And so all this Federal cut is is a transfer of the obligation to local taxpayers. So what sounds like a cut on the Federal level ends up costing taxpayers even more and more to protect their communities.

Mr. Chairman, let's analyze some of these cuts while crime increases. Safe communities. This small group of Members, who disagree with every Republican on the Appropriations Committee who supported this bill, had no problem supporting a $90 billion tax shelter for the biggest offshore companies on Earth to protect their profits. We in this bill invest a fraction of that, $693 million, to add 2,800 police officers to our streets to protect our neighborhoods.

The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. We can have differences on how to protect our borders. We all want to keep our borders safe, but if someone crosses our borders here illegally and then commits a felony, or several misdemeanors, and is arrested and incarcerated, most of us believe that the Federal Government ought to assume the financial obligation for incarcerating those people.

This small group of Members had no problem spending $14 billion on tax cuts for the biggest oil companies on Earth in the history of profit-making. We invest a fraction of that, $405 million, to reimburse local taxpayers for the costs of the incarceration of criminal aliens. What makes more sense to America?

The war on drugs. We learned in Iraq that you can't win a war when you underfund the troops. Well, guess what, Mr. Chairman. You can't win a war on drugs when you underfund cops on the streets. This small group had no problem spending billions and billions of dollars on Vice President Cheney's no-bid contracts. We invest a fraction of that, $40 million, to fight illegal drugs with mobile enforcement teams; not mobile enforcement teams in Iraq, Mr. Chairman, mobile enforcement teams here at home.

Child exploitation. We fund 93 additional positions in U.S. attorneys' offices to fight child exploitation and enforce obscenity laws; 38 new positions in U.S. attorneys' offices to fight gang crimes. Gang crimes are proliferating. Gangs are a national problem. They cross not only State borders, they cross town lines and county lines and village lines. It requires a national investment to stop these gangs from preying on our children. We invest in stopping those gangs. This small group says, let's cut gang enforcement by 3 percent.

Domestic violence. We invest $430 million for the Violence Against Women Act for prosecutions. This small group says, we can protect the profits of big drug companies, we can protect the profits of corporations that register themselves at P.O. boxes in Bermuda, but we have to save the investment in protecting women from domestic violence?

Finally, Mr. Chairman, and this is the real kicker, to coin a phrase by my friend from Ohio several days ago, the war on terror. For the past 7 years, the FBI counterterrorist caseload has increased more than 100 percent, from 1,150 to nearly 2,400. How do they make the argument, Mr. Chairman, that as the counterterrorist caseload is going up 100 percent, we should shave resources by 3 percent to the FBI? I think most Americans understand that they can't go out and investigate terrorists, that that's the job of the FBI. We want the FBI to have those resources.

If there is money for oil companies, if there is money for offshore corporations, if there is money for Halliburton, how is it that we can't afford additional resources for the FBI in the global war on terror?

Mr. Chairman, I'll conclude by suggesting that this really is about priorities. And this is the debate we've had.

The sponsors of this bill have legitimate philosophies, and I understand their philosophies. Their philosophies are wrong.

They say government wants more of your money and that you should decide how to spend it. That's not true. They've spent the people's money on tax cuts for oil companies. We want to invest in COPS for neighborhoods. They've spent it on no-bid contracts for big companies. We want to spend it on investigators for the FBI. They spent it on protecting the profits of offshore companies. We want to invest it in protecting the safety of our neighborhoods.

That is why, Mr. Chairman, Republicans and Democrats, were united on this bill in the Appropriations Committee. Every Republican on the Appropriations Committee joined Democrats in passing this bill because it was common sense, the right investments, the right priorities. And that's why when this amendment is offered again on the floor for a vote, it will follow the same course and the same fate as every similar amendment before it. It will be defeated, not just by Democrats, but by Democrats and Republicans who understand that America would rather have their neighborhoods patrolled by more cops than have the offshore profits of companies at P.O. boxes in Bermuda protected by this small group of Members.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman.

I just want to shed some light on some of the rhetoric we've heard. Ripe from the committee report, FBI field investigative resources used for criminal investigative matters have decreased 29 percent from nearly 6,200 agents to 4,400 agents over the same period. The committee is concerned over the decline in FBI criminal investigative resources, particularly in light of the recent announcement by the FBI that violent crime in communities across the Nation, murders, robberies, forcible rapes and aggravated assaults, rose for the second straight year.

Why would we want to cut the FBI $90 million when crime is increasing?

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, now we have been accused of supporting a socialistic government because we want to put more cops on the street and because we want the FBI to have more resources to go after terrorists who are trying to destroy democracy. For that we are a socialist government, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Chairman, before I reserve the balance of my time, I just remind the gentleman who accused us of being socialists that I think just about every Republican, including very conservative members of the Appropriations Committee, supported this bill. I don't believe they would appreciate being called socialists because they believe in cops on the street and more resources for the FBI. They are not socialists; neither are we. We are commonsense, mainstream Members of Congress who want to protect America's neighborhoods.

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

Mr. Chairman, while they talk about cutting the increase, criminals keep increasing. There has been a 3.6 percent increase in violent crimes. We believe at least we should keep pace with those criminals so we can put them behind bars and bring them to justice.

I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California.

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?

Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman has exhausted her time?

Mr. Chairman, I will just make a brief point and then yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

With the deepest respect to the gentlewoman, no one is implying that there is not concern by every Member of this body for those who have drug problems, for those whose lives are being ruined by meth. But you can't just wish these problems away. Somebody's got to take responsibility for working to end those problems.

Just like you can't wish them away, you can't expect that they are going to be dealt with by cutting investments in antidrug programs or even cutting the rate of increase, if you want to use the other side's terms.

We've put $40 million in this bill for mobile enforcement teams for antidrug programs; not mobile enforcement teams in Iraq, mobile enforcement teams right here at home to help the gentlewoman's constituents with those problems, to provide for a better future. We're investing in that future. We can't just wish these problems away. You've got to respond to them, and that's what we are trying to do.

Now, if the other side made the argument that we could cut giveaways to big oil companies and cut offshore tax corporate giveaways and cut all this corporate welfare and then cut these important criminal justice programs, then their arguments would have more credibility. Their arguments lack credibility because they're saying we can afford all these corporate giveaways, but we can't afford enforcement teams on drug abuse, we can't afford more cops on the street while crime is increasing, we can't afford counterterrorism initiatives and extra agents at the FBI while al Qaeda is planning against us.

This is just a difference in priorities, Mr. Chairman. We are strong on crime. We also understand that if you're going to be strong on crime, you can't just say it, you've got to do it, and frankly, it takes investments to do it.

That's what this bill does, and that's why every Republican on the committee supported this bill when it was in the committee, and that's why this amendment will be defeated by Republicans and Democrats alike.

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, it warms my heart to know that the gentlewoman in her district visits schools and talks to local schoolchildren, and emphasizes those values of civility and tolerance and mutual understanding in our classrooms, and doesn't try to separate people by Democrats and Republicans.

I hope that the next time the gentlewoman goes into those schools and talks to those schoolchildren, and they ask her, Mr. Chairman, ``What are you doing to keep us safe from al Qaeda and the terrorists who are planning against us,'' that she will say to them, ``My proudest moment, young children, is that I cut the FBI budget by 0.05 percent, while approving tax cuts of $14 billion to the biggest oil companies on Earth.''

I think those children would rather be investing in the FBI to keep them safe than be giving away those billions and billions of dollars in tax cuts to the biggest oil companies in the America.

I reserve the balance of my time

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee.

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

Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that I have the right to close, and I am reserving to close.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask how much time is left.

Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that there is no tax increase in this bill. The other side, Mr. Chairman, they went from saying that there is a tax increase to that this may put us on a trajectory to a tax increase, could be, possibly.

There is no tax increase in this bill.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Chairman, do I have the right to close?

I thank the chairman.

Has the gentleman yielded back his time?

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

Mr. Chairman, I am the final speaker, and I have the right to close.

Mr. Chairman, this is like a soap opera. It doesn't matter when the American people tune it in, turn it on, it's the same script, the same characters, the same plot, the dialogue.

Every week this small group of Members tries to offer these amendments, and every week they're defeated, defeated by the members of their own caucus.

This appropriations bill was passed by the Appropriations Committee on a bipartisan basis. Democrats and Republicans supported this bill because it has the right investments for the American family.

They support the notion that we should make sure that we have children in car seats that are safe. The gentleman's amendment would cut funding for car seat safety for our children.

They support the notion that we should make sure that our highways are safe. The gentleman's amendment would cut funding for highway safety.

They support the notion, Republicans and Democrats alike, that when you go to the airport, there should be enough inspectors to make sure that your plane is safe. The gentleman's amendment would cut the number of inspectors for airlines and increase delays at airports.

Republicans and Democrats on the Appropriations Committee alike agreed with the notion that elderly people who worked hard, raised their families, paid their dues should have a chance, a better chance, to get decent housing. The gentleman's amendment would cut that chance of decent housing for the elderly.

And Republicans and Democrats alike, who share commonsense values and compassion, also agree that if you're disabled, you should have a chance to get some decent housing. The gentleman's amendment would cut the chance of getting decent housing if you are disabled.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman talked about the common family and the values that they have. Let me suggest to the gentleman one thing, and then I will close.

This isn't really about the argument that the gentleman uses that we should cut spending. With all due respect, the gentleman was nowhere around when we spent and spent and spent and borrowed and borrowed and borrowed for special interests. I will talk about the typical American family.

This morning on the front page of the newspaper there was a story about how

huge tax breaks that some on the other side supported for the largest multinational corporations on Earth, that were promised to create jobs, did the opposite. Two years ago, according to the newspaper, when companies received a big tax break to bring home their offshore profits, the President and Congress justified it as a one-time tax amnesty that would create American jobs, but the companies did not create many jobs in return. Instead, since 2005, the American drug industry has laid off tens of thousands of workers in this country.

And so let's close by returning to that family. The gentleman may have a family in his district, a Jones family. Mr. Jones worked for one of those big multinational corporations that have a P.O. box in Bermuda to escape their fair share of taxes at home. Mr. Jones thought that that tax break to that big company was going to save his job. The company got the tax breaks. He got a pink slip.

Now, if that's not bad enough, the gentleman would propose that Mr. Jones, when he goes on the highway to try and find another job, that he's less safe; that Mrs. Jones, who's working at the Wal-Mart, when she straps her daughter into a car seat, that that car seat be less safe because of the cuts to those programs; if the Joneses have enough money to scrimp and save and maybe visit their parents or grandparents in another State, that they wait even longer to get on the plane, and that the plane not have the inspection as quickly as it needs to; and that if Mr. Jones' and Mrs. Jones' parents or grandparents want to have a decent roof over their heads, that they have to wait longer, in fact may not even qualify, because of the cuts in housing assistance for the elderly and the disabled.

The difference between us is that we want to invest in the American family, and the other side, not everybody on the other side, Republicans and Democrats alike, on a bipartisan basis, passed this bill to invest in the American family.

The sponsor of this amendment wants to continue giving giveaways to the richest special interests. We believe those funds are better spent with the American family.

That's what this is about, and that's why I'm so proud that Republicans and Democrats alike supported this bill in the Appropriations Committee and will defeat this amendment when it comes to the floor later.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.