Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on July 12, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote Nos. 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, and 369.

Rollcall vote No. 364 was on ordering the previous question. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Rollcall vote No. 365 was on agreeing to the resolution. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Rollcall vote No. 366 was on a motion to instruct conferees. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Rollcall vote No. 367 was on the Kanjorski of Pennsylvania substitute amendment. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Rollcall vote No. 368 was on final passage of H.R. 2990, the Credit Rating Agency Duopoly Relief Act. Had I been present, I would have voted, ``yea.''

Rollcall vote No. 369, was on the motion to suspend the rules and pass, as amended. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, on July 11, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall votes Nos. 360, 361, 362, and 363.

Rollcall vote No. 360 was on the ordering of the previous question. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Rollcall vote No. 361 was on agreeing to the Berkley amendment. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Rollcall vote No. 362 was on agreeing on the motion to recommit with instructions. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Rollcall vote No. 363 was final passage of H.R. 4411. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, on July 10, I was unavoidably detained and missed rollcall vote Numbers 358 and 359.

Rollcall vote Number 358 was on agreeing to H.R. 2563, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct feasibility studies to address certain water shortages within the Snake, Boise, and Payette River systems in Idaho, and for other purposes. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Rollcall vote Number 359 was on agreeing to the H.R. 5061, the Paint Bank and Wytheville National Fish Hatcheries Conveyance Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is critical to the future of our country and our economy.

Over the last generation, Congress has raised barriers to keeping and creating jobs, American jobs. Our inability to produce natural gas is one of the barriers, and it is driving jobs overseas. Now, why would Congress force jobs overseas? Well, you are seeing that reason today.

Some say this is bad legislation; it is ill conceived. My view of that congressional interpretation of that language is ``so long American jobs.''

Some say it is not in your backyard; you do not produce it. Well, in Kansas, it is in my backyard. We have been producing oil and gas for over 100 years. So my interpretation of that phrase is it means ``good- bye American jobs.''

Some say this will damage the coastline. Well, natural gas production has continued through today. It occurred even through Hurricane Katrina, and not one environmental spill or any coastline was damaged. So the congressional speak for ``it will damage our coastline'' means ``adios American jobs.''

This is good legislation. It has gone through a compromise process. It passed out of the subcommittee with a good, strong, bipartisan vote.

Let us remove a barrier to keeping and creating jobs here in America. Let us pass this rule. Let us pass this bill. And, in doing so, we will help keep and create jobs right here in America.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, this country is witnessing disgraceful and illegal leaks of classified programs and processes that have successfully protected this country from attacks since September 11, 2001.

The evidence is printed in black and white in our own newspapers. Revealing those classified programs is very damaging to our Nation and to the safety and security of our citizens. I believe those reports revealing successful classified tools to combat terrorism will also cost millions and millions of dollars as well as the loss of safety. It is simply wrong. It is illegal.

The gentleman from Ohio pointed out that this is not the first time leaks have occurred.

It should be the last. It must be stopped now. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that the Department of Justice will convene a grand jury and provide immunity to the papers, to the editors and to the reporters if, and only if, they will reveal their government sources, the real cause of the leaks. Then I hope we will prosecute them, and I hope that the judge will hold them in contempt if they fail to produce these sources.

I believe these government leakers are politically motivated. They are doing it to embarrass this administration, and this is why the minority wants to protect them. The leakers were not successful, nor were the papers. They have not embarrassed this administration, but the leakers have damaged the security and our relationship with our partners.

Mr. Speaker, Congress needs to send a strong message condemning these leaks. We must stop the leakers, the government leakers, because they jeopardize us all.

Mr. Speaker, I hope we pass this rule and we pass this bill and send a very strong message that we will not tolerate leaks coming from our government that harm our citizens.

Mr. Chairman, I rise again today in strong support of jobs and lower energy costs for the American people. The House is considering the Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act of 2006 that would establish a common-sense framework to help America access more of its vast energy resources in an environmentally safe manner. More access to energy sources means more energy security for the American people, more jobs for workers and less dependency on foreign sources of energy.

I strongly support H.R. 4761 and commend Representative Bobby Jindal for his work on this important energy bill. I also want to thank Chairman Pombo and Chairman Barton for their work on this issue and for their leadership in helping bring this bill to the floor today.

The Deep Ocean Energy Resources Act will allow for expanded oil and gas leasing off the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) by allowing the Secretary of the Interior to offer new OCS areas for leasing that presently are not open.

I urge my colleagues to join me in support of H.R. 4761. Support of this bill is support for helping move us away from our dependency on foreign sources of energy. The United States is currently more than 60 percent dependent on foreign sources of oil to meet our growing energy demands. If we do not take steps to access more domestic sources of oil and natural gas, we are placing ourselves at an economic disadvantage. American's pay more for natural gas than any other country in the world. The high cost of natural gas is not just an inconvenience, it is costing American jobs.

My colleague from Pennsylvania, Representative John Peterson, regularly notes that America is the only country in the world with a moratorium on off-shore drilling for natural gas. While there are vast amounts of this environmentally-clean energy source available in areas far off our shorelines, opponents of lifting the moratorium are standing in the way of lowering energy costs for our farmers, chemical workers, small businesses and manufacturers.

Because Americans pay as much as 600 percent more for natural gas than other countries, American businesses are often at a competitive disadvantage when trying to compete with foreign businesses.

We all know our farmers depend upon natural gas for everything from irrigation to food processing to nitrogen fertilizer production. When the price of natural gas is high, that translates to more economic hardship for rural America. And unlike most other businesses, farmers are not able to pass along their increased input costs to consumers. It simply means less income for them and the rural communities that depend on a strong agriculture economy.

Natural gas prices account for most of the cost of fertilizers, which means that as long as we refuse to open up more of our natural gas reserves and lower the costs, farmers and rural farming communities will continue to suffer.

In the past six years, 21 fertilizer plants in this country have closed because they were no longer able to compete. This is just one example of how high natural gas prices are closing businesses and killing jobs. The longer we wait to lift the moratorium on offshore drilling, the more jobs we lose.

Small businesses suffer when natural gas prices are high because they have to spend more money for heating and cooling bills rather than investments in new technologies or better wages for workers. Instead of being able to sell their products and services for less, many businesses are forced to raise their prices. In today's 21st century economy, small businesses are often competing with foreign competitors, not just the business down the street.

Manufacturing jobs are even more at risk for leaving if we do not address the high cost of natural gas in this country. Over 100,000 chemical jobs have been lost over the past five years because of high natural gas costs. These are jobs that we should not be forced to lose. Americans deserve better than a continuation of an out-dated moratorium on offshore drilling for natural gas and oil.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for H.R. 4761 and help America compete by lowering energy costs, creating jobs and becoming more energy self-sufficient.

Mr. Speaker, we are a Nation at war. As a member of the Intelligence Committee, I am aware of many of the Nation's most important efforts to fight and win this war. I pay close attention to our antiterrorist programs, particularly when the details are revealed without proper authorization and our best efforts are rendered ineffective.

I see a trend developing in the growing number of unauthorized disclosures of classified information. In the past few months, we have read countless articles revealing details and making allegations about a host of sensitive national security programs, from the President's Terrorist Surveillance Program to the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program.

Each time, individuals who lack the fortitude to publicly take responsibility for their actions have leaked the details about these classified programs. Each time, the news media gladly aids and abets them by publishing whatever secret that will sell another paper. I am shocked by the easy attitude of many in the media towards disclosing our Nation's secrets.

This past Sunday, June 25, the executive editor of The New York Times wrote a letter to the readers about the newspaper's decision to publish the details of the Terrorist Finance Tracking program. For me, the editor perfectly summed up the prevailing attitude of the media elite.

He wrote, ``The question we start with as journalists is not `why publish?' but `why would we withhold information of significance?' We have sometimes done so, holding stories or editing out details that could serve those hostile to the United States. But we need a compelling reason to do so.''

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I take issue with that kind of arrogance. I can offer quite a few compelling reasons.

First, it is against the law.

Second, it puts our citizens at risk.

Third, publishing secrets in the open press cripples our capability to stop terrorists.

But don't just take my word for it. The WMD Commission reported this very fact to the President, and the Commission's precise language is quoted in the preamble to this resolution.

Fourth, publishing secrets in the open press costs us the cooperation of our allies.

I mentioned earlier that we are a Nation at war, but we are not alone in this war. The intelligence services of our allies cooperate with us and share their sense of information with us upon mutual understanding that this information won't be revealed.

When the secrets provided to us by our allies wind up on the front page, that sense of trust is deeply fractured. We appear unable to keep a secret. Our allies get hurt when they tried to help. They will be less likely to cooperate with us on sensitive intelligence matters in the future for fear of compromising their own sources and methods.

Finally, publishing secrets in the open press undermines people's confidence in the intelligence community. The American people support the extraordinary lengths which our government has gone to defend the Nation against the terrorists on September 11. Moreover, the American people rightly believe that our intelligence service, like our military, is the best in the world. The late Mr. Zarqawi could have attested to both sentiments.

However, when our secrets get published, the public's confidence in the intelligence community starts to ebb. Our intelligence community appears incompetent, unable to maintain the secrecy essential to carry out the mission. Our intelligence community also appears to be unsure of itself.

Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt about our efforts to fight the terrorists. Our House Intelligence Committee has conducted extensive oversight of sensitive anti-terror programs, including three briefings on the Terrorist Surveillance Program. We have had one briefing on the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program.

Mr. Speaker, I will like to make a note that the gentlewoman from California said there were no briefings on this information. I personally have had a briefing and also six on these various detainee issues. Unquestionably, these programs are legal, and they were very effective.

It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Department of Justice convene a grand jury, provide immunity to the newspapers, the editors and reporters, if and only if they would reveal their government sources for these classified leaks.

We need to make clear to the men and women of our intelligence agencies, to our allies and to the American people that these leaks must and will stop. We need to make clear to those members of the news media that publishing leaks of sensitive national security information will not be tolerated.

This resolution does just that. I offer my support, and I urge my colleagues in the House to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed the House today voted to pass a bill that would replace one arbitrary unjust tax with another arbitrary unjust tax under the guise of compromise. The House has overwhelmingly voted, with strong bipartisan support, to permanently repeal the death tax five times in the past 5 years. I have voted each time in favor of full repeal.

Some of my colleagues believe we will not be able to gain the Senate's support for full repeal of this egregious tax. And for this reason, the House should pass a compromise bill that would partially eliminate a tax that an overwhelming majority of this body and my constituents believe should be completely repealed.

Rather than partially doing the right thing in the name of compromise, the House should stand steadfast on this issue. When the House passed H.R. 5638 today, we sent a message of defeat on the willingness of this Congress to put this issue to rest. Once those who want to keep the death tax know the House is willing to compromise, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for this body to exert the political will to permanently and completely eliminate the death tax.

For this reason I opposed passage of the premature compromise bill.

My constituents in Kansas know the death tax is a duplicative tax on small businesses and family farms that, in many cases, families have spent generations building. Small business owners, farmers and ranchers should not

be taxed by the Federal Government when they die. This only forces their relatives to re-purchase what rightfully should remain in the family.

Additionally, this tax forces family businesses to invest in Uncle Sam rather than the economy. When families are forced to repurchase businesses because of the death tax, that means less money is being invested in new jobs and capital expansion. The bottom line is that the death tax is a tax on the economy because it slows economic growth.

Now is not the time to compromise on the economy. Instead, we should be doing everything in our power to support long-term economic growth. Permanent repeal of the death tax will mean more high-quality, high- paying jobs for Americans.

When I voted against the compromise bill today, I dId so to reassure my constituents I will continue fighting to permanently and fully repeal the death tax. Compromise is premature, and discriminatory against families who have been good stewards of what they have earned.

My position is unchanged: The American people deserve full repeal of the death tax.

Mr. Chairman, I wanted to rise today for two reasons, one is to commend Chairman Lewis and the Appropriations Committee for completing their work on the appropriations process today, June 20. This is quite an achievement. It has taken a lot of hard work by the committee. Both the Republican and Democrat members have worked very hard, applied themselves, had strenuous debates, and now we have completed our action, and we are looking forward to the action on the House floor for all of these bills, including today's defense bill.

The second reason I rise is to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their consideration for the young men and women that serve this great country. One of the significant additions to this bill is an additional $500 million for the National Guard.

National Guard soldiers, as you know, give up their jobs, their time with their family, make sacrifices to make sure this country is safe. Their equipment has been used and used hard, needs to be replaced. And thanks to these two gentlemen, we have $500 million to do just that.

I think this is a very good bill. It does take consideration for young men and women who make sacrifices to serve this country and carry out the will of this Nation, and I hope that we can pass this quickly and get through the amendment process quickly as well.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am a member of the Defense Subcommittee on Appropriations, as well as the House Select Committee on Intelligence. I'd like to answer several questions that have come up with this amendment.

When questioned about the purpose of this amendment, the author said that he thought that the FISA law, or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, should be rewritten. And there are some who believe that legislation should be rewritten because it was originally penned in 1978, and we have had significant changes in technology since that time. Each of us carries a phone or BlackBerry, none of which existed in that format back at the time. So there have been changes that have gone on to our technology.

But to answer the question of the gentleman from Washington, the administration does believe that they are within the current law, and they do believe they have the authority to do what the gentleman has alleged that they are doing. I don't think that there is anything that really needs to be expressed much beyond this, except that the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff) said he believes that FISA should be rewritten, if it doesn't meet the requirements of today's environment, it should be rewritten. This amendment doesn't do that. All this amendment does is strike funds for any electronic surveillance program in the United States. And I think that would be an opportunity for putting this country in peril.

One of the reasons we haven't had an attack since September 11, 2001, is because we have used every means necessary to keep ahead of the terrorists.

The terrorists have used videos to advance their ideals. They have used the Internet. They have used Web sites. They have tried to raise money and reach out and touch Americans in a negative way again and again and again. And this country has done everything possible to prevent that from happening, and they have done it successfully, and they have done it by using technology. And this amendment appears to be tying hands on our ability to use technology, and I think that is wrong.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, I suggest you pursue your bill then, because what you are doing here absolutely ties the hands of the Federal Government from protecting us, and it does not rewrite FISA.

Now, let me also make this argument that FISA is a very narrow portion of our law. There is a much broader scope that is applicable to the situation necessary to protect this country. So focusing on one portion of the law is tying our hands and trying to make the whole world comply with this one narrow segment of law, in my view, it ties our hand, and I don't think we should do it.

What I would suggest is that you withdraw this amendment, pursue your bill, along with the Republican cosponsors, because this does tie our hands. It gives us an opportunity to be less safe, and I suggest the gentleman withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5504, which designates the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 6029 Broadmoor Street in Mission, KS, as the ``Larry Winn, Jr. Post Office Building.''

Edward Lawrence ``Larry'' Winn, Jr. represented Kansas's Third Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1967 to 1985. He was born in Kansas City, MO, on August 22, 1919. He was an Eagle Scout who attended public schools and graduated with a B.A. from the University of Kansas in 1941.

Before his election to Congress, Winn spent 2 years with a radio station in Kansas City, 2 years with North American Aviation, and 2 years as a private home builder. From 1950 to 1966 he served as vice president of Winn-Rau Corp. Winn also spent 14 years as national director of the National Association of Home

Builders and is a past president of the Home Builder's Association of Kansas City. Winn was elected as a Republican to the 90th and to the eight succeeding Congresses (January 3, 1967-January 3, 1985) and did not seek reelection to the 99th Congress.

In Congress, Winn served 18 years on the Space Science and Applications Subcommittee and served on the Technology Assessment Board of the Office of Technology Assessment. He also spent 4 years on the District of Columbia Committee and 14 years on the Foreign Relations Committee. Winn served as a member of the U.S. delegation to the United Nations in 1979 and served as ranking Republican on the European and Middle East Subcommittee.

Winn also served as a member of Canadian Interparliamentary Group and as a member of U.S.-European Interparliamentary Group. He was the first congressional spokesman for Value Analysis Engineering and a strong supporter of Peace Corps and Agency for International Development. Winn received the Treasury Department's ``Bulldog Award'' for fiscal responsibility all 18 years.

Winn was the original sponsor of the legislation for the Tallgrass Prairie National Park in Kansas and after his retirement, the bill was managed by Senator Nancy Landon Kassebaum and Representatives Pat Roberts and Dan Glickman. The bill was passed, and today the park is a reality. He also is a recipient of the Paul Harris Fellowship Award for Rotary International.

After retirement from Congress, Winn was elected to the Board of Directors of Kansas City Life Insurance Company. He married Joan Elliott in 1942 and has five children.

I urge my colleagues to join me in honoring Larry Winn and his 18 years of service to the Third Congressional District of Kansas by voting for H.R. 5504.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important week for us to have this debate on the necessity of the global war on terror, a war that we did not ask for, but a war that came to us.

The gentleman from Pennsylvania pointed out that after Beirut, we left. We did not react to it. Several other instances like that occurred during the 1990s. We were attacked at the Khobar Towers; we did not react. We were attacked at the Kenya embassy; we did not react. We were attacked the first time at the World Trade Center; we did not react. The Tanzania embassy was bombed; we did not react. The USS Cole was bombed; we did not react. What did it yield us? A continuing battle against terror around the globe.

I would remind my fellow colleagues that one such incident of attacking Americans happened in the Philippines when Gracia and Martin Burnham were kidnapped, along with a constituent from Representative Bono's district. The leader of the Abu Sayyaf Group, ASG, was trained by al Qaeda in Afghanistan. That training occurred because we did not respond to these prior attacks. We left them alone.

In the Indonesian al Qaeda training papers they found, they said one of the things that America is vulnerable about is they don't follow up. You can attack them, and they withdraw. They withdrew from Vietnam, they withdrew from Beirut, they withdrew from the Cole, the Kenya embassy, and Khobar Towers. They did not react the first time when they attacked the World Trade Tower. We have continued to make ourselves vulnerable by not responding to the worldwide war on terror.

Thanks to American training and intelligence aid, the Philippine Government was able to rescue Gracia Burnham. Martin Burnham died in the rescue attempt. It was probably because we couldn't get close enough into the fight.

But the important thing that we need to remember is if we back off now, according to the paper, or the letter that was written from al Zawahiri to the now-deceased al Zarqawi, it will be considered a victory for al Qaeda if we leave. Al Qaeda is the one that has decided to bring this war to Iraq and to fight Americans. That information is available on their Web sites and in the information that we collect. It is what the captives tell us when we interview them.

They want to take this fight to the Americans in Iraq. I tell you, if we are going to have to fight terrorists, I would rather fight them at a place where every American carries a gun rather than on the streets of New York or Washington or Wichita because they have brought the fight to us. It is not we who decided to do this.

I think it is very important as we pursue this worldwide battle against terrorism that we insist on doing it with our full resources, with full dedication, and that we disrupt their finances, that we disrupt their places of safe haven, that we disrupt the countries that are providing protection for them, and that we go to the terrorists and we find the root causes of this terrorism and sever the root.

I think the reason we have seen so much money from al Qaeda going to Iraq, the reason that they have sent so many weapons into Iraq, the reason so many foreign fighters have gone into Iraq is because that is where they want to fight this battle.

If we leave now, it would be giving them a victory and we would be once again putting another picture on the board here saying we should have fought harder; we should have stopped it back in 2006.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of House Resolution 318 which promotes responsible fatherhood. I am a proud cosponsor of this resolution but an even prouder father of three. My children are the joy of my life and my wife Vicki and I have thoroughly enjoyed each stage of their lives as they have grown up. I would like to encourage all fathers to realize the impact we have on our children. It is imperative that we not only love our wives as Jesus Christ loved His church, but that we show that love to our children. Our children must be our priorities, and that is exceedingly hard in this world. I challenge all of us fathers to work at maintaining a loving and active relationship with our children.

Whether it is attending sporting events, going hunting and fishing, or playing guitar with your children, Almighty God has placed in our lives the gift of children and we must honor Him by our example. My own father is a man of God and an example to me of a godly leader and solid Christian. Thank you, Dad, for the impact you have been in my life and the lives of my children. Happy Father's Day.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is relatively simple. It says that none of the funds in this bill will be made available for an income tax electronic preparation and filing system at the IRS, being prepared by the IRS.

Now this is a stopgap measure for just 1 year until we thoroughly review before the authorizing committee acts upon this. The IRS is attempting to do a return-free tax system where they would write the software and administer the software so people could have their taxes prepared by the IRS.

They first tried to do this in 1998. They announced it during their annual software developers conference. We tried to stop it. Congress was successful. They did not move forward with it.

In 2000, once again, they tried to propose a tax software business inside the IRS. Congress protested and the IRS backed off.

In 2001, they tried a different avenue through the U.S. Postal Service. Again, Congress weighed in and the plans were again dropped.

In 2002, the IRS used its e-government project and EZ tax filing system. Once again the government backed off after Congress intervened.

In 2004 and 2005, they tried through the return-free tax filing system. We intervened and once again they backed down. Last year Chairman Knollenberg, along with myself and the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) had a colloquy clarifying the House's intention to stop the IRS going into the tax preparation business.

The reason why we are opposing this is stated very well by Mr. Alford, president and CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce. He believes that the prohibition should be supported. He says, number one, that the current Treasury Secretary, the IRS Commissioner, as well as President Clinton's last IRS Commissioner, are on record of opposing such a plan, and for very good reasons.

I am going to quote Mr. Alford. He said, ``It is extremely difficult to fathom that a government agency whose primary responsibility is tax collection and tax compliance would not be biased against helping the individual taxpayer when it comes to maximizing deductions. The IRS and State tax collectors are under constant pressure from lawmakers to maximize revenue intake.'' He said that they would likely do everything legally possible to minimize deductions on those tax returns if they prepared them.

Following what Mr. Alford said, those that would be impacted most are minorities because they are usually single, one-job, wage-only type taxpayers that use the 1040 EZ form. They would be the ones at greatest risk. It is not the wealthier Americans who spend money to have their taxes prepared by an expert, but it would be more likely that the IRS would minimize the deductions of lower income earners.

Also, Mr. Chairman, it is not really apparent how much this system would cost. The IRS says just to design the system would cost $300 million, and administering, keeping upgrades and maintaining the software is not included in that. And the private sector already has those products. Software is available. I use Tax Cut software to prepare my own taxes.

This is where the government is trying to compete with the private sector. I think it is inefficient. I think that it is difficult for us to believe that they would try to maximize deductions for taxpayers, especially those in lower income levels and those that are minorities.

Number five, lastly, is polling. The Wall Street Journal recently in an on online poll of 3,000 respondents, 70 percent of them said we should oppose the IRS getting into the business of preparing individual tax returns.

Mr. Chairman, I realize that this would be subject to a point of order under clause 5 because of the way our House rules are written.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment not because I believe it is necessary, but because it is under a point of order; but will carry on the battle to make sure that the IRS does not get into the business of competing with the private sector and taking advantage of those in lower income levels.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, the chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development has done a fine job. We are a nation of priorities. Each year we must decide where the resources that have been given to us by the taxpayers will be spent.

This bill is a good example. The chairman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) made good decisions on the allocations within this bill. The subcommittee worked its will, making sure that the allocations were filled to the best of our ability.

Then the bill went to the full committee appropriations process, and the amendments were conducted. And again the will of the committee was worked. Not all of the requests were funded. It is the same with Amtrak. Their request was not funded, and it is because Amtrak is undergoing some financial stress that they have asked for more funding.

But this is not new to our economy. Other portions of our economy have also been under financial stress. For example, the airlines have been faced with similar shortfalls in revenue. And yet when they were faced with these shortfalls, they undertook a search of every cost. They went to their workers. They went to their pilots. They went to their flight attendants. They went to the mechanics. And they asked them, could you help out under this current period of financial stress? And the unions and the workers all weighed in to help with the cost structure.

The same thing happened in our auto manufacturing industry, where the United Auto Workers weighed in and helped bear some of the reductions in costs so that they could keep their companies afloat.

They came to the table, they did the right thing for their jobs, for their families, and they made themselves more competitive in times of financial stress. Now we come to Amtrak. Amtrak has looked at some of their costs, but their workers have never weighed in.

Mr. Chairman, I think when you look at the costs that Amtrak is asking for, we need to look across the spectrum, at the union agreements, at the wages that are being paid, at the benefits, as well as the cost of the infrastructure, the cost to operate, the energy costs, so that each and every facet of Amtrak weighs into these costs. We have done that. The reforms are in place. We hope to see the reforms completed,

Mr. Chairman, I think it is time that we have these reforms that we have put in the bill become enacted, so that we can take each facet of the cost in Amtrak into the formula to come up with a plan to make sure that Amtrak is solvent in the future.

I thank the gentleman from Michigan for spending the time on these allocations within this bill. I think he has done a fine job. I would oppose the gentleman from Ohio's amendment, let the reforms take place and make sure that Amtrak is solvent in the future.