Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind my colleagues of some important facts as we deliberate on these earmarks. I think it is very important to understand that we have reduced the dollar value of earmarks in this bill by 50 percent from the levels that the Republicans had when they were running this House of Representatives. A 50 percent reduction. We have cut 41 wasteful programs from the budget in this appropriations bill. We have saved over $1 billion over last year.

So instead of getting involved in the intricacies of one earmark after another, let's keep focused on the facts that count. And the fact that counts is that we reduced this budget and slashed those earmarks in half.

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

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).

Mr. Chairman, I ask how much time both sides have left?

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

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

I appreciate the gentleman's argument. At least his argument is consistent. I appreciate the gentleman's integrity, and I appreciate the principles of his argument. But I must say, sitting here listening to some of the other Members on the other side of the aisle consistently raises issues of inconsistency.

The gentleman who's offered this amendment has said we should go back to last year. That's all we're doing is going back to last year so we can hold the line on spending. Why we would want to go back to last year? When last year was there ever an attempt to hold the line on spending?

Mr. Chairman, the other side spent and spent and spent and borrowed and borrowed and borrowed. The difference between us is we want to invest in America's families. The other side, Mr. Chairman, decided to spend to give special interest giveaways. We want to spend to make sure that kids can get Pell Grants and go to college and compete in the global economy. They wanted to spend on no-bid contracts to Halliburton. We want to spend to make sure that seniors can heat their homes in the winter because of high oil prices. They wanted to spend on $13 billion in tax cuts for oil company executives who I don't think are eligible for LIHEAP. That's the difference between us.

We just had a debate earlier about the propriety of Members of Congress putting their names on projects that are funded by the Federal Government. I would suggest to my good friends that if there were an earmark for a facility called the Congressional Hypocrisy Treatment Foundation, there wouldn't be a plaque large enough for all of their names.

Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

The gentleman just said the things that they are investing in and implying that the Democrats are making these investments. Yes, we are making these investments. They are investments in strengthening American families, making sure kids can go to college, making sure people can afford to heat their homes.

I will tell you something else, it's not just us, this bill came out of appropriations with a strong bipartisan majority. The most conservative Members of the other side voted for this bill. It's not that we are making these investments as Democrats, it's that most mainstream Members of Congress, with responsibilities to our districts, are making these investments.

Now, maybe there are some who are so far on the other side, so far on the fringe, that they would argue with their own conservative Members that an investment in college education is a bad idea. But the fact of the matter is, they are in a very, very small minority.

This bill has strong bipartisan support in the Appropriations Committee. Republicans and Democrats work together despite the opposition from such a fringe minority.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Chairman, how much time is left?

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

Mr. Chairman, may I ask how many speakers the other side has?

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

Mr. Chairman, the differences we have heard in this debate are entirely clear. We want to, with Republicans on the Appropriations Committee, who by a widespread margin supported this bill. We want to continue to invest in America's families and in their future. A very small group of Members on the other side want to continue going to the past where they were spending taxpayer dollars on special interest giveaways.

There are people, in all of our districts, who are scratching their heads trying to figure out how they are going to send their kids to college so they can compete in a global economy. The President wants to slash or eliminate college affordability programs for 1.5 million students.

Now, that's why Republicans and Democrats on the Appropriations Committee supported investments that will make additional Pell Grants available so that people who are working hard, playing by the rules, and want their kids to advance can send their kids to college. This isn't a radical idea.

This was a bipartisan consensus on the Appropriations Committee. But those who are offering these cutbacks don't agree with Republicans and Democrats who believe in making investments so that people who play by the rules and work hard can send their kids to college.

There are people in our districts who are trying to figure out how they are going to pay for their skyrocketing home heating oil costs. The President wants to cut home heating oil programs by $379 million and take away assistance to 1.5 million people.

That's why Republicans and Democrats on the Appropriations Committee agreed that we should invest a fraction of that, $880 million to make sure that an additional 1 million people can pay their heating oil bills. Republicans and Democrats on the Appropriations Committee, bipartisan, there are a few who say, no, no, we should continue giving tax cuts to big oil company executives rather than giving people the ability, helping people with the ability to pay their home heating oil costs.

There are people in our districts who can't figure out what to do if they get cancer, how they are going to have access to health care programs. The President wants to cut medical research at the NIH by $480 million and cut preventive health care services by $220 million. That's why Democrats and Republicans join together on the Appropriations Committee to invest $1.3 billion to improve health care access and help 1 million Americans receive treatment and increase investments in NIH.

This is about priorities, bipartisan common-sense priorities. This is about those of us on both sides of the aisle who believe that we should invest in strengthening America's families and a very small group who believe that we should continue to borrow to give away money to the special interests.

I want to conclude by reminding my colleagues how we go about making these investments, not by raising taxes. They are going to keep saying it and saying it and saying it. That's not how we do it. We cut 41 programs. We slashed earmarks in half. We saved $1 billion.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's plea. I will again remind my colleagues that Republicans and Democrats on a bipartisan basis came together in support of these investments in America's families. I do not recall the gentleman coming to the floor arguing for a 1 percent cutback when it was time to give rich oil company executives a $14 billion tax cut.

I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is available on both sides?

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

Madam Chairman, I would just say to the gentlewoman that in fact she may not be getting calls from people saying that it's harder for their kids to afford college, or that gas prices are getting higher, or that they're worried about their health care. But many Republicans and Democrats are getting those calls, which is why there wasn't a single Republican in the Appropriations Committee who voted against this bill.

The gentlewoman also said that we've got to be fiscally responsible. Well, that's why so many Republicans joined us in supporting this bill, because in fact this bill cuts 41 programs that didn't make sense any more, and reduces by half the number the dollar value of earmarks that we had in the past.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), a member of the committee.

Madam Chairman, we reserve the balance of our time.

Madam Chairman, it's time for a fact check for the American people. The gentleman said, well, we may have spent a lot of money; but now you're spending more.

Fact: This bill saves $1.1 billion over last year.

Fact: This bill slashes earmark dollar value 50 percent from last time.

Fact: This bill eliminates 41 programs that don't make sense any more. Facts count.

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Well, Madam Chairman, it is refreshing to hear some candor on the other side in their admission that there is a fringe. And that is, in fact, a matter of fact because there wasn't a single Republican vote against this appropriations bill in committee.

Now, those who define themselves on the fringe would suggest that the answer to America's problems is a 1 percent solution. We can rein in our deficit that they built up with a 1 percent cutback.

I don't know where they were, and I have a very high regard for their position, but I do feel an obligation to ask where were they in offering amendments to cut $13 billion in giveaways to the richest oil company executives making the largest profits in the history of humankind? Where was the 1 percent cut amendment then? Suddenly we could afford that, but we can't afford additional Pell Grants for the steelworker that the gentleman refers to.

Where were they with an amendment for a 1 percent cut in excessive payments to Halliburton, $1.47 billion in payments to Halliburton that have been found by the Federal Government to be fraudulent? Where was the amendment to cut those payments by 1 percent? We could afford excessive and fraudulent payments to Halliburton, but we can't afford additional investments in cancer research and access to health care for the American people.

I would respect my colleagues if they showed more consistency. But there has not been that consistency. It is not about spending. It is about spending on the wrong things and the wrong priorities.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I thank the gentleman.

I will conclude, Madam Chairman, by suggesting that the mainstream view, the view that has been endorsed on a bipartisan basis by mainstream Republicans and Democrats on the Appropriations Committee and the American people is that we should make investments in education. The fringe view: more oil money for oil companies.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Well, another fringe offering. Now we're down to .5 percent. The solution to America's problems is now down to .5 percent. The solution to America's problems is now down to .5 percent, less Pell Grant money so the kids can go to college, higher fuel bills in the winter for people who can't pay their fuel bills. I never saw a .5 percent reduction in funds to Halliburton. I never saw a .5 percent reduction in the $13 billion in giveaways to Big Oil company executives, who are making the world's greatest profits. But now suddenly, when it comes to reducing people's heating bills or reducing their college costs, we want them to have another .5 percent burden because the burden they have just isn't enough.

This is deja vu all over again. It was a bad idea on the amendment before this. It was a bad idea on the amendment before that. It's still a bad idea, it's just down to a .5 percent bad idea.

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Madam Chair, I would just pose a question to the gentlewoman from Colorado and would yield to her for a response.

I am just curious as to how public education is funded in the State of Colorado.

I will yield to the gentlewoman.

Thank you. Reclaiming my time, the gentlewoman's proposal

would impose an across-the-board cut in No Child Left Behind. No Child Left Behind is a Federal program that local school districts must honor. It is a huge unfunded Federal mandate. And I don't know about the gentlewoman's school districts, but I know that my school districts come to me all the time saying, Washington is forcing us to do these programs, but they're not giving us the money that they promised, which means that we have to raise taxes.

And so I would respectfully suggest to the gentlewoman that a .5 percent cut in this bill is a .5 percent property increase in her congressional district, because those poor school districts don't have the ability to say yes or no to those programs. They've just got to provide the services and find the money for it.

We don't think that local property taxpayers should have to bear that burden. We believe, along with every single Republican in the Appropriations Committee, that the Federal Government should assist in those programs.

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

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

Madam Chairman, I would yield to the gentlewoman if she cares to answer this: The committee report states that the committee recommends $15,027,000 for prevention grants to reduce the abuse of runaway youth. Does the gentlewoman advocate a .5 percent reduction in a $15 million budget to prevent the abuse of runaway youth, which was supported unanimously in the committee?

Madam Chairman, I will yield to the gentlewoman.

If the gentlewoman can't answer, I will ask her to give us an answer to this: the committee report, unanimously approved in committee, recommends $42,430,000 for community-based child abuse prevention.

Announcement by the Chairman

Madam Chairman, I ask the gentlewoman whether she is advocating a .5 percent reduction in a $42 million line item for community-based child abuse prevention. I would be happy to yield to the gentlewoman for an answer.

I will yield to the gentlewoman for an answer, since it is her amendment. I will not, at this time, yield to the gentleman.

I would like to yield to the gentlewoman, since it is her amendment.

Madam Chairman, I reclaim my time.

Madam Chairman, I am using the terms the gentlewoman insists on. I am reading directly from the committee report. The committee report states that there is $26,848,000 for adoption opportunities. Because we all want to reduce the number of abortions in the United States, so there is $26,848,000 for adoption opportunities. The gentlewoman's amendment would, as I understand it, reduce by .5 percent the amounts that are in this bill.

So, Madam Chairman, I ask the gentlewoman again, and I will yield to her, is she advocating a .5 percent reduction in the committee recommendation of $26,848,000 for adoption opportunities?

I will yield to the gentlewoman, since it is her amendment.

If she cares not to take the time, I will ask the gentleman. I will yield to the gentleman if he can answer this, Madam Chairman. I would yield to the gentleman, if he would choose to answer this question.

The committee report recommends $9.5 million, out of a $2.5 trillion Federal budget, $9.5 million for the adoption incentives programs. I would ask, Madam Chairman, whether the gentleman supports a .5 percent reduction in adoption incentives.

I would also ask, Madam Chairman, this: the committee recommends a total level of funding of $141 million for the Community Based Abstinence Education program. That is the level of funding that the committee, on a unanimous basis, Republicans in the mainstream and Democrats in the mainstream, agree on.

I will yield to the gentleman, Madam Chairman, if he can say is it the position of the fringe that we should actually cut by .5 percent $141 million for Community Based Abstinence programs.

I will yield to the gentleman, Madam Chairman.

Madam Chairman, I reclaim my time.

Madam Chairman, I reclaim my time.

Announcement by the Chairman

Madam Chairman, may I ask how much time I have left?

Thank you, Madam Chairman.

I would just state at some point, two plus two has to equal four. It can't equal what you want it to be; it has to equal four.

These are the amounts of funding that are in this bill, reported by Republicans and Democrats. Every single mainstream Republican, every conservative Republican on the Appropriations Committee, supported these numbers. The gentlewoman says, no, no, we have to shave .5 percent from these numbers.

I am still waiting to hear whether a single Member on that side would publicly say that they want to cut adoption programs, abstinence programs, runaway youth programs, child abuse programs.

I will yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio.

Madam Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.

Madam Chairman, I appreciate all these donkeys on posters. We won't say anything about the 3 trillion elephants that ought to be on these posters, the $3 trillion in debt that part of this fringe has supported when they wanted to spend more money on Halliburton, more money on tax cuts for big oil companies, didn't see any amendments to cut those amendments. Now we see amendments to cut or reduce the amount of spending and investment in other funds.

I would, Madam Chairman, through the Chair, ask the gentleman that if we were, you know, I guess in Washington two plus two can equal whatever you want it to be if you listen to other side, Madam Chairman. But I would like to, using the gentleman's own definition of cuts and no cuts and using his posters, I would ask the gentleman, Madam Chairman, and I'd be happy to yield to him through the Chair.

The gentleman seeks a cut, an actual cut, in Abandoned Infants Assistance. Now, this isn't a cut in any increased investment, I would say to the Chair. In fact, funding for Abandoned Infants Assistance is at $11,835,000 for abandoned infants, and if the gentleman would read the report, he would note that it says this amount is the same as the fiscal year 2007 funding level. No increase here.

Madam Chairman, I would ask the gentleman through the Chair whether he is standing on this floor advocating an actual cut in the Abandoned Infant Assistance Program match.

I yield to the gentleman from California if he would like to answer that specific question.

I reclaim my time. The gentleman has argued that a cut's really not a cut because the rate of spending is increasing. The rate of spending does not increase in this program, Madam Chairman. It is the same spending as last year, which means that the gentleman's cut is an actual, concrete, specific, documented reduction in Abandoned Infants Assistance from last year.

Madam Chairman, I would go on to another program and through the Chair ask the gentleman if he would like to, since he was unable to give me a yes or no answer on the last example, I will provide another one.

Madam Chairman, I will yield to the gentleman if he would like. Is the gentleman advocating an actual cut in community-based child abuse prevention? Because the funding for community-based child abuse prevention is not increased in this budget, not by a penny, and so the gentleman's cut actually reduces it below last year's level.

Madam Chairman, does the gentleman advocate to his constituents a cut in community-based child abuse prevention? And I would yield to the gentleman if he desires to respond.

Reclaiming my time, I'm suggesting that it was more than a quarter percent when it came to a $13 billion tax cut for the biggest oil company executives on Earth, and it was more than a quarter percent cut when it came to excessive fraudulent payments to Halliburton.

But when it comes to runaway youth, domestic violence, law and order, abandoned infants, anti-gang programs, I would rather that the money go to those investments rather than to special interests.

So I would ask, again, to the gentleman through the Chair, is the gentleman advocating a cut in adoption opportunities because the adoption opportunities program, Madam Chairman, is funded without an increase at the same level as last year. Would the gentleman agree, Madam Chairman, that the cut that he proposes means an actual cut in the program for adoption opportunities from last year's level? At least can we agree that two plus two equals four or four minus two equals two. Can we at least agree on that, Madam Chairman?

And I yield to the gentleman.

I reclaim my time one more time, and then I will reserve the balance of my time. The gentleman has offered an amendment to actually cut programs. We have listed, Madam Chairman, a variety of programs that didn't receive one penny of increase in this budget, in this appropriation, and I've asked the gentleman will the gentleman acknowledge that his amendment is an actual cut on these programs: adoption assistance, abstinence, anti-gang activities, safe and stable families, domestic violence. Is it actually a cut below last year's level? Yes or no, and I would yield to the gentleman for a yes or no answer.

Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, this amendment and this appropriations bill saves $1.1 billion.

Announcement by the Chairman

I thank the Chairman, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California, a member of the committee, Mr. Schiff.

Madam Chair, I don't know if every single Republican on the Appropriations Committee who supported this bill would appreciate being called big spenders or fiscally irresponsible. I am very pleased that the mainstream of Republicans and Democrats worked together on this.

I don't know where all the talk was about fiscal responsibility when we were appropriating $13 billion in tax cuts for big oil companies and spending money on fraudulent payments and no-bid contracts to Halliburton.

Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee), a member of the committee.

Madam Chairman, may I ask how much time remains?

Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).

Madam Chairman, we have heard in this debate that the other side is not really cutting programs, they are cutting the rate of growth of programs. But we provided about a dozen programs that get no increase in this budget, that in fact will be cut from last year's. So the fact of the matter is that these cuts are real, and these cuts hurt families.

Now, this is all about choices, and it goes back to this. Not a single member of this fringe group who disagrees with their own Republican caucus that supported this bill in the Appropriations Committee came to this floor to argue for a 2 percent cut, a 1 percent cut, a 5 percent, a .5 cut. When it came time to give $13 billion to the big oil companies, then there was plenty of money to go around.

But now the argument is we can't afford to give people who want to send their kids to college an increase in Pell Grants. Not a single amendment was offered by this fringe group when it was time to provide Halliburton with dollar after dollar after dollar so that $1.47 billion was found to be fraudulent and excessive. I didn't hear a single one of this fringe group come to the floor and argue for cuts.

Madam Chairman, I come to the floor today to compliment the Chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Appropriations bill, Mr. Obey, on preparing an excellent and well- balanced appropriations bill. The large number of meritorious programs included in this bill creates difficult choices and the Chairman has done a great job balancing the competing interests and preparing a good bill for consideration in the full House.

However, on behalf of my constituents I feel compelled to express one concern with regard to language in the bill that would require NIH funded scientists to submit to the NIH their peer-reviewed manuscripts approved for journal publication. While I believe it is important to expand access to articles on government sponsored research, my concern is that such a mandatory policy could harm some nonprofit scientific societies that depend largely on income generated by their journal publications.

A mandatory policy like this could harm journal publishers who make substantial private-sector investments in the peer review, publishing, dissemination and archiving of these research articles. Scientific societies foster and promote our Nation's scientific endeavor, and these societies and their contributions to science should be protected.

I have a substantial scientific publishing organization, the American Institute of Physics, in my district, in Melville, New York. The American Institute of Physics, AlP, was established in 1931 for the purpose of promoting physics and its application to human welfare. AlP is a 501(c)(3) membership corporation of ten physical science and astronomy societies serving a combined membership of more than 125,000 scientists, engineers and students. AlP is a large publisher of physics journals and produces publications of more than 25 scientific and engineering societies through its New York-based publishing division. My concerns on this issue are to protect and support our Nation's scientific infrastructure and a viable export industry. The issue has been highlighted for me by my constituents in Melville, NY.

I also want to voice concerns with the rescission of $335 million from unexpended Workforce Investment Act, WIA, funds included in the bill. I fully support increasing funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Act, IDEA, the program this rescinded WIA funding was redirected towards in an amendment during full committee consideration of the bill. I've advocated for increasing funding for IDEA since I first came to Congress in 2000. However, I am concerned about the use of WIA as an offset.

Unexpended WIA funding is not actually ``unspent carryover.'' It is either obligated for services, such as training, or set aside to respond to mass layoffs and other unpredictable economic events. And the Government Accountability Office, in a study on WIA expenditures, found that WIA funds are spent ``much faster than required under the law.'' WIA regulations give local governments three years to spend Title I-B Adult and two years to spend Youth and Dedicated Worker funds. Local governments have been complying with the law.

Further, carryover was an intentional spending strategy built into WIA as a planned management strategy to assure proper and consistent operation of the workforce system. Since the WIA system must respond to unforeseen economic events such as plant closings, mass layoffs or disaster relief, some funds must be held in reserve to enable immediate response.

This rescission could impact the local workforce system and their ability to train workers. It is estimated that my state's share of the national rescission would be nearly $28 million.

I recognize the tough choices we need to make in a difficult budget environment and believe the Chairman prepared an excellent bill which I was proud to support in committee and I am proud to support today on the floor. And again, I fully support an increase in funding for IDEA. However, I wanted to express this concern regarding WIA rescissions and highlight the impact it can have on states like mine.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Donald Mader. He will be retiring from Underwriters Laboratories at the end of this month after a 42-year tenure. Mr. Mader is a veteran of the Vietnam war where he served as a commandant for the 73rd Signal Battalion of the Tropospheric Scatter Communications Equipment School, before working at the Pentagon with the Army Material Command, Advanced Ariel Fire Support System.

Upon completion of his service with the Army, Mr. Mader returned to my district in Melville, NY, to work as a Project Engineer. Over the next 42 years he went on to hold numerous officer positions including senior vice president of certifications operations, executive vice president of the Americas group and executive vice president of public safety and external affairs. Most recently he has served as executive vice president and chief technology officer. As the head of engineering at Underwriters Laboratories, Mr. Mader is responsible for technical excellence and driving technical innovation across the organization, including developing and implementing consistent, state-of-the-art testing, laboratory, calibration, and instrumentation policies, procedures and practices. His organization leads research efforts in key technological areas to UL and UL's constituencies and determines the appropriate standards strategy based on business relevancy and support of the UL public safety mission.

Mr. Mader is widely respected in his field and has been recognized by his peers. He is a Certified Product Safety Manager (CPSM) with the International Product Safety Management Certification Board and a senior member of the System Safety Society. He also holds memberships with the National Fire Protection Association, the International Association of Electrical Inspectors and the Instrument Society of America. I applaud Mr. Mader for his service to both the United States Army and Underwriters Laboratory.

I thank the gentleman.

Responding to the gentleman's suggestion that we not do this because we may have a vice president one day, we may have a vice president one day, but that vice president will admit to being vice president. The current Vice President refuses to admit that he is Vice President.

Now, we have heard in Washington flimflam and rope-a-dopes and evasions and half truths. This one takes the cake. This turns the theory of plausible deniability into undeniable irrationality. The Vice President is part of the executive branch. If he is going to state that he is not part of the executive branch, he should act accordingly.

Madam Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to support the Interior appropriations bill today.

As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I was able to add $10 million for the Long Island Sound. That's $8.6 million more than last year's budget. It's more than $9.5 million of the administration's request of $500,000.

This is not a local issue, this is a national imperative. Twenty million Americans live within 50 miles of the shores of the Long Island Sound. The Sound contributes $5 billion to our regional economy. The Sound is an essential part of our history.

The chairman of the Armed Services Committee is with us this morning. He knows that Nathan Hale crossed the Long Island Sound to infiltrate the British. Generations of commercial fishing families have plied its waters.

Sadly, the Long Island Sound has fallen on hard times as a result of development pressures, nitrogen loading and run-off. This $10 million literally helps turn the tides of the Long Island Sound.

I urge my colleagues to support it, and I urge the other body to match that $10 million figure.

I thank the distinguished chairman.

I took note of the gentleman's $30 billion in donkeys. I would like to commend to the gentleman's attention $3 trillion in elephants, which is $3 trillion in debt that the other side built up while they were in control of this Congress; $3 trillion elephants rampaging through the Federal Treasury, crushing our future, strangling them with debt.

Now, the other side has said that they want to cut and we want to spend. Absolutely not true. We've cut these programs. We're being stewards with the people's money. We have eliminated over 200 programs in this project. The real issue is not cutting versus spending; it's priorities. Mr. Chairman, the American people understand priorities.

The other side had no problem finding the money to give Halliburton, in no-bid contracts, unlimited amounts of money to big corporations like Halliburton in no-bid contracts. What we're saying is let's instead invest that money in the Clean Air Act.

The other side had no problem bulldozing to passage billions and billions of dollars in tax cuts for the richest oil company executives on the face of the planet who have made more profits than any company has ever made in the course of human history. What we're saying is let's prioritize differently. Instead of using that money for tax cuts to oil company executives, let's invest it in the Clean Water Act. Let's invest it in the Environmental Protection Agency.

So this isn't just about cutting and spending. This is about priorities that the American people want us to pursue. The same choices that they make at their kitchen tables, in their living rooms, in their dining rooms, in their small businesses are the choices that we're suggesting. Instead of the wasteful spending on the special interests, the pharmaceutical companies, the big oil companies, we're saying let's return some of that money in investments on clean air and clean water.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. Let me say at the outset, I have the deepest respect for the opinions expressed in this Chamber. I may not agree with them, but I respect them.

We are all try to reduce unintended pregnancies. We are all trying to reduce abortion. In contrast to what a prior speaker said, there is nobody here in this Congress, right or left, who doesn't have respect for human life; and that kind of verbiage really ought not to be expressed in this Chamber.

I will say, however, that while I respect my opponents' arguments, the arguments do lose some credibility on the issue of fungibility. The fact of the matter is, as has been stated before, not one penny in Mrs. Lowey's bill is spent promoting or providing abortion. It is on in-kind contraceptives.

My friends on the other side of the aisle have said, whoa, whoa, but that is promoting the funding of abortion, because every single in-kind contraceptive that is donated means that there is more money by that country to fund an abortion.

Well, if you are going to apply that argument, my friends, then you better just admit defeat on the global war on terror right now. Because the fact of the matter is that many of the same countries that we are providing in-kind military assistance to to help us in the global war on terror allow for legal abortion. Some even provide abortion services.

Here is a map. If you are going to argue the fungibility issue, then in fact every time that we provide funding to Pakistan, we are promoting abortions, because in some cases abortion is legal in Pakistan.

Every time we are providing military funding and assistance to India, we are promoting abortions. Australia, Japan, South Korea. When we are providing funding for the Colombian antidrug initiative, we are promoting abortions in Colombia under that argument. Canada. Russia. When we provide military assistance to secure loose nukes in Russia, under your argument that money is fungible. They can take our assistance, secure the loose nukes and then use that money in order to provide and promote abortions.

If you use that argument, my friends, you need to go back to your districts today and admit to your constituents that every time you have supported that military aid you have supported abortion, because the money is fungible.

The Czech Republic. Many of you support providing military assistance and in-kind assistance to the Czech Republic for the national missile defense system. They permit abortions. Albania, Armenia, Bulgaria, NATO countries, South Africa, the Ukraine.

The fact of the matter is that the fungibility argument has no credibility. You can only have fungibility if you have money. There is no money in this bill for abortion services.

If we are going to have an honest debate on this issue, let's be honest and let's be consistent. What this language does is say we want to reduce unintended pregnancies. We want to reduce abortions. The way to do it is to allow for in-kind contributions of contraceptives. This is important language.

I oppose the amendment, and I urge Members to be consistent.

I thank the gentlewoman.

I do seek a clarification. The distinguished gentleman from New Jersey attempted to clarify, but I am now a little more confused. As I understood his argument, he said that when an organization promotes abortion, we are looking to punish it. But when a country that we happen to like promotes abortion, then we can provide them with $300 million or $400 million in budget support.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairwoman.

I just cannot let this go. Pile on and pile on and pile on? Let me tell you what has been piled on, $3 trillion in debt, piled on by the other side.

Growing government? The other side was in charge for the past many years. Their party ran the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives; and they piled on $3 trillion of debt.

And now we hear the unmitigated audacity of suggesting that we are the problem. Mr. Chairman, we are not the problem. We are trying to solve the problem.

And I would say with all due respect to the gentlewoman and to those on

the other side who believe that this foreign operations bill is too expensive, is the gentlewoman advocating cutting by 1 percent foreign military financing or international military education and training? Is the gentlewoman suggesting to her constituents that we should slash budgets to professionalize other militaries to assist us in the global war on terror, to make sure that they have the technology and the equipment to help win the global war on terror?

Because if you are suggesting a 1 percent cut or 2 percent cut or 3 percent cut in this bill, you are suggesting a cut in our national security. You are suggesting reducing the amount of military assistance, education, and foreign military sales that we are providing to our allies around the world.

Mr. Chairman, they are costing their own congressional districts jobs, defense contractors who are part of this Nation's defense. We will lose revenues because of these cuts to foreign military financing.

This is not just a foreign operations bill. This is a national security bill. It is a homeland security bill. They go hand in hand, and we should not be advocating slicing off one of those hands while we are fighting a global war on terror surrounded by threats.

We Democrats believe that we need a robust ability to meet that threat, not cut defense budgets as the other side is suggesting.

Mr. Chairman, I think that we're all beginning to figure this out now. When this original amendment was offered, it was advertised as a cut to the foreign assistance budget, despite the fact that Democrats already cut the foreign assistance budget.

Then we were told, oh, except it doesn't really include Israel. We're exempting Israel.

Then we were told, oh, it's Israel, and also, any appropriations that are not required to be appropriated or otherwise made available by a provision of law.

And so we start off with a cut, and then we say, well, not really a cut. We're going to void this and ignore that and sequester this and sequester that.

We're down to Secretary of State licensed chauffeur, my colleagues. That's what we're down to. We're down to the linens at state dinners. If you want to do a cut, do a cut. If my colleagues want to do a cut, do a cut. But don't try and fool the American people.

All we've heard from the other side is we have to ferret out waste, fraud and abuse, except we can't exactly find it, so we'll let you figure out.

Well, the American people have figured it out. You said you don't want to hurt national security, and yet this is a cut to foreign military financing.

You've said you want to win the global war on terror, and yet this is a cut to international military education and training.

You've said you want to cut, but not here, there, or anywhere else.

As our distinguished majority leader said previously, the truth is important, and it ought to be tried every once in a while.

What we have heard over the past several minutes is nothing but a hoax on the American people, and they're not going to fall for it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished chairwoman.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for bringing this very important amendment to the floor. I think it is a critical reminder to the Palestinian Authority that they need to get their act together and that we are losing patience with them. I want to thank the gentleman for a very constructive dialogue earlier today.

Mr. Chairman, I was at the border of Israel and Gaza when the gate fell down. The Israeli people said to the Palestinians, ``You can take this. You can have it. Try and build capability here. Try and build a country here. Try and build peace here.''

Do you know what they did with it? They sent rockets over the border into Israel. They violated every commitment they made. They didn't develop a capability. They developed Qassam rockets.

Israel is surrounded by threat in the north with Lebanon, where Hezbollah violated the border, kidnapped Israeli soldiers, rained rockets on the north; in Gaza, which has imploded; has an existential threat from Iran, which is our threat as well. In between all those places, you have people running around with grenades strapped around their bodies blowing up themselves and everybody else they can take with them.

Israel has tried to negotiate and negotiate and negotiate, and every time it has negotiated, the result has been an interlocutor that has said, we can't really keep our promises nor can we keep the peace.

So the gentleman's amendment is very, very important, and I want to pledge to work with the distinguished chairwoman, who has had these concerns and who has led this Congress in these concerns for as long as she has been in Congress, with Mr. Wolf, the ranking member, who has led the fight on these concerns, and with the gentleman, so that the Palestinian Authority gets the message that we are losing patience and we will not continue to sit by and allow them to pursue a policy of destructiveness.

I thank my distinguished chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I have listened very carefully to my friends from the other side suggest that this bill is just too expensive, that it needs to be cut. Well, let me tell you what's far more expensive.

Thirty years ago, President Carter told the American people that we were going to declare the moral equivalent of war on foreign oil. And the only thing we've managed to do in the 30 years since then is double our imports of oil from the Middle East and cut investments in renewable research and development by about 80 percent. So we tried it your way. We cut those investments 80 percent in the past 30 years. And what's the result? We've

doubled our imports of foreign oil from the Persian Gulf.

You want to know why this is so expensive a problem? It is a military vulnerability. Two years ago, the Department of Defense spent $10.6 billion on basic energy costs because of this dependence on foreign oil. $10.6 billion paid for by the taxpayer. Of that, the Air Force spent half, $4.7 billion, on one thing: buying fuel, which is also paid for by the American taxpayer.

Now, I believe, as many of my friends do, in robust military budgets. I am a very strong supporter of our military and I believe we need to spend what it takes to defend freedom, and my friends would agree. The problem is this: Because of the fact that we tried it their way and our dependence on foreign oil has actually increased, we're in a position right now where we are borrowing money from China to fund our military budgets to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to fuel our military to protect us from China and the Persian Gulf. A $550 billion military budget and we have to borrow the money from our adversaries. And, guess what, our taxpayers have to pay the interest on the money that we're borrowing from our adversaries to fuel our military to protect us from our adversaries. It makes no sense whatsoever. We've tried it their way, Mr. Chairman, and it hasn't worked.

I don't believe any one of my colleagues would suggest that we should cut the Department of Defense budget. We all believe in national security, and I'm with my colleagues on that.

But as a matter of national security, we should not cut this budget either, because this budget is a national security budget, because it is not acceptable that a Stryker combat vehicle that is ferrying our troops into some very dangerous environments gets between 5 and 10 miles to the gallon, sounds like a 1957 Buick and is a loud, moving target. It is not acceptable that our C-17s burn 3,000 gallons of fuel an hour and that we have to rely on our adversaries to fuel those systems.

I would appeal to my colleagues on the other side that just as they are strong supporters of the Department of Defense and would never think to suggest just a 1 or 2 percent reduction in military budgets, the same should hold true on this.

I would add one other thing, if I may, Mr. Chairman. One of the things that worries all of us, and worries our military planners, is not just the threats that we see in Iran, and we passed a resolution earlier today that I supported that would take a hard line on Iran and its development, attempted development on nuclear weapons, not just those things, but loose nukes. But the fact that there is a tremendous quantity of nuclear materials proliferating around the world that we have to find, identify and secure, because we don't want a rogue nation packing those loose nukes into a suitcase and bringing them across our borders.

Well, this bill contains funding for the Global Threat Reduction Initiative, whose mission is to locate, secure and remove and facilitate disposal of high-risk vulnerable nuclear material and equipment locations. It does increase the President's funding level. I think the American people would want us to find the money to secure those loose nukes. Now, maybe that means there is a little less money to go to Halliburton and no-bid contracts.

My final point is this: the other side continues to say that this is a tax increase. It is not a tax increase. It will not be a tax increase. The other side is not accurately explaining this to the American people, is the most diplomatic way I can put it.

I will say this, it does require different priorities. The other side has no problem allowing big corporations to register themselves in offshore P.O. boxes so that they can avoid paying their fair share of taxes. The other side has no problem funding and bull-dozing money to Halliburton in no-bid contracts. The other side had no problem shoveling tax cuts to the richest oil company executives on Earth.

If the money was there for that, the money is there for this bill. Maybe we need to take the money from those priorities and put them into this priority.

For America's energy security, for a strong future, and to get our troops out of those Stryker combat vehicles that are loud gas guzzlers and put them on something safer. This bill makes those investments. Those investments are, ultimately, in our national security.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished chairwoman and my wonderful partner in the New York delegation for her wonderful leadership. I want to thank the ranking member, Mr. Wolf, for producing a bill that says to adversaries and allies alike that politics can stop at the water's edge here in the United States Congress, that when it comes to foreign policy, Republicans and Democrats work together and strive to work together because we understand that a strong, muscular, fair foreign policy is in the best national security interests of our country, that where we can produce and facilitate stability and the conditions of peace, that we won't have to exert military force.

I want to thank the chairwoman and the ranking member for supporting three very specific provisions that I sought. One the chairwoman had mentioned, and that is asking the Export-Import Bank to dedicate part of their export authority to green exports, to renewable energy investments.

The Ex-Im Bank has supported $400 billion of U.S. exports in the past 70 years. That is job creation here in the United States. It is the formation of capital that supports businesses right here. I support the Ex-Im Bank. But we are hoping that they will focus on new efforts to create green jobs, green manufacturing jobs to reduce global warming, which is a national security issue. And the provision that Congressman Schiff and I requested would require the Ex-Im Bank to dedicate some of its export authority to those green technologies and could result in an estimated $1 billion in additional exports in 2008, encouraging the use of renewable energy worldwide.

The second provision that I am very proud of concerns Libya and the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. It is a matter of fact that in 1988 Libyan-backed terrorists killed 270 people, including 189 Americans, by bombing Pan Am Flight 103. They made an agreement. They agreed to a settlement that would provide payment to those families. That settlement, those promises have not been kept. I am very proud of language that we added that says that the government of Libya, if it wants to be part of the international community, if Libya wants to be part of the community of nations, they need to keep their

promises, and funds for diplomatic relations to Libya will not be expended unless those promises are kept.

Kara Weipz, as the President of Victims of Pan Am Fight 103, said that they are deeply encouraged by this important step by Congress to hold Libya accountable before it is rewarded with diplomatic relations, and that this settlement represents a promise to the families, an acknowledgement of the victims, and some form of punishment to the perpetrators.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairwoman and ranking member for their steadfast support against the genocide in Darfur. As we debate this bill tonight and tomorrow, a genocide is being perpetrated in our midst. We have said to other genocides, never again. This bill turns that statement into action.

I want to thank the gentlewoman and the gentleman for their commitment to make sure that never again means never again.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Visclosky and Ranking Member Hobson for a very strong bill that reflects wonderful bipartisan consensus. I especially want to thank them as a new member of this subcommittee for allowing all of the members to have more input into this bill than I thought was possible.

Mr. Chairman, I am a new member of this subcommittee, and I joined this subcommittee to fight for sensible and critical investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency. Before joining this subcommittee, I served for 4 years on the House Armed Services Committee and came to the conclusion that every military challenge that we confront as a Nation is exacerbated by one fact and, that is, that we have to rely on our adversaries to sell us the fuel to power our military to protect us from our adversaries.

Now, this has been a 30-year problem. Thirty years ago, President Carter addressed the Nation, declared the moral equivalent of war on foreign oil, and the only thing we've been able to do in the past 30 years since then is to double the amount of our oil imports from the Middle East and cut renewable energy investments by 80 percent. We've had 30 years of missteps, backsteps, and half steps.

This bill is the most important step forward in correcting that course that we have seen in 30 years. It puts us back on course. It increases investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy by $638 million over the administration request. It inserts language that I requested to create a new Federal advisory council on investment and finance so that we can unleash the entrepreneurial spirit of the investment community in helping us to solve this problem. It invests an additional $70 million in biomass and biorefinery. It invests an additional $51.6 million in solar. Mr. Chairman, we are now behind Germany and Japan in solar. This will help us leap ahead. It invests an additional $17 million in wind. Mr. Chairman, of the top 10 wind manufacturers in the world, only one is American. This will push us ahead.

It invests an additional $59.7 million in vehicle technologies. Mr. Chairman, we are now falling behind Japan in the development and manufacturing of an advanced battery capable of deploying plug-in hybrids. This will give us an important boost. It provides $60 million in new investments in green buildings. We are now falling behind China in the development of green-building technologies. This will put us ahead. It invests an additional $101 million in weatherization, a critically important program for energy efficiency.

This solves a fundamental military problem that we have confronted and that problem is this: we are now borrowing money from China to fund our military, to buy oil from the Persian Gulf, to fuel our Air Force to protect us from China and the Persian Gulf. This is not just an environmental or an energy problem. This is a fundamental national security problem. This bill puts us where we need to be, not only protecting ourselves from our adversaries, not only strengthening our military capabilities which need strengthening but creating the next generation of green jobs, creating a new generation of manufacturing jobs that will put us ahead of our economic competitors in these new and critically growing technologies.

So I want to again thank Mr. Visclosky and Mr. Hobson for their bipartisan leadership, thank them for involving all of their members in this debate, and urge my colleagues to support this bill which is one of the most important investments that we can make and will change that 30-year record of half steps, missteps and backsteps into a giant leap forward for humankind.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mitchell Igneri and Stephen Clarke of SS. Cyril and Methodius School in Deer Park, NY.

Mitchell Igneri and Stephen Clarke are the second prize winners in C- SPAN's ``StudentCam'' contest. ``StudentCam'' is a video documentary contest which invites middle and high school students to produce a video exploring a current political topic using C-SPAN programming. Igneri and Clarke won for their video ``War in Iraq: The Current Controversy.''

The war in Iraq is a tough issue for young Americans to grapple with today, and I would like to acknowledge these students for their excellence and creativity in exploring the political realm which surrounds our current situation in Iraq. I am proud to have been interviewed for this award-winning production.

I congratulate these two students on their achievement and thank them for their contribution to our understanding of the war in Iraq.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I actually had a question. I support the spirit and intent of this amendment, and I was hoping to ask a question to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee for yielding.

I serve on the Appropriations Committee. As I said, I support the spirit and the intent of this amendment. I am concerned that New York City has not effectively advocated for these funds, didn't, in my view, do a sufficient job of alerting the members of the Appropriations Committee to this problem, hasn't lined up its ducks, but I am willing to put that behind us.

I would just ask the gentleman, will the gentleman work with me to pressure New York City to ensure that this agreement is signed? The concern I have is that if it is not signed, it is entirely possible that the bureaucracy at the Department of Homeland Security will take the money meant for New York and send it elsewhere.

So would my very good friend from Long Island, with whom I have a wonderful partnership on so many issues, commit to work with me to pressure the city of New York to get this agreement signed so that the money goes to where it is intended?

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman. I understand the concerns he has. I am deeply disappointed in how the city of New York approached the committee or did not approach the committee on this. But I will work closely with the gentleman from Long Island in pressuring the city to conclude this agreement.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I would like to yield as much time as he may consume to the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I understand that there is a legitimate debate on the question of earmarks. I understand it is a fair topic to be debated on the floor of the House. I understand, Mr. Chairman, that the other side would be defensive about this issue in that their abuses of the earmark process, and their bulldozing to passage of these earmarks resulted in so much excoriation by the press, and a lost election and the incarceration of their Members.

But, Mr. Chairman, there is a time and a place for debate on these issues, and this bill is not the time or the place. This is the Homeland Security appropriation, Mr. Chairman. This is the last bill that ought to be politicized.

Mr. Chairman, my congressional district lost over 100 people on September 11. Over 100 people. I went to more funerals than I thought was possible. My district is about 40 miles from where the Twin Towers used to stand. When my constituents go to New York City these days, they can't see the Twin Towers because we had no homeland security in 2001. When they go to New York City, it is without the people that they loved and knew. All they have left are the memories.

Mr. Chairman, what I believe is happening today is that the Members from the other side are dishonoring those memories and, in fact, compromising our homeland security by using this critical bill to keep us safe and sound and strong to score political points on and to delay on.

That is simply not acceptable. They are putting politics, Mr. Chairman, ahead of our homeland security. They are putting politics, Mr. Chairman, ahead of our national security. They are putting politics, Mr. Chairman, ahead of the memory of those who lost their lives on 9/11.

Now, I was in Pakistan just some time ago with the Appropriations Committee. I stood on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan and learned that the Taliban is getting stronger, al Qaeda is resurging, Ansar al Islam is getting stronger and Jamah Islamayah is getting better. What is the other side doing over the past 48 hours? Spending 8 hours debating cuts to the General Counsel's Office in the Department of Homeland Security.

Al Qaeda and the Taliban are planning, plotting, and strategizing our demise; and the other side, Mr. Chairman, is spending 8 hours debating a cut in the costs of the General Counsel's Office in the Department of Homeland Security.

Mr. Chairman, forgive me if I sound frustrated. But I don't know how I can go back to my district in New York and explain to my constituents who attended funerals that instead of figuring out how to strengthen our borders, we spent 8 hours debating the General Counsel's Office in the Department of Homeland Security; that while our enemies are planning to destroy us, the other side offered eight separate motions to rise yesterday; that while our enemies are figuring out how to plan our demise, the other side is figuring out how to delay the response. How can I possibly explain that to the families that I represent?

I don't begrudge the other side their right to debate earmarks. But not on this bill. This is the wrong bill. It is at the wrong time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to return all of us to that very dark day. Many of the gentlemen and the gentlewomen who are spending all of this time consumed in a debate over earmarks in a bill that has no earmarks, who are consumed on procedural motions, held hands on 9/11 that night on the steps of this building and pledged never again. We would never let this happen again. We will do what must be done. We will bear any burden and pay any price in the defense of liberty and freedom.

What has happened in the years since then? We are not willing to pay the price. We are not willing to bear the burden. The only burden is that we are going to be here through the weekend debating more motions to rise, more amendments that are nothing but, in my view, political cheap shots.

Mr. Chairman, this is not the time and the place. We need to pass this bill to strengthen America, not compromise America's security.

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

I was watching this debate on my television in the office. I am not sure whether I was watching C-SPAN or the Twilight Zone.

When I hear some of our colleagues come to the floor and express their concern over earmarks, my question is, what is so important? I will yield to anyone on the other side. What is so important about any specific earmark that you have that it has to be rushed to passage tonight, that it cannot stand the scrutiny of this body?

If you can tell us what specific earmark you have requested that should not be studied, if my colleagues will remember, the problem was not that we studied earmarks; the problem is that they were bulldozed to passage without proper scrutiny, without proper vetting.

Well, guess what, we are running an intervention here. We are going to save you from yourselves. We are not going to allow you to continue to bulldoze these earmarks.

Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. Chairman, we are not going to allow them to continue to rush these earmarks to passage without the proper scrutiny and to make sure the American people never again have to read headlines of Members who are incarcerated because of abusive earmarks. We will not tolerate those abuses.

So I would ask, I would yield time to the gentleman if will tell us specifically what earmarks he feels so passionate about that he has requested that should be passed tonight rather than being scrutinized by the professionals of the Appropriations Committee and debated.

I reclaim my time. I will yield to the gentleman if he can publicize for us tonight what specific earmarks he has requested.

I reclaim my time.

I will yield to the gentleman if he can answer this question. Does the gentleman know what earmarks he submitted to the committee?

Does the gentleman from Nebraska know what earmarks he's submitted to the committee?

I reclaim my time. The gentleman has requested no earmarks in any appropriations bill on any appropriations bill? I'll yield to the gentleman. Ever.

I will reclaim my time. The gentleman who has railed about the evil of earmarks has just acknowledged that he has requested earmarks. I would ask the gentleman what earmarks has he requested that are so important that they should not be studied by the Appropriations Committee so that we avoid the abuses of the last Congress? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I reclaim my time. The gentleman still has not told us what earmark that he has requested is so vitally important that it should not be scrutinized.

I will yield to the gentleman if he can answer my question about what specific earmarks he has requested that are so important that they cannot be scrutinized. I will yield to the gentleman.

I am yielding to the gentleman if he can answer my question.

I reclaim my time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I am asking the gentleman to tell us, despite what he may, his interpretation of the rules, whether he knows what earmarks he has requested. He said he does know what earmarks he has requested.

I then asked him, Mr. Chairman, to share that information and explain why these should not be studied to avoid the kinds of abuses and jail sentences that occurred in the past, Mr. Chairman.

I will yield back to the gentleman.

Madam. Speaker, I rise today to honor Captain Peter Boynton. Captain Boynton will retire on June 1, 2007 after serving as Commander of Sector for the Long Island Sound, headquartered in New Haven, Connecticut, since June, 2004. Captain Peter Boynton has displayed a stalwart dedication to the safety and well-being of all those who travel on his waters and coastline for years. The Long Island Sound Sector includes 16 field units in Connecticut and on Long Island with 490 active duty military and civilians, 180 reservists and 1,800 volunteers with the Coast Guard Auxiliary. In his position as Captain, Boynton has been responsible for port safety and security, search and rescue, marine inspection and pollution response in Connecticut, Long Island and waters 200 miles offshore.

Captain Boynton has spent 10 years at sea on six Coast Guard cutters including the icebreaker Mackinaw, the cutter Spencer and the tall ship Eagle. He has commanded three cutters; Escanaba in Boston, Ocracoke in Puerto Rico, and Cape Morgan in Portland, Maine. His seagoing service includes spending five winters patrolling Georges Bank in the Gulf of Maine, and his Ocracoke crew seizing 23 tons of marijuana and 2 tons of cocaine in the Caribbean Sea.

Captain Boynton served at the White House as the Director for Global Affairs on the National Security Council staff, coordinating national policy for drug interdiction and migrant smuggling. He was also the senior Coast Guard liaison at the Department of State, coordinating international Coast Guard operations with the diplomatic community. He served as the Chief of Intelligence on a multi-agency drug task force in New York City.

Captain Boynton holds a Master's Degree in Public Administration from Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, and an Ocean Engineering degree from the Coast Guard Academy. Captain Boynton holds an unlimited Master's License in the Merchant Marine. His military awards include the Legion of Merit, Meritorious Service Medal and Presidential Service Badge.

Captain Boynton has always gone above and beyond the call of duty, specifically when it comes to paying the utmost personal attention to the questions and concerns of the community. He has built a reputation for listening to problems, answering questions, and finding solutions. He has done an excellent job protecting the people who travel on the Long Island Sound by being accessible to hearing and responding to their needs. I applaud Captain Peter Boynton for his contributions and dedication to the United States Coast Guard and the Long Island Sound.