Steve Israel

Mr. ISRAEL

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Chairman, I reclaim my time. Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Chairman, I reclaim my time.

Mr. ISRAEL. 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.

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

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

Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Chairman, reclaiming my time, this amendment and this appropriations bill saves $1.1 billion. Announcement by the Chairman

Mr. ISRAEL. 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.

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

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

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

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

Mr. ISRAEL. 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).

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

Mr. ISRAEL. 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.

Mr. ISRAEL. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. ISRAEL. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. ISRAEL. 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.