Steve Israel

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman has exhausted her time?

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

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, while they talk about cutting the increase, criminals keep increasing. There has been a 3.6 percent increase in violent crimes. We believe at least we should keep pace with those criminals so we can put them behind bars and bring them to justice. I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

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

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

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

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I will just make a brief point and then yield to the gentleman from Ohio. With the deepest respect to the gentlewoman, no one is implying that there is not concern by every Member of this body for those who have drug problems, for those whose lives are being ruined by meth. But you can't just wish these problems away. Somebody's got to take responsibility for working to end those problems. Just like you can't wish them away, you can't expect that they are going to be dealt with by cutting investments in antidrug programs or even cutting the rate of increase, if you want to use the other side's terms. We've put $40 million in this bill for mobile enforcement teams for antidrug programs; not mobile enforcement teams in Iraq, mobile enforcement teams right here at home to help the gentlewoman's constituents with those problems, to provide for a better future. We're investing in that future. We can't just wish these problems away. You've got to respond to them, and that's what we are trying to do. Now, if the other side made the argument that we could cut giveaways to big oil companies and cut offshore tax corporate giveaways and cut all this corporate welfare and then cut these important criminal justice programs, then their arguments would have more credibility. Their arguments lack credibility because they're saying we can afford all these corporate giveaways, but we can't afford enforcement teams on drug abuse, we can't afford more cops on the street while crime is increasing, we can't afford counterterrorism initiatives and extra agents at the FBI while al Qaeda is planning against us. This is just a difference in priorities, Mr. Chairman. We are strong on crime. We also understand that if you're going to be strong on crime, you can't just say it, you've got to do it, and frankly, it takes investments to do it. That's what this bill does, and that's why every Republican on the committee supported this bill when it was in the committee, and that's why this amendment will be defeated by Republicans and Democrats alike. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. ISRAEL

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, with violent crimes increasing for the first time in 15 years, with more pressure on the Federal Bureau of Investigation, less resources and less investments in keeping our communities safe is not the answer. Cutting programs to the FBI, cops on the streets, anti-meth programs is not the answer. Our communities want safer streets. They want a vigorous response against crime. That's what this bill does. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, violent crimes increased 3.6 percent in the past 2 years for the first time in 15 years. The gentleman's response is to cut spending for police officers, child abuse programs, domestic violence programs and antidrug programs by 3 percent. With that, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), a member of the committee.

Mr. ISRAEL. Well, here we go again. We've been here week after week after week and entertained amendment after amendment after amendment. I respect my colleagues for trying. Unfortunately, a majority of their caucus disagrees with them, as does a majority of Congress. These amendments keep coming up, and they keep getting defeated, and there's good reason for that, particularly with this bill. Let me share some statistics with you, Mr. Chairman. I alluded to them before. Violent crime is increasing in the United States today for the first time in 15 years. In 2005, violent crimes increased 2.3 percent. 2006, violent crimes increased another 1.3 percent. From 2002 to 2005, Mr. Chairman, there were an additional 100,000 new meth users over the age of 12. Now, there is a dangerous correlation, because at the same time these violent crimes are increasing, Federal investments in safe communities have been cut. From 2001 to 2006, funding for local law enforcement grants was cut 42 percent. This isn't just a cut in the rate of increase, this is a wholesale cut in Federal support for anticrime programs, 42 percent, from $4.4 billion to $2.5 billion. And not only is crime going up as a result of these Federal cuts, but local taxes, which in many cases are the most regressive form of taxation, are going up as well. Because the fact of the matter is that when you cut Federal law enforcement resources, the criminals don't go away. They stay on the streets. They keep robbing banks. They keep beating people up. They keep stealing. They keep conspiring. And so while the Federal Government has abandoned its commitment to keeping our streets safe, it's the local governments who are now responsible for trying to keep those streets safe. And so all this Federal cut is is a transfer of the obligation to local taxpayers. So what sounds like a cut on the Federal level ends up costing taxpayers even more and more to protect their communities. Mr. Chairman, let's analyze some of these cuts while crime increases. Safe communities. This small group of Members, who disagree with every Republican on the Appropriations Committee who supported this bill, had no problem supporting a $90 billion tax shelter for the biggest offshore companies on Earth to protect their profits. We in this bill invest a fraction of that, $693 million, to add 2,800 police officers to our streets to protect our neighborhoods. The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. We can have differences on how to protect our borders. We all want to keep our borders safe, but if someone crosses our borders here illegally and then commits a felony, or several misdemeanors, and is arrested and incarcerated, most of us believe that the Federal Government ought to assume the financial obligation for incarcerating those people. This small group of Members had no problem spending $14 billion on tax cuts for the biggest oil companies on Earth in the history of profit-making. We invest a fraction of that, $405 million, to reimburse local taxpayers for the costs of the incarceration of criminal aliens. What makes more sense to America? The war on drugs. We learned in Iraq that you can't win a war when you underfund the troops. Well, guess what, Mr. Chairman. You can't win a war on drugs when you underfund cops on the streets. This small group had no problem spending billions and billions of dollars on Vice President Cheney's no-bid contracts. We invest a fraction of that, $40 million, to fight illegal drugs with mobile enforcement teams; not mobile enforcement teams in Iraq, Mr. Chairman, mobile enforcement teams here at home. Child exploitation. We fund 93 additional positions in U.S. attorneys' offices to fight child exploitation and enforce obscenity laws; 38 new positions in U.S. attorneys' offices to fight gang crimes. Gang crimes are proliferating. Gangs are a national problem. They cross not only State borders, they cross town lines and county lines and village lines. It requires a national investment to stop these gangs from preying on our children. We invest in stopping those gangs. This small group says, let's cut gang enforcement by 3 percent. Domestic violence. We invest $430 million for the Violence Against Women Act for prosecutions. This small group says, we can protect the profits of big drug companies, we can protect the profits of corporations that register themselves at P.O. boxes in Bermuda, but we have to save the investment in protecting women from domestic violence? Finally, Mr. Chairman, and this is the real kicker, to coin a phrase by my friend from Ohio several days ago, the war on terror. For the past 7 years, the FBI counterterrorist caseload has increased more than 100 percent, from 1,150 to nearly 2,400. How do they make the argument, Mr. Chairman, that as the counterterrorist caseload is going up 100 percent, we should shave resources by 3 percent to the FBI? I think most Americans understand that they can't go out and investigate terrorists, that that's the job of the FBI. We want the FBI to have those resources. If there is money for oil companies, if there is money for offshore corporations, if there is money for Halliburton, how is it that we can't afford additional resources for the FBI in the global war on terror? Mr. Chairman, I'll conclude by suggesting that this really is about priorities. And this is the debate we've had. The sponsors of this bill have legitimate philosophies, and I understand their philosophies. Their philosophies are wrong. They say government wants more of your money and that you should decide how to spend it. That's not true. They've spent the people's money on tax cuts for oil companies. We want to invest in COPS for neighborhoods. They've spent it on no-bid contracts for big companies. We want to spend it on investigators for the FBI. They spent it on protecting the profits of offshore companies. We want to invest it in protecting the safety of our neighborhoods. That is why, Mr. Chairman, Republicans and Democrats, were united on this bill in the Appropriations Committee. Every Republican on the Appropriations Committee joined Democrats in passing this bill because it was common sense, the right investments, the right priorities. And that's why when this amendment is offered again on the floor for a vote, it will follow the same course and the same fate as every similar amendment before it. It will be defeated, not just by Democrats, but by Democrats and Republicans who understand that America would rather have their neighborhoods patrolled by more cops than have the offshore profits of companies at P.O. boxes in Bermuda protected by this small group of Members. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. ISRAEL

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

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

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, this is like a soap opera. It doesn't matter when the American people tune it in, turn it on, it's the same script, the same characters, the same plot, the dialogue. Every week this small group of Members tries to offer these amendments, and every week they're defeated, defeated by the members of their own caucus. This appropriations bill was passed by the Appropriations Committee on a bipartisan basis. Democrats and Republicans supported this bill because it has the right investments for the American family. They support the notion that we should make sure that we have children in car seats that are safe. The gentleman's amendment would cut funding for car seat safety for our children. They support the notion that we should make sure that our highways are safe. The gentleman's amendment would cut funding for highway safety. They support the notion, Republicans and Democrats alike, that when you go to the airport, there should be enough inspectors to make sure that your plane is safe. The gentleman's amendment would cut the number of inspectors for airlines and increase delays at airports. Republicans and Democrats on the Appropriations Committee alike agreed with the notion that elderly people who worked hard, raised their families, paid their dues should have a chance, a better chance, to get decent housing. The gentleman's amendment would cut that chance of decent housing for the elderly. And Republicans and Democrats alike, who share commonsense values and compassion, also agree that if you're disabled, you should have a chance to get some decent housing. The gentleman's amendment would cut the chance of getting decent housing if you are disabled. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman talked about the common family and the values that they have. Let me suggest to the gentleman one thing, and then I will close. This isn't really about the argument that the gentleman uses that we should cut spending. With all due respect, the gentleman was nowhere around when we spent and spent and spent and borrowed and borrowed and borrowed for special interests. I will talk about the typical American family. This morning on the front page of the newspaper there was a story about how huge tax breaks that some on the other side supported for the largest multinational corporations on Earth, that were promised to create jobs, did the opposite. Two years ago, according to the newspaper, when companies received a big tax break to bring home their offshore profits, the President and Congress justified it as a one-time tax amnesty that would create American jobs, but the companies did not create many jobs in return. Instead, since 2005, the American drug industry has laid off tens of thousands of workers in this country. And so let's close by returning to that family. The gentleman may have a family in his district, a Jones family. Mr. Jones worked for one of those big multinational corporations that have a P.O. box in Bermuda to escape their fair share of taxes at home. Mr. Jones thought that that tax break to that big company was going to save his job. The company got the tax breaks. He got a pink slip. Now, if that's not bad enough, the gentleman would propose that Mr. Jones, when he goes on the highway to try and find another job, that he's less safe; that Mrs. Jones, who's working at the Wal-Mart, when she straps her daughter into a car seat, that that car seat be less safe because of the cuts to those programs; if the Joneses have enough money to scrimp and save and maybe visit their parents or grandparents in another State, that they wait even longer to get on the plane, and that the plane not have the inspection as quickly as it needs to; and that if Mr. Jones' and Mrs. Jones' parents or grandparents want to have a decent roof over their heads, that they have to wait longer, in fact may not even qualify, because of the cuts in housing assistance for the elderly and the disabled. The difference between us is that we want to invest in the American family, and the other side, not everybody on the other side, Republicans and Democrats alike, on a bipartisan basis, passed this bill to invest in the American family. The sponsor of this amendment wants to continue giving giveaways to the richest special interests. We believe those funds are better spent with the American family. That's what this is about, and that's why I'm so proud that Republicans and Democrats alike supported this bill in the Appropriations Committee and will defeat this amendment when it comes to the floor later. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the chairman. Has the gentleman yielded back his time?

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

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

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

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

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

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

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

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

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that there is no tax increase in this bill. The other side, Mr. Chairman, they went from saying that there is a tax increase to that this may put us on a trajectory to a tax increase, could be, possibly. There is no tax increase in this bill. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.