Bob Goodlatte

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5017) to amend the Temporary Emergency Wildfire Suppression Act to facilitate the ability of the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into reciprocal agreements with foreign countries for the sharing of personnel to fight wildfires.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 5017, the bill just considered.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, new technologies offer a wide variety of resources for research and communication; however, we must face the reality that technology can also be used or harm. For example, computers may be used to generate pornographic depictions of children. In addition, the Internet offers predators unparalleled access to our children and can provide an avenue for abuse and exploitation. The Internet has become a attractive arena for child sex abusers, child pornographers and pedophiles because it is easy for them to share images and information about children and to make contact with children. As advances in technology began to threaten the protection of children by interfering with the effective prosecution of the child pornography laws that cover the visual depictions of real children, Congress in 1996 attempted to address this concern with the ``Child Pornography Prevention Act.'' The 1996 language included a prohibition of any virtual depictions as well as pictures of youthful-looking adults. However, in a disturbing decision on April 16, 2002, the Supreme Court ruled in Ashcroft v. the Free Speech Coalition that this language was overbroad and unconstitutional, paving the way for child molesters to hide their abuse behind technology; for example, with altered photographs of their victims. Computer technology exists today to disguise depictions of real children to make them unidentifiable and to make depictions of real children appear compute generated. Furthermore, future technology will have the capability to make depictions of virtual children look real and completely indistinguishable. Congress has a compelling interest to protect children from sexual exploitation. Sexually explicit computer images that are virtually indistinguishable from images of real minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct poses a serious danger to future prosecutions involving child pornography. The April 16 Supreme Court decision gives protection to child molesters who may claim that the images they possess are not those of real children, insisting that the government prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the images are not computer- generated. To prove a child is real will require identifying the actual child. This is usually impossible since many of the victimized children are from third world countries. The impossible task of identifying the child will allow child molesters and pornographers to escape prosecution for their crimes against children. Child pornography, virtual or otherwise, is detrimental to our nation's children. Regardless of the method of its production, child pornography is used to promote and incite deviant and dangerous behavior in our society. I urge each of my colleagues to join me in support H.R. 4623, which will address the April 16 Supreme Court decision in Ashcroft v. the Free Speech Coalition to ensure the continued protection of children from sexual exploitation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 3971.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3971) to provide for an independent investigation of Forest Service firefighter deaths that are caused by wildfire entrapment or burnover.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise today in support of H.R. 3971, introduced by my colleague, the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Hastings), to provide for an independent investigation of Forest Service firefighter deaths that are caused by wildfire entrapment or burnover. Today, as we debate this issue, large wildfires are burning across the country. Over 1.4 million acres have already been consumed, and the worst may be yet to come. The devastating fires that are burning right now warrant the passage of this legislation. This bill provides for a thorough and unbiased investigation of firefighter fatalities by an independent source. Firefighting is an inherently dangerous job, and we should do what we can to reduce the risks. I believe the main purpose for this legislation is to prevent future deaths from occurring. However, it is important to remember that the most effective way to prevent firefighter fatalities is to prevent catastrophic wildfires from occurring in the first place. Our Nation's forests are in desperate need of good management to restore them to a state where they can endure natural low-intensity wildfires, wildfires that are more predictable and, therefore, safer for firefighters and communities by preventing the extreme and erratic behavior that makes fighting fires so dangerous. It is very simple logic. The best way to prevent firefighter deaths is to prevent catastrophic wildfires. Due to past instances and the fires currently burning across the Nation, I believe this bill provides another tool for the well-being of firefighters. In so doing, I hope that we will not lose focus on the more important point of preventing wildfires through the healthy management of our forest land. This legislation is important and strives to ensure mistakes causing deaths are not made twice. It ensures our Nation's commitment to the safety of firefighters. The integrity for investigations of firefighter deaths should not be jeopardized, and by passing this legislation we move to address the issue of creating safer environments for firefighters by preventing catastrophic wildfires. I urge the Members of this body to join me in taking this important step today. By passing H.R. 3971, we can renew the efforts for firefighter protection and move on to ultimate safeguards for firefighters, which are the management of healthy forests and the prevention of catastrophic wildfires. I congratulate the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for his introduction of this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to join me in declaring a strong complement to the safety of firefighters. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Hastings), the author of the legislation. (Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, today I join my colleague Representative Paul Gillmor in introducing legislation submitted by the Administration which would implement three very important international agreements involving the distribution and sale of chemicals and pesticides in international commerce. This legislation will amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and the Toxic Substances Control Act in order to comply with our obligations under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs Convention), the Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution on Persistent Organic Pollutants (LRTAP POPs Protocol), and the Rotterdam Convention on the Prior Informed Consent Procedure for Certain Hazardous Chemicals and Pesticides in International Trade (PIC Convention). Due to their unique characteristics, POPS, which include substances such as DDT, PCBs and dioxins, are chemicals of both local and global concern. POPs are toxic, persist in the environment for long periods of time, and accumulate as they move up the food chain. The United States, among the very first to call for a global POPs Convention, provided strong leadership throughout the negotiations to bring this important environmental treaty to a successful conclusion. Likewise, the PIC procedure is designed to give participating countries in the developing world information about the risks posed by banned or severely restricted chemicals, as well as certain severely hazardous pesticide formulations. Each of these conventions represent a well thought out and balanced approach at gaining international agreement on procedures to protect human health and the environment. I commend all of the negotiators from the present and past administrations that worked on these agreements. Mr. Speaker, the legislation we introduce today represents a starting point from which Chairman Gillmor, working through his Subcommittee on Energy and Commerce, and I through mine on Agriculture, will build bipartisan legislation under which the United States would be in full compliance with our international obligations under these conventions. I look forward to working with my colleagues, the Administration, and interested constituencies to develop this legislation and ensure that the United States continues to hold our position of leadership in developing effective, achievable and balanced international environmental policy.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to welcome Bishop Frank Neff Powell, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Southwestern Virginia, and one of my constituents, who has been chosen to serve as Guest Chaplain this morning. Bishop Powell was born in Salem, Oregon. He was baptized at Saint Paul's Episcopal Church in Salem, Oregon, in 1948. Growing up in Salem he met his future wife, Dorothy Houck. He attended Claremont Men's College, in Claremont, California, graduating with a degree in history in 1970. During college, he was active at Christ Church Parish, Ontario, California. Immediately following graduation, he married Dorothy and enrolled in the Episcopal Theological School in Cambridge, Massachusetts. While there, he completed his field education at Church of our Savior in Milford, New Hampshire, and at St. Dunstan's in Ellsworth, Maine, graduating in 1973. Bishop Powell began his ordained ministry as the curate at Trinity Parish in his home State of Oregon before being appointed vicar at Saint Bede's, Forest Grove, in 1975. These were fruitful years for the Powell family, marked by the birth of their three children, Charles Neff, Dorothy Louise, and Robert Bingham. Bishop Powell was called to the diocese of New York in 1983 to serve as archdeacon and deputy for program, with a special emphasis on Christian education, stewardship, and small churches. He helped to develop the Carolinas and Virginia Small Church Leadership Training Program. In 1991, he was called back to Oregon to serve as executive assistant to the bishop of Oregon. Most recently, on June 22, 1996, he was elected the fifth bishop of Southwestern Virginia. He is presently an associate of the Society of Saint John the Evangelist, a member of the Council of Associated Parishes for Liturgy and Mission, and a fellow of the College of Preachers. In addition, he was appointed to the Church Deployment Board of the National Episcopal Church in 1997. Bishop Powell's life has been marked by continual service and dedication to the Episcopal Church and to the dictates of his personal faith. It is a distinct pleasure to welcome him to Washington today to open the United States House of Representatives in prayer, one of the finer traditions of this institution in which we humbly seek divine guidance and wisdom for the difficult tasks before us. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to welcome Bishop Frank Neff Powell, Bishop of Southwestern Virginia and one of my constituents, who has been chosen to serve as guest chaplain this morning. Bishop Powell was born December 28, 1947, in Salem, OR. He was baptized at St. Paul's Episcopal church, in Salem, OR, on November 28, 1948. Growing up in Salem he met his future wife, Dorothy Houck, in the church youth group. He attended Claremont Men's College, in Claremont, CA, graduating with a degree in history in 1970. During college, he was active at Christ Church Parish, Ontario, CA, and in the Episcopal students group. Immediately following graduation, he married Dorothy, and enrolled in the Episcopal Theological School, in Cambridge, MA. While there he completed his field education at church of our savior in Milford, NH, and at St. Dunstan's in Ellsworth, ME, graduating in 1973. Powell began his ordained ministry as the curate at trinity parish in his home state of Oregon, before being appointed vicar of St. Bede's forest grove, in 1975. While at St. Bede's the liturgy was redesigned, Christian education expanded, the congregation began to actively engage the community, and a new church was built. These were fruitful years for the Powell family as well, marked by the birth of their three children, Charles Neff, Dorothy Louise, and Robert Bingham. Bishop Powell was called to the diocese of North Carolina in 1983 to serve as archdeacon and deputy for program, with a special emphasis on Christian education, stewardship, and small churches. He helped to develop the Carolinas and Virginia small church leadership training program. In 1991, he was called back to Oregon to serve as executive assistant to the bishop of Oregon, attending to administration, vocations, deployment, and secretary of convention and council. Most recently, on June 22, 1996, he was elected the fifth bishop of southwestern Virginia during a special council held at St. John's church, in Roanoke. He was ordained and consecrated at Burris auditorium on the campus of Virginia tech, later that year. He is presently an associate of the society of St. John the evangelist, a member of the council of associated parishes for liturgy and mission, and a fellow of the college of preachers. In addition, he was appointed to the church deployment board of the national Episcopal Church in 1997. Bishop Neff's life has been marked by continual service and dedication to the Episcopal Church and to the dictates of his personal faith. It is a distinct pleasure to welcome him to Washington today to open the United States House of Representatives in prayer, one of the finer traditions of this institution in which we humbly seek divine guidance and wisdom for the difficult tasks before us.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) for his good work. I rise in strong opposition to this substitute and in strong support of the bill. In 1995, this is what the current Democratic whip said about welfare reform: ``I hope children throughout this country never have to feel the pain of this legislation. I hope it does not pass.'' It did pass. It was signed into law by President Clinton. Here is what happened. Children in hunger went down from 4.5 million to 2.5 million since that time. Black children in poverty went from 42 percent. Of all black children in 1970, rose, rose to nearly 50 percent, and then when this bill was put into effect in 1995, dropped to about one-third of all children, black children. Welfare caseloads dropped precipitously from 12 million to about 6 million. Welfare reform works: 4.2 fewer million Americans today live in poverty than in 1996; 2.3 million fewer children live in poverty today than in 1996, including 1.1 million African American children. Build on that success by passing this bill which promotes work, improves a child's well-being and promotes healthy marriages and all families. This is a good bill. Support it. This welfare reform bill includes provisions for additional state flexibility so that Governors may coordinate welfare programs. The food stamp program is one of the qualified programs under this state flexibility provision, which will allow the Secretary of Agriculture to waive portions of the Food Stamp Act as long as she maintains that all benefits are used for food, as in the current food stamp program. To ensure the integrity of the program states must also complete quality control reviews and cannot expand the food stamp program eligibility standards. Additionally, the Secretary of Agriculture will be allowed to approve 5-year block grant demonstration projects for up to 5 states. The block grant will promote a competition for excellence among states. Eligible state plans must include a description of the eligibility rules to which a State would adhere when providing assistance. The competition among states would boil down to the selection of states with innovative management plans, quality of program proposals and maximizing benefits to people in need. As in the food stamp state flexibility portion of this bill, states must retain the current law that mandates that all benefits must be used for food. The temporary assistance for needy families (TANF) program has shown that block grants work. Critics' assumed that the states cared less than people in Washington. States have proven the critics wrong with regard to their successful implementation of this program. The American Public Human Service Association has testified that the continued state success is contingent upon ``maintaining and enhancing the flexibility of the TANF block grant.'' The time has come for us to take the first steps in allowing the same successes to be made with the food stamp program. This is a small stamp for the food stamp program because only 5 states will be allowed to operate a food stamp block grant. It is up to the Secretary of Agriculture to approve those states asking for a block grant. I expect that the Secretary will seize this opportunity to challenge states to design food stamp programs that will be effective, efficient and ease the burdens of families applying for food benefits and the people who administer the program. States have proven over the past 5 years, even to the most hardened skeptics, that they can operate good public assistance programs that meet the test of providing what needy families need most--the ability to get and keep a job and provide for their families. We are asking that these same people in the states, at least 5 of them, are able to provide this same proof to skeptics of food stamp block grants. In addition to these food stamp provisions, I support the bill's flexibility for states. This Bill offers our states more flexibility and allows them to make these welfare programs more efficient by allowing states and localities to combine certain program requirements so they would have to submit only one application. I urge my colleagues to support this bill as it continues welfare as a temporary alternative and not a permanent crutch for folks who are on hard times.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 128, I was inadvertently detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest) for yielding me the time, and I congratulate him on a hard fought battle with the Senate, and I think that on balance he has prevailed in sticking to the bill that we attempted to bring forward from the House. We have made concessions that I do not like. There are things in this bill that I do not like, but on balance, I think there are far more things in here that will help to assure the American public that they have an abundant, affordable and safe supply of food for the next several years. I am also pleased that we were able to include in this the funding to make it possible to bring local television service into every home in America within the next few years, and I am also very pleased that we are providing additional funds for food banks, a far more efficient way to deliver food to those people in greatest need in this country than the food stamp program, which is still, unfortunately, in bad need of additional reforms. Overall, I think this legislation will help America's farmers. It will help America's consumers, and as a result, I am pleased to lend my support to it.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I commend the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary for offering this very important legislation, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Barbara Jordan Immigration Reform and Accountability Act. This act is designed to address two very serious problems. The first: incompetent, negligent service that our constituents, the American citizens, and those who seek to comply with our immigration laws have faced for many decades with the INS. The INS had a backlog of 4.9 million applications and petitions at the end of fiscal year 2001. That is totally unacceptable. In some congressional offices, complaints about the Immigration and Naturalization Service outnumber IRS complaints by a factor of 6 to 1. In my office, I am sure that it is several times more than that. To give Members an example of the nature of this problem and the bureaucracy involved, because fingerprints that are taken by the INS for processing applications are only good for 15 months, some immigrants must have them taken 3 or 4 times while they wait for the INS to process their paperwork. Some people have to travel, as they do in my district, great distances to do that, or wait long periods of time before they have somebody appear in the district when they can have it done. Over 300,000 criminal and deportable illegal immigrants were ordered removed by immigration judges, and have fled; 6,000 of those are from countries identified as al Qaeda strongholds. This is the one problem that we have with our current immigration system, it is ignoring our national security problems. If the INS officials were ``following their own policies, Atta would have never been allowed to enter the United States''; that, according to a 60 Minutes report on March 10 of this year. We need to pass this legislation to support our President's proposal. To break the INS into two parts is an idea whose time is long past due, for better security and better processing for our immigrants. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to be a cosponsor of H.R. 3231, the Barbara Jordan Immigration Reform and Accountability Act, and I commend Chairman Sensenbrenner on his leadership in introducing this legislation and moving it forward. America has always been a nation of immigrants, people from varied backgrounds and distinct cultures who largely share a common desire for the freedoms and liberties, which are a birthright for native-born Americans. But with this rich heritage, vigilance is required from the federal government. We must be cognizant of who is entering the country, or we do our citizenry a disservice. With an estimated 8 million undocumented illegal immigrants residing in the United States, it is clear that the INS has failed in this duty. There is no disagreement that the INS is in dire need of reform and the events of September 11 make it clear that the need for reform is more urgent than ever. Six months after the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Immigration and Naturalization Service mailed a letter to a flight school in Florida, notifying them that two of the hijackers, including alleged ringleader Mohammed Atta, had been approved for student visas. It would be a monumental understatement to say that the INS is woefully ill-equipped to handle immigration in this era of heightened national security. In addition to INS' failure to adequately perform its enforcement responsibilities, INS has been inept in its service functions. My Congressional District offices, like those of every other Member of Congress, are inundated with complaints about INS. The INS had a backlog of 4.9 million applications and petitions at the end of FY 2001. Lost files, missing fingerprints, and lengthy delays are complaints that we hear on a daily basis. We owe our own citizens, as well as documented visitors and immigrants in this country, the attention and support that they deserve. Between 1993 and 2002, Congress nearly quadrupled INS' operating budget. It is evident that piecemeal attempts to reform INS have been unsuccessful, and throwing more money and resources at INS has not solved its problems, which stem from competing priorities and missions within the agency. It is time to acknowledge the failure of the current structure of the INS and take a comprehensive approach to reorganizing the agency. By separating the enforcement and service functions of the INS, H.R. 3231 will provide a clear mission, increase efficiency and ensure that the borders of America are protected from terrorism and other national security threats. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting for this important legislation.

Mr. GOODLATTE

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. I would say to the gentlewoman that I agree with a couple of the points she made, but the problem is she has not read the section that the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca) has cited of the Senate bill that he wants us to support because that section provides nothing for children who have been here for less than 5 years. The proposal that we put forward covers children, refugees and disabled individuals who have been here less than that time, but she also said something else that is very important. She said people would have to have been here and to have worked in order to receive these benefits, but the proposal that the gentleman from California asks us to support has absolutely no work-history requirement in it whatsoever, whereas the proposal we have put forward has a work-history requirement. That is what we are asking for. Do not do this blindly. Let us help the people who truly need the help, but let us not give a blank check to people who have not contributed to our society. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, that is why we allowed 2 years. That is a very long time to apply for citizenship. Almost all of the people who apply get their citizenship within 2 years. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentleman from Missouri, what has transpired in the conference regarding the farm bill has been inaccurately portrayed. The Senate tendered to the House a proposal that had nothing in it for the children, the refugees, and the disabled individuals that the minority leader referred to. We tendered an offer which provided Food Stamps for noncitizens who have been here from day 1 if they are disabled, they are children or if they are refugees. The difference of opinion between the House and the Senate conferees in terms of our proposals are that for those people who are adults, they are able-bodied, they are able to work and between the ages of 18 and 60, they ought to have some work history and be able to show that they were contributing, tax-paying members of our society; but they do not require that in the proposal that the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca) has set forth. That is why I am opposed to this motion to instruct conferees. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, first I commend the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo) for his contribution, standing up for welfare reform. This was a tremendous triumph, a bipartisan triumph, a law signed into effect by President Clinton, that was pushed by the Republican Congress, supported by a great many Democrats, and he is simply, and I agree with him, trying to avoid unnecessary erosion of an important principle, and that is we should be giving people a hand up rather than a hand out. Mr. Speaker, with regard to the motion to instruct conferees, the Republican offer in the conference is to give people a hand up and to help those people who are most in need: Children, the disabled and refugees. We also make Food Stamps available for others if they have a work history, and we make it available to them for a limited period of time. What the gentleman from California is asking the House to accept in terms of what the Senate put forward does absolutely nothing for children who have been in this country for less than 5 years. Secondly, it does not impose a work requirement that is not independent of the 5-year standard. In other words, what he is asking us to say is you can either have worked or been here 5 years, one or the other. You do not have to have both. That is not the position of the President of the United States, that is not the position of the House conferees, and it should not be what this House adopts as we take these negotiations forward. I urge my colleagues to oppose this motion to instruct conferees and let the negotiations go forward in a good-faith way to come up with something that is fair to those people who are truly in need but does not give a blank check to people who have not contributed to our society and, therefore, have no work history to justify receiving these benefits. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes to respond to my good friend and colleague from the committee. The fact of the matter is, the President's proposal is simple, but it leaves out children who have been here less than 5 years. They do not receive anything under that proposal. We are trying, in cooperation with the White House, and we very much respect the President's efforts in this area to work that out with the President and with the Senate conferees and the House Democratic conferees. But the fact of the matter is that it is not so simple as to say, you do it for 5 years and that is it. Now, the other thing that is critically important to recognize here is that the proposal that the gentleman from California (Mr. Baca) is asking the conference to support, the Senate proposal, does not impose any standard whatsoever on an able-bodied working adult, whether or not they have children. If they have no children, they are between the ages of 18 and 60, they have absolutely no contribution. They do not have to have worked a day since they have entered the United States. As long as they have been a permanent, lawful resident of this country for 5 years, they are able to receive food stamps. Even if they have been in the country unlawfully, they are able to get food stamps. There is absolutely no basis for giving food stamps to people who have made no contribution to the society. So all we are asking is, impose some guidelines and we can work this out.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I would respond to the gentleman, who has absolutely misrepresented the position of the House conferees, the Republican conferees, on the farm bill. The gentleman asks how welfare reform is good if children are going hungry. The fact of the matter is, the proposal that we put forward in the conference on the farm bill provides food stamp benefits for children from day one, from the first day they enter the country. The proposal that the Senate had put forward made them wait 5 years. That is a long time to be hungry, 5 years, before they qualified for food stamps. So to say that this is something that the House Republicans are trying to drive a wedge through is absolutely wrong, absolutely wrong, and it is the kind of partisan statement that does not promote working out a serious and complicated problem. But we have provided for children, the disabled, and refugees from the day they arrive in this country.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. The gentleman from Wisconsin has accurately stated that the President has put forward a proposal providing food stamps for noncitizens beyond those who already have them now. The gentleman from California, in his earlier remarks, said that the proposal that he is asking us to adopt here was the proposal that the President supported, and that is not the case. He has put forward a different proposal. At another point in his remarks he also made reference to the fact that this would be at no cost to the taxpayers. I did not follow that at all. This is a $2.485 billion cost to the taxpayers of this country, and I think people need to be aware of that. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Tancredo).

Mr. GOODLATTE. I yield to the gentlewoman from North Carolina.