Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. This is a very modest amendment. As a sense of Congress provision, it is a recommendation from Congress, not a requirement. It sets no date by when the President must present a plan to Congress, just as soon as it is practicable. I cannot imagine why anyone would oppose this language. Currently, we have close to 140,000 uniformed men and women in Iraq. No matter where you stand on the question of Iraq, we owe it to these courageous men and women, and to their families, to let them know when and how we will bring them home to stay. Mr. Chairman, it is easy to start a war; but it is hard to get out of one. It is easy to go along and accept the military occupation. It is a lot harder to take an honest look at where we are now and determine when and how we are going to get out. But that is what we need to do, and we need to do it now. As a Congress, we should be ashamed that we have not demanded such a report from the President. This is the least we can do, to suggest that he send one. There has been no accountability with regard to this war, and this Congress has been all too content to just go along with an open-ended occupation. It is time we change that complacency. It is time we do our job. Support the Woolsey amendment.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005. This legislation takes the critical first step in expanding the number of stem cell lines that are eligible for federally funded research. For years, the United States has been the preeminent world leader in the field of biotechnology. We have made extraordinary advancements in the treatment, management and prevention of a wide range of disabilities. It's nearly impossible to read a newspaper without hearing of some new breakthrough--drug cocktails for AIDS patients; gene therapy treatments; new medical devices. These advancements are cause for celebration. Our mothers and fathers, our spouses, children and grandchildren are benefiting like never before. They are living longer, healthier lives due to our investments in scientific research. Much like this earlier research, the potential benefits from stem cells are almost limitless. And as policymakers, we have the rare opportunity to help further scientific innovation that, with the proper research and development, could produce better treatments--or even cures--for diseases like diabetes, Parkinson's Disease, and cancer. Despite some arguments that we have heard today, recent developments have proven that we are not far off from recognizing the true potential of this research. In fact, just last week, scientists in South Korea successfully created the world's first human embryonic stem cells that are patient-specific. This advancement was applauded around the world as a major step in the effort to produce cell-based therapies that won't be rejected by the body's immune system. And in my home state of Massachusetts, ViaCell and New World Laboratories, two small biotech companies, have made notable progress in their research on spinal cord injuries and tissue regeneration. Though no one can predict the outcome of embryonic stem cell research, what is certain is that without federal support, we will never fully recognize it's potential. We are at a pivotal point in our nation's history, and I hope that my colleagues will carefully consider this issue, leaving out partisan politics. With federal support, this research could have a real and tangible impact on millions of lives in this country. Our Nation's current policy severely limits scientific research, and we must not continue on this dangerous course. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting H.R. 810.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the rule and in strong opposition to what I consider a very bad bill. This Department of the Interior appropriations bill as written is a direct assault against our Nation's environment, and it should be defeated. I am particularly outraged that the bill completely zeros out the stateside grant program of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, a program that has been an enormous help to our local communities and the families who live in them. The stateside Land and Water Conservation Fund has helped to preserve open space, slow urban sprawl, and give our children safe places to play. It is a true partnership with Federal grants requiring a full match from States and local communities. It is a program that has worked, and it has worked well. But this Republican bill completely eliminates the program. It zeros it out, walks away from our local communities. The Land and Water Conservation Fund, LWCF, is based upon a simple concept: it takes revenues from offshore oil and gas drilling and invests them in our Nation's public land, letting States take the lead. For 40 years this program has a proven track record and benefited from strong bipartisan support. When Congress decided to open the outercontinental shelf to oil drilling, we pledged to use some of its revenues for the public good. With the goal of meeting the Nation's growing need for recreation sites, Congress established the LWCF trust fund and agreed to reinvest an annual portion of OCS revenue into Federal land acquisition and State-assistance development programs. Now even though LWCF takes in $900 million annually from oil and gas receipts, in recent years just a fraction of this funding has been used for its rightful purpose. And today, the Republican leadership has taken their pillaging a step further by completely eliminating the stateside program and using the money for something else. This bill breaks our promise to the American people by not spending this funding the way we are supposed to. In all, the stateside program has helped communities by funding 40,000 projects nationally, success stories that can be found in every State and in 98 percent of U.S. counties. I urge my colleagues to ask their Governors and their mayors and county commissioners if they want the stateside program to be eliminated. If the answer is no, vote against this bill. This cut is particularly harmful to our Nation's underserved areas. In fact, in many low-income urban communities, the stateside grant program is responsible for virtually all parks. This is about priorities, Mr. Speaker. This bill demonstrates that for the Republican leadership, tax breaks for the wealthy few are more precious than open space. For this leadership, millionaires are more important than kids who need a safe place to play. And for this leadership, lobbyists win and families lose. We will hear the rhetoric from the other side claiming they did the best they could with what they had. They will complain that the allocation given to the subcommittee just was not big enough. They should save their crocodile tears because those same Members voted for the budget that created those allocations. They created this mess, and now the families of this country are paying the price. I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule and reject this bad bill.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, when George McGovern ran for president in 1972, his wife Eleanor inspired the slogan, ``Put another Eleanor in the White House.'' Eleanor McGovern, like Eleanor Roosevelt, has a deep love for this country and has dedicated much of her life to causes and campaigns that would make this country--and the world--a better place. I've known Eleanor for many years and have admired her intellect and compassion. She was an early advocate for early childhood education and, like her husband, has been a voice of peace and tolerance. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert into the Record a recent article about Eleanor McGovern which appeared in the Sioux Falls Argus Leader on May 15th. I ask all my fellow colleagues to join me in paying tribute to this remarkable woman. [From the Sioux Falls Argos Leader, May 15, 2005] A Devoted Life (By Jill Callison) Mitchell.--Eleanor McGovern entered marriage hoping only that her husband, George, would return from war unscathed. If he did come back, she expected to be the wife of a history teacher. Instead, she found herself spending more than 50 years as a politician's wife. But she also carved out a place for herself, becoming more than ``the wife of.'' Indeed, George McGovern's career--which includes 12 years as a U.S. senator, Democratic presidential candidate and ambassador to United Nations agencies--may not have soared as high as it did without his wife's support, some say. ``He may not have had the political career he has had without her,'' says Judy Harrington of Hill City, who served as George McGovern's state representative from 1973 to 1980. ``I think her support, her insights, ideas and gentle corrections have helped him all along his path of public service.'' The senator himself describes his wife of 61 years as his most helpful critic and most trusted adviser. On June 23, ground will be broken for a new library and center for public service at Dakota Wesleyan University in Mitchell. The building will carry two names: George and Eleanor McGovern. ``Eleanor's done a lot of great things, and we're proud of her at Dakota Wesleyan,'' says Greg Christie, vice president for institutional advancement. But a public life can come at a cost. Eleanor McGovern, now 83 and growing frail, prefers to shun the spotlight that once shone on her family, sometimes with a scorching heat. ``George still travels a lot, but I don't go with him very often,'' she says, sitting in the living room of their Mitchell ranch-style house. ``Going from city to city and lecture to lecture isn't my idea of fun. I like to go to one place and stay for a while.'' Last week, the McGoverns took off on a three-day trip to reach their summer home in southwestern Montana, in the shadow of the Bitterroot Mountains. The trip takes three days, Eleanor McGovern says, to make it easier on the pets, an 8-year-old Newfoundland named Ursa and a 1-year-old tortoiseshell cat found on the highway. Its name, she admits with a trace of embarrassment, is Kittycat. Ursa, they say, is George's dog. But the nurturing Newfie proved her loyalty about three years ago. Eleanor McGovern had fallen, breaking her leg in two places. She dragged herself to her bedroom but was unable to reach the phone. Ursa curled herself around the prone woman for 24 hours, until help arrived. Yet, although she's often alone and sometimes lonely, Eleanor continues to support her husband's public service, no matter how often he must leave. ``She started off carrying that load when he was gone in the war after they were married,'' says Paul Jensen of Rapid City, a longtime friend. ``But today I am more aware of the juxtapositions of love and deprivation in my childhood, of freedom and responsibility in my youth, and of tenderness and chaos in my maturing years. Without those myriad strands it would have been more difficult, I know, to accept the different drives and natures of five children, to support a gentle, questing man as he moved from teaching to the ministry to politics, and to keep something in reserve for myself.'' From ``Uphill: A Personal Story'' by Eleanor McGovern with Mary Finch Hoyt. Eleanor McGovern began that uphill climb Nov. 25, 1921, when she arrived 30 minutes after the birth of her twin, Ila. Her parents, Earl and Marian Stegeberg, farmed near Woonsocket. It was a hard life, made even more difficult by the early death of her mother when the twins were 11 and their sister, Phyllis, was 4. Her father withdrew into a sadness that truly never broke until the birth of his first grandchild, the McGoverns' oldest daughter, Ann, in 1945. Eleanor and Ila became the family housekeepers. ``I have a memory of trying to bake a cake,'' Eleanor McGovern says. ``I had a recipe, but I came to an ingredient I didn't know--baking powder. So I left it out. That was a very flat cake.'' In high school, the twins stayed in Woonsocket, doing housekeeping in exchange for room and board. They took turns going home weekends. Living in town allowed them to take part in activities such as debate. That was how they first encountered a Mitchell teenager who already had made a name for himself. George McGovern and his partner debated the Stegeberg twins--and lost. ``Having high admiration for George, we adore the woman who beat him,'' says Harrington, McGovern's former state representative. But the two didn't really meet until they were freshman at DWU. In ``Uphill,'' Eleanor McGovern talks about how he asked her on a first date. Now she admits she had advance warning. Eleanor worked in the dean's office, Ila down the hall. Ila stuck her head in the door to tell her sister a request for a date was coming. ``And don't you dare refuse him,'' Ila hissed at her twin. ``It never occurred to me he would ask me for a date,'' Eleanor McGovern says. ``He was a big man on campus.'' ``I'd say within a year of that our first date I was pretty sure Eleanor was the one,'' George McGovern says. ``It was a dreamy spring. I had never known anything like it before. My only concern was that George might not care so much as I. Then on a beautiful clear afternoon he urged me to skip class with him and as we strolled slowly down the street south of campus, he reached down and took my hand. I had my answer. A clasping of hands meant everything then.'' Their campus life was short. Eleanor McGovern quit her business courses at DWU. Her sister left for Rochester, Minn., and nurse's training, and Eleanor gave financial support. The world had changed, too. After Pearl Harbor was bombed on Dec. 7, 1941, George McGovern volunteered for service in the Army Air Corps. He was called up in 1943. The couple considered delaying marriage until after he returned from combat but decided not to wait. On Halloween Day 1943, they were married in the Methodist church in Woonsocket. ``My father liked George very much, but he didn't think we should get married, and he said he would not take part in the wedding,'' Eleanor McGovern says. ``But he came that day and gave me away.'' The newlyweds took a train to Muskogee, Okla., the next day, Eleanor sometimes sitting on their suitcase in the aisle. She lived alone in a rented bedroom while her husband returned to the base. They saw each other twice a week. She followed him to Kansas, Texas, Nebraska and Idaho, before returning home to await the birth of their first baby. ``I had really wanted to get pregnant,'' she says. ``George was going overseas, and I wanted to have a baby.'' He would not see Ann until she was 5 months old. After the war, he completed his degree at DWU. The son of a Wesleyan Methodist pastor thought he, too, would follow that path. As a student pastor's wife, Eleanor McGovern had her first taste of being in the public eye. ``A lot is expected of a minister's wife,'' she says. ``And with two children very small (daughter Susan had arrived a year after Ann), I wasn't ready.'' In any case, it didn't last long. George McGovern left seminary, earning a doctorate in history. He taught at DWU before leaving to help reinvigorate the South Dakota Democratic Party. Three more children, Teresa, Steven and Mary, arrived. And in 1955, Eleanor McGovern officially became a politician's wife when her husband ran for the U.S. House of Representatives. ``I was happy when George went into politics,'' she says. ``People in my family cared about what was happening in the country.'' The first campaign was the toughest, she says. Then, they fell into a similar rhythm. She began the last campaign, in 1980, with typical humor. As a temporary home in Mitchell, staffers rented the McGoverns an aging apartment, with linoleum floors, ancient cupboards and poor lighting. ``When George and Eleanor arrived for the first time to see it--looking ever so much like an apartment they had when they first married--Eleanor looked around, smiled and said, `Well, George, it looks like we're starting over,' `` Harrington says. ``They didn't seem to mind at all.'' While he served in Congress, she pursued her own interests, primarily children and families and the choices confronting women as the stay-at-home '50s transformed into the turbulent '60s. Eleanor McGovern spoke out for adequate day care. ``She was ahead of her time in accepting that as appropriate,'' says Berniece Mayer of Sioux Falls, a former McGovern staffer. Until the demands of her husband's political career-- particularly his bid for the presidency in 1972--required her to travel, Eleanor McGovern served as, often, a single parent. ``I'm sure Eleanor's had periods where she wishes she'd never been married to a politician, somebody running for Congress, running for the Senate, running for the presidency, running, running, running,'' George McGovern acknowledges. ``There was one period when I was representing South Dakota in the House of Representatives when I came out here 25 weekends in a row, and that plays havoc with your wife and your kids,'' he says. ``I was determined to help with George's career, not only by taking responsibility for the family, but by contributing ideas. In fact, I never considered it `George's' career--it was `ours.' `` Sometimes Eleanor McGovern did think ``Stop!,'' she says, but ``I never said it. It meant so much to him. He loved being a politician, and he accomplished a lot.'' But if she could change anything, she would not have moved the children so often. ``If I had to do it over again, I'd stay with them in South Dakota,'' she says. The McGoverns have 10 grandchildren and one great- grandchild. A second great-grandchild is on the way. Their children are scattered from Montana to England. There are only four now, since their middle child, Terry, died in 1994, after years struggling with alcoholism. The sadness from her daughter's death will never leave Eleanor McGovern. ``There are pictures of her in the bedroom,'' she says. ``When I go by, I always find myself softly reaching out and touching her picture.'' Her husband later wrote a book about their daughter, ``Terry.'' It was therapy for him, she says, but Eleanor McGovern has chosen to speak only rarely about her daughter's addictions. It's OK that they have differences of opinions, he says. ``We don't worry about the fact that sometimes there could be a little tension and differences of opinion and irritation,'' he says. ``We just take that as a part of life. You can't expect complete harmony in a marriage. You have to give the other person a little freedom, too, to move to the things that they're interested in.'' ``Even today I have fleeting pangs of anxiety when I leave where I am to go to someplace else. I can describe it only as a vague sense of loss of place.'' So he travels the country, and she generally stays home. ``She's had lots of opportunities in her lifetime to be in the public eye, and she goes out of her way to stay out,'' Christy says. ``Some time ago she decided to let George do that.'' The death of her sister, Ila, in 1996 also was a blow. ``It left quite a void in my life,'' Eleanor says. Books can't fill that gap, but they often fill her days. Her husband calls her the best-read woman he knows. Eight or 10 magazines come to the house every week; she reads them all. She loves birds, particularly meadowlarks. Mayer remembers taking Eleanor McGovern out in the prairie to hear their sweet sound. When time wouldn't permit, a local radio announcer would tape the bird calls for her. It would take her home, even in a Washington, D.C., suburb. ``Many times I ached for Woonsocket and Mitchell, for cottonwoods and elms, for schools, shops, markets, doctors' offices, more often than not sprinkled with dear friends or relatives, all within walking distance.''

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have my name removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 415.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. I commend Congresswoman Slaughter and Congressman Shays for all of their hard work supporting the arts and humanities through the Congressional Arts Caucus. Mr. Chairman, this a very modest amendment. Indeed, I would support significantly greater increases for both the National, Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. The reason is quite simple--these agencies are good for the Third District of Massachusetts and for every community across the country. Nationwide, nonprofit arts industries generate $134 billion annually in economic activity, support 4.85 million fulltime equivalent jobs, and return $10.5 billion to the Federal Government in taxes. Measured against $1.4 billion in direct Federal cultural spending that is a return of nearly eight to one. Frankly, there aren't many industries that I can think of with those kinds of returns. The mid-90s brought drastic funding cuts to Federal arts and humanities programs, and it is now more important than ever to keep funding stable. By adding $10 million for NEA and $5 million for NEH, arts businesses will be able to reinvest into their creative enterprises and back into the community. Between 2004 and 2005, growth in the number of arts businesses outpaced total business growth by 5.5 percent vs. 3.8 percent. During this time, when the total number of U.S. jobs shrank 1.9 percent, the drop off of arts employment was less than half that rate. In my district, there are 1,234 arts-related businesses that employ over 7,000 people. These businesses range from non-profit museums and symphonies to for-profit films and advertising companies. The arts business community serves as a cornerstone for cultural enrichment and the tourist economy. Studies show tourists spend 7 percent more than their local counterparts on arts events. How can we deny that is good for the community's economic, social, and creative well-being. I would urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Slaughter Amendment for minor increases in NEA and NEH funding.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership in the Committee on Rules have done it again. Once again, they have bent over backwards for big business while putting the safety of the American public at risk. Last night, on a party-line vote, the Republicans in the Committee on Rules refused to allow the House to consider two important amendments which would have improved safety on airplanes and would have notified the flying public about the safety of the airplanes they fly on. Currently, cargo that is transported on commercial airplanes is not inspected. Even though our passenger luggage is inspected by TSA, the cargo that is transported on those same planes is not inspected. The TSA has not implemented regulations as the law requires them to do to inspect the cargo on these planes, and now the Republican leadership has taken direct action to prevent these inspections. Yesterday, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) asked that the Committee on Rules make in order an amendment that would have required all cargo to be screened within 3 years. We all go through these metal detectors. We all have to take off our shoes and empty out our pockets. We do that because we want to be safe. Certainly we should screen all cargo. Additionally, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) offered an amendment that would require TSA to notify passengers flying on a plane carrying uninspected cargo, the rationale being if we are not going to inspect the cargo the flying public should at least have the right to know that they are flying on a plane with uninspected cargo. Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is too much to ask for, but the Republican leadership in the Committee on Rules decided not to make these amendments in order. They decided not to allow a debate. They decided not to allow a vote. I asked the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules why these amendments were not made in order, and all he could say is they decided not to. That is not an answer. These amendments would make our skies safer. They are no-brainers, and yet the Republicans refuse to even allow us to debate and vote on these amendments. Instead of taking action to protect the American public, the Committee on Rules decided to protect the interest of the airlines and the cargo shippers. Mr. Speaker, legislation on homeland security should result in a safer public. Unfortunately, the leadership is going in exactly the wrong direction when they denied these two amendments from being made in order.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. This is an incredibly frustrating moment for many Members in this Chamber. The gentleman from Texas talks about the incredible partnership of the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), the bipartisanship and their desire to hold the Department of Homeland Security accountable and to make sure that we are all protected. Then he is urging that we support a rule that would basically cut all the provisions in the bill that would hold the Department of Homeland Security accountable. He is urging we support a rule that would basically obliterate the bipartisan agreement that we have come to here. Every Member of this House gets on an airplane probably at least twice a week. And when you look at the state of airline security, when you look at the deadlines that have been missed, when you look at the reports that they have failed to respond to, you have to ask yourself, why are we not doing a better job in holding them accountable and making sure they keep their deadlines? Again, in the Committee on Rules last night the gentleman from Texas seemed to agree with all these provisions that were in this bill to hold the Department of Homeland Security accountable, and now he is on the floor telling us to support a rule that would strip the bill of all these provisions. It just does not make any sense to me. Why do we not do this right? We know what has to be done, let us just do it. Instead, you are taking a good bill and you are just tearing it apart, and it just does not make any sense to me. We need to do this right. We cannot afford to get this wrong. So I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to appreciate the fact that we have a bipartisan bill here, to appreciate the fact that Chairman Rogers and Ranking Member Sabo and members of this committee worked tirelessly to make sure we that hold this agency accountable. It needs to be held accountable. Nobody disagrees with that. Do not destroy that by voting for this rule. Vote down this rule and let us go back and report another rule immediately, one that respects the agreement that has been reached here. Mr. Speaker, I will also be asking Members to oppose the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule so that we can consider the Obey amendment that was not made in order by the Committee on Rules. Mr. Speaker, the Obey amendment does several things. First, it funds 500 additional border patrol agents, 600 additional immigration investigators, and 4,000 additional detention beds so that the increases called for in the Intelligence Reform Act are fully funded. It also funds the grant program authorizing the REAL ID Act instead of imposing a costly unfunded mandate on our States. This amendment fully offsets the $500 million in additional funding for this border enforcement and the REAL ID Act by capping at $138,176 the tax cut people making over $1 million this year will receive. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership likes to talk about making this country more secure and about protecting our borders from terrorists, yet they refuse to provide the funds necessary to do this. They also like to brag about how they would never impose an unfunded mandate on States and local governments, yet just 2 weeks ago they did just that. We have a chance to fix this today by voting for the Obey amendment. It is very disturbing that the Republican leadership of this House would deny Members an opportunity to vote on an amendment to make Americans safer. As always, I want to emphasize that a ``no'' vote will not prevent us from considering the homeland security appropriations bill, but a ``no'' vote will allow Members to vote on the Obey amendment. However, a ``yes'' vote will prevent us from adequately protecting our borders and from stopping the major financial burden we are placing on States to implement the REAL ID Act. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and a description of the amendment immediately prior to the vote.

Mr. McGOVERN. 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. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question so that we would have an opportunity to fully fund protection of the border and urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this rule. We had a great opportunity in the Committee on Rules last night to do something good and get it right, and they blew it, so vote ``no'' on the rule as well. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Madam Speaker, the Homeland Security Appropriations bill is one of the most important bills this or any Congress will consider. The protections provided in this bill are designed to make our country safer and to prevent future terrorist acts from taking place inside the United States. The Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee has a difficult job. The gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), have done the best they could with the limited resources provided to them. While I do not agree with every choice they made, they certainly have my appreciation and gratitude for the job that they have done. Nonetheless, Madam Speaker, I am very concerned with the inadequate funding levels provided to the Appropriations Committee and with the continuing lack of accountability on the part of the Bush administration. Now, let us not kid ourselves today. Congress must provide more funding to protect our Nation from terrorist attacks. We should not be forced to choose among funding port security, air security, border security and first responders. These distinct areas of security are all necessary parts of an integrated whole, and none of them should be short-changed. But the reality is that the reckless fiscal policies enacted by the Bush administration and the Republican leadership in Congress are short-changing these and other important programs. The tax cuts enacted over the last 5 years, coupled with the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on the war in Iraq, have drained the Federal Treasury to the point where even the fire grants that help our local fire departments prepare for the challenges they face every day will be severely cut in this bill. Madam Speaker, that is the wrong choice. Many of my Republican friends will claim that the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee did the best they could with the allocation provided to them. That argument does not tell the whole truth. Many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will try to have it both ways. They want to criticize the low funding level in this bill, but they do not want to criticize the fiscal policies that have put us in the hole we are in today. I know that my colleagues on the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee will describe this bill in more detail, but I want to highlight a few key programs. Again, I am disappointed that this bill short-changes the fire grant program. It is one of the most successful programs in the country and it deserves to be increased and not cut. I am also disappointed that this bill fails to live up to the promises made in the Intelligence Reform Act, enacted just in December. This bill short-changes border security, a key component of the 9/11 Commission report that was released last year. The silver lining, thin as it is, Madam Speaker, is that the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), were able to increase some funding for port security and transit security, and I am pleased that this bill also directs the Homeland Security Department to take concrete actions to protect this country. For too long the administration has refused to hold the Department of Homeland Security accountable for its actions, and the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), included provisions to make the Department accountable, and to provide the necessary oversight of the Department that has been lacking since its creation. For example, this bill will impose penalties on the TSA Administrator if a requirement to increase the screening of air cargo is not implemented by the end of the fiscal year. Madam Speaker, for too long the Bush administration has refused to provide general oversight on the Department of Homeland Security. This fits the pattern of a complete lack of accountability on the part of this administration. From the Education Department paying for its own propaganda with taxpayer funds, to the absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, to the wasting of billions of dollars in Iraqi reconstruction contracts, this administration has made mistake after mistake after mistake. Yet the Republican Congress does not want to do anything. Ask no question, demand no answers. Under this Republican leadership, the legislative branch of government is barely a twig. And so, Madam Speaker, we see the same things happening in the Department of Homeland Security. After publicly supporting a dramatic increase in the number of air marshals, the last two Bush budgets actually proposed cuts in funding for this important program. Yesterday at the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) testified at length how the Coast Guard refuses to provide detailed plans for their Deepwater program and how the only way to get their attention is to withhold funds for this program. The same is true with the TSA's implementation of cargo screening measures and the deployment of explosive detection technologies at airports around the country. Madam Speaker, I am pleased that this bill attempts finally to force some kind of accountability from the administration. But, finally, Madam Speaker, I want to say something about the rule today. I am pleased that it is an open rule. There have been 30 rules considered so far this year, and only three of those rules have been open. That is a batting average of 100, which will get you kicked off of any self-respecting Little League team. This is no way to run the people's House. I am also disappointed with the way this rule jeopardizes much of the oversight language written by this bill, by exposing it to points of order. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) worked in a bipartisan way, as they should on an issue like this. This rule undercuts that bipartisanship. Madam Speaker, for the past 3 years the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee has been this body's only source of oversight of the Department of Homeland Security. Earlier this year the Committee on Homeland Security was established. This committee just reported out its first authorization bill, which will be considered later this week. Madam Speaker, it is not good policy to strip out the oversight language provided by the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), because of a turf fight between two committees. The Committee on Homeland Security will have a chance to bring forth its bill this week, and in the future I hope will provide the necessary oversight of the Department so that the Committee on Appropriations does not have to do two jobs; but we should not strike this language from this bill today just because the authorizing committee is unhappy. To do so would be irresponsible, and that is why the rule today should be defeated. I would say to my friends, especially on the other side of the aisle, that it is a little bit frustrating to hear them talk about accountability on one hand and to support a rule that strips all the accountability from this bill. We heard last night in the Committee on Rules of the fact that the Homeland Security Department has failed to provide Congress with required reports. We have heard about how deadlines have been missed, one after another. There needs to be accountability. It is clear that this bill, if this rule passes, does not hold up to that standard of accountability, and I would like to think that the Members of Congress, since we had a role in creating this agency, would want to hold this committee accountable. This is about our safety. This is about protecting the people of this country, and it is clear that we need to rein in the people over at the Department of Homeland Security. So, Madam Speaker, I would say in closing that I have great respect for the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Ranking Member Sabo). I think they provided the Committee on Rules last night with a good bill that had some teeth in it, that would hold the Department of Homeland Security accountable, but apparently, the Committee on Rules last night decided to just throw all that away. So I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the rule. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am not proud what we are doing here today. I mean, this is a sham; and I would say to the gentleman that the choice is clear: you either support the chairman and you either support holding the Department of Homeland Security accountable or you do not. The way the Committee on Rules came up with this rule, which subjects all these very important provisions to points of order, makes it impossible to hold the Department of Homeland Security accountable. I do not know how anybody who sat in that Committee on Rules meeting last night, all who agreed that what is going on in the Department of Homeland Security right now is very troubling, missing deadlines, not fulfilling requirements that this Congress has asked them to fulfill, I do not know how they could express solidarity with what the chairman and the ranking member were saying and then support a rule like this which undercuts all the accountability. I mean, this is wrong. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), the ranking Democrat on the committee.

Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Well, I appreciate my colleague from Texas talking about the fact this is a good bill. I agree with him. If it is such a good bill, why did the Committee on Rules allow half the bill to be stripped out? During the testimony before the Committee on Rules, I think everybody, Democrat and Republican, on that committee praised the work of the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Ranking Member Sabo) and talked about the fact that we do need to hold the Department of Homeland Security accountable. I did not hear any dissension during the discussion in the Committee on Rules, and we also think it was a good bill. Yet, here we are with a rule that would basically strip half of the most important provisions out of the bill. I do not think that is very responsible. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to allow the House to consider the Capuano-Weiner amendment on the COPS program. This amendment was offered in the Committee on Rules last night but was defeated on a straight party-line vote. This amendment will reauthorize the Community Oriented Policing Services, the COPS program, for the next 3 years. The COPS program, created as a result of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, focuses on crime prevention at the local level. This program puts law enforcement professionals on the streets and assigns them a beat so they can build mutually beneficial relationships with the people that they serve. By earning the trust of members of their community and making those individuals invest in their own safety, community policing makes law enforcement more efficient and makes America safer. Mr. Speaker, if we are really serious about stopping the growing gang problem that is occurring in this country, we need to start at the local level, and we need to include prevention as well as enforcement. I know of no better program to meet this worthy goal than the COPS program. Members should be aware that a ``no'' vote will not prevent consideration of the gang deterrence bill and it will not affect any of the amendments that are in order under this rule. But a ``no'' vote will allow us to add this important amendment that is one of our most effective tools in the war against violence. Mr. Speaker, as I said at the beginning, if we are truly interested in dealing with the gang problem in this country, we need to do more than pass legislation that sounds tough. We need to have legislation that is tough, that will do the job. We need to do more than a press release here. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the previous question. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the amendment be printed in the Record immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to respond to my colleague by saying that all the groups he has mentioned, and so many more, also support the COPS program, too, which the President has cut by $40 million. We can talk all we want about using all this harsh rhetoric, but the bottom line is, there are laws already on the books if you commit a violent crime in this country. Right now, if you commit a murder, you will go to jail. One of the things that is most troubling to me as we talk about how we make our communities safer, there is no talk about the fact that we are cutting funds for our local police departments. We need more police on the streets. That is not the only answer here, but clearly, the answer is not cutting the COPS program, which the Republican majority in this House is doing, and the President has suggested in his budget. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. What shocks me is that we have people who get up and talk about the importance of supporting our local law enforcement officials, and at the same time, we are supporting budgets that cut money to our local law enforcement agencies. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter from the National Council of La Raza opposing this bill. I also include for the Record a statement that has been signed by the American Bar Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, Chamber of Commerce of the United States, the Children's Defense Fund, the Commission on Social Action of Reform Judaism, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the National Urban League, Murder Victims' Families for Human Rights, the NAACP, the National Federation of Independent Business, and the United States Conference on Catholic Bishops, all in opposition to this legislation. I also include for the Record, Mr. Speaker, a letter that has been signed by the President of Catholic Charities USA, also opposed to this legislation. And I include for the Record, so that it is there, the 16 amendments that the majority of the Committee on Rules decided to not make in order today on this important legislation. National Council of La Raza, Washington, DC, May 9, 2005. Re Oppose provisions in the ``gang buster bill'' H.R. 1279 that prosecute youth as adults and impose mandatory minimum sentences. Dear Member of Congress: On behalf of the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), the largest national Latino civil rights organization in the U.S., I urge you to oppose provisions contained in the ``Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act of 2005'' (H.R. 1279) which is on the suspension calendar this week. Please be advised that NCLR will recommend that votes relevant to the Latino community and final passage of the bill be included in the National Hispanic Leadership Agenda Congressional Scorecard. The Latino community is directly affected by gang violence, consequently NCLR is committed to finding a solution to combat it; however, the approach in H.R. 1279 is ineffective, irresponsible and simplistic, given that it does nothing to get to the root causes of the problem, and it further exacerbate youth violent behavior. H.R. 1279 will if enacted into law, would have a disparate impact on Latino youth and their families. This bill would undermine overa11 public safety, given that it imposes excessively severe measures aimed at only punishing and not reforming youth violent behavior. Specifically, NCLR strongly opposes two provisions--the prosecution and transfer of youth into the adult system and the inclusion of various mandatory minimum sentences for a broad category of offenses that are labeled ``gang crimes'' and numerous other offenses. Section 115 of the bill allows for the prosecution and transfer of youth into the adult system. The latest research shows that transferring youth to adult status is a failed public policy approach, resulting in the opposite of what this bill is purporting to do. It will increase--not decrease--youth violence. The research shows that young people prosecuted as adults, compared to those prosecuted as juveniles, are more likely to: (a) commit a greater number of crimes upon release; (b) commit more violent crimes upon release; and (c) commit crimes sooner upon release. The research also shows that youth held in adult facilities, compared to youth held in juvenile facilities, are five times as likely to be sexually assaulted by other inmates, twice as likely to be beaten by staff, 50% more likely to be assaulted with a weapon, and eight times as likely to commit suicide. With these kinds of risks, it does not make sense for the House to pursue legislation that includes the power to prosecute juveniles as adults in federal court for activities that the states are already well-equipped--indeed, better- equipped--to handle than the federal system. Also, putting the transfer decision at the sole discretion of a prosecutor, not a judge as the law currently requires, violates the most basic principles of due process and fairness. Section 103 of the bill includes and expands mandatory minimum sentences for a broad category of offenses that are deemed ``gang crime.'' Under this bill, the mandatory minimum sentences for these crimes range: from 5 to 30 years. Although the offenses are serious and individuals who are convicted should be properly held accountable, mandatory sentences often prevent judges from determining the appropriate punishment. When judges are restricted by mandatory sentences, they cannot assess an individua1s culpability during the crime or other factors that have bearing on recidivism, thus resulting in inappropriate sentences. Although mandatory minimums were intended to reduce the racial disparities that were associated with indeterminate sentencing, in practice they exacerbate and mask such disparities by shifting discretion from the judge to the prosecutor. Prosecutors retain the power to plea bargain by offering defendants plea agreements that avoid the mandatory penalty. Studies have shown that this discretion results in a disparity in sentencing outcomes based largely on race and quality of defense attorney. According to testimony from the U.S. Sentencing Commission, in 1999, 39% of those receiving mandatory sentences were Hispanic, 38% were African American, and 23% were White. Hipanics comprised 44% of those subject to five-year mandatory sentences in 1999, 37% of the ten-year mandatory sentences, 20% of the 20-year mandatory sentences, and 8% of the mandatory life sentences. The reality for African American defendants is even bleaker. NCLR respectfully asks you to oppose legislation that prosecutes and transfers youth into the adult system and that includes and expands mandatory minimum sentences. These provisions will only exacerbate youth violent behavior, at a time when data from the FBI's Uniform Crime reporting program that breaks down the age of people arrested for serious offenses in 2003 showed that the number of people under 18 arrested declined by 30%. Instead, NCLR calls for a comprehensive research--based approach that gets at the root causes of youth violence--which includes but is not limited to prevention, treatment, and effective alternatives to incarceration. If you have any questions please contact Angela Arboleda, NCLR Civil Rights Policy Analyst, at (202) 776-1789. Sincerely, Janet Murguia, President and CEO.

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

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I always enjoy listening to the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier). He mentions that a handful of Democratic amendments were made in order, and I guess we all should be grateful on this side of the aisle because usually we get shut out totally. But the fact of the matter is 16 Democratic amendments were not made in order. Sixteen amendments have been shut out from this debate. If this issue was so important, and it is important, then why can we not take the time to debate all the various ideas? As I said, according to the schedule, we may be out of here at 4 o'clock today. I am willing to stay until 5, or even until 6 or even until 7 to give these other people an opportunity to have their concerns voiced on this floor. We all represent communities, unfortunately, that have been touched by gang violence. All of us have dealt with community leaders, with our local police, in trying to figure out how best to deal with this violence. We all have good ideas. I think, especially on an issue like this, as many people who have these ideas should be able to bring them to the floor and to be able to debate them. But, unfortunately, 16 amendments have been totally blocked from consideration on this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), my colleague, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that every single Member of this House is concerned about gang violence in our communities and throughout our country, and every single Member of this House is dedicated to trying to make our communities and our Nation safer. However, some of us want to pass not a press release but tough legislation that will indeed make our communities safer. So, Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 1279, the so-called Gang Deterrence and Community Protection Act. It is bad policy wrapped in a bad bill that will simply not do the job the sponsors claim it will do. Do not let the title of the bill fool Members. It has nothing to do with deterrence or community protection. This bill does nothing to address the causes of gang activity. Instead, its primary purposes include unjustifiable punishment and ineffective enforcement of the law. The bill unjustifiably expands death penalty provisions, removes judicial discretion over transferring juveniles to the adult court system, and imposes ineffective mandatory minimum sentencing. Mr. Speaker, Time magazine focused on the spike in gang activity in Los Angeles in the September 3, 2001, edition. In that story, Father Greg Boyle, a Catholic priest who worked in a gang-infested area of East Los Angeles, said that California's anti- gang strategy, which has been copied across the country, ``is bankrupt. You have the three strikes law and jail and so on, but you can't terrify a kid into being hopeful about his future.'' The following quote is even more telling: ``We don't need new laws. We have a penal code a foot thick. You can't just work gangs with police suppression. You need prevention and intervention programs, too.'' Mr. Speaker, that statement was not made by a social worker or community activist. No, Mr. Speaker, it came from Sergeant Wes McBride, founder of the California Gang Investigators Association and a 28-year veteran of anti-gang policing. After reading this legislation, it is clear to me that this bill will do nothing to deter gang activity and, instead, will sentence American youth to lives of crime and violence instead of proactively intervening in our communities to prevent our children and our youngsters from joining gangs in the first place. This legislation contains several provisions that unjustifiably expand the Federal death penalty. Despite numerous studies that have documented both the exposure of innocent individuals to the death penalty system and its discriminatory nature, the proponents of this bill want to make this already-flawed system worse. Mr. Speaker, let me say this clearly. I am opposed to the death penalty. I do not believe the death penalty deters future crimes. It has been proven that the death penalty unfairly targets minorities. It has also been proven that innocent people have been sent to death row and have been put to death. Inclusion of the death penalty in this bill is wrong and should be stripped out. Since 1973, 119 innocent people have been released from Death Row. A study performed by the Criminal Justice Reform Education Fund reported that over two-thirds of all capital convictions and sentences between 1973 and 1995 were reversed because of serious error during trial or sentencing. How can we expand the death penalty system, especially to include juveniles, when it is proven to be faulty, discriminatory, and not an effective deterrent to violent behavior? Let me remind my colleagues that President Bush signed the Justice for All Act into law on October 30, 2004. This law, which was approved overwhelmingly by this body, improved the fallibility of the death penalty system by making DNA technology available to our criminal justice system in order to improve its ability to exonerate the innocent, as well as identify and convict the guilty. However, the important provisions in the Justice For All Act that would improve the fallibility of the death penalty system are not even being funded. As if that were not bad enough, the bill before us today would actually create new death penalty provisions. In effect, Mr. Speaker, with this bill, we are adding more death penalty cases to an already-broken system that is desperately in need of repair. By not funding the protections provided under the Justice for All Act and by expanding the death penalty to new cases, this bill makes the death penalty system worse, not better. Another provision that I strongly disagree with is the transferring of juveniles to the adult court system. Research performed by the Department of Justice has shown that youths tried as adults are more likely to commit a greater number of crimes upon release and that these crimes will be violent. Youths sent to prison with adults end up victims of rape, assault and become high repeat offenders. When these prisoners are released and attempt to reenter society, what are their options? It is most likely they will pick up where they left off and contribute once again to the cycle of gangs and violence. Moving a youth into the adult court system and prison system will not reduce the amount of youth crime and gang activity. If anything, it will make it worse. Another flawed aspect of H.R. 1279 is its emphasis on mandatory minimum sentencing. Mandatory minimum sentencing will not prevent youths from joining gang or reduce violent crime among youths. Mandatory minimums were originally created to decrease the disparity in sentencing of like offenders. However, the Judicial Conference of the United States and the U.S. Sentencing Commission has found mandatory minimums ``require sentencing courts to impose the same sentence on offenders when sound policy and common sense call for reasonable differences in punishment.'' In other words, judges are prevented from assessing what type of punishment fits the crime. Removing sentencing power from judges and shifting discretion to prosecutors will not prevent any youth from joining a gang, committing his first crime or becoming a repeat offender. In fact, this is exactly what the U.S. Supreme Court concluded in January when it ruled to allow Federal judges to deviate from sentencing guidelines. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this bill's host of harsh mandatory sentences is directly in defiance of the Supreme Court ruling. Mr. Speaker, we know that intervention programs work in the majority of cases. For the most violent and dangerous individuals, we already have laws on the books that address these actions. But we have a real chance through prevention and intervention programs to make a difference in the lives of these young people. Instead of expanding death penalty provisions and trying juveniles as adults, we need to address the problem of youth crime and violence through early intervention and treatment methods. Programs like Head Start and the Job Corps have proven to be an effective means of deterring crime. Studies of Head Start demonstrate that $3 is saved for every $1 spent on the program by reducing the future cost of crime, remedial education and welfare. This is clearly more cost effective than spending $9 billion over the next 10 years for prison bed construction and inmate upkeep, which happens to be the cost impact of H.R. 1279 estimated by the Sentencing Commission. Job Corps programs deter crime by guiding at-risk youths and adults to getting a job or full-time study. About 75 percent of Job Corps participants move on to a full-time job or study and are one-third less likely to be arrested than nonparticipants. This approach makes sense as a crime deterrent, and it is also economically beneficial. Youth crime and gangs are an issue in many cities around the country. In my home city of Worcester, Massachusetts, I helped coordinate a community-wide forum this past fall to address the issue of gang violence. Local police, city government officials, the district attorney, the sheriff's office, and hundreds of individuals were among the attendees. Also participating in this event was the Boston Ten Point Coalition, a nationally recognized leadership foundation whose mission is to reach out to at-risk youth and gang members in hopes of reducing violence in the community. One particular item the Coalition discussed was the Adopt-A-Gang program, in which city churches keep their doors open and serve as a support center for troubled youth. The churches work with local law enforcement to communicate messages of nonviolence and zero tolerance for crime to these youths. And I am happy to say that the churches of the city of Worcester, along with the city government, the police department and local businesses are currently working with the Coalition to implement this program. Hands-on, coordinated efforts like the Adopt-A-Gang program are how youth crime can be deterred, not through codification of a so-called gang-buster bill like H.R. 1279. Early prevention programs like Head Start reduce crime; expansion of death penalty provisions will not. Recruitment efforts by Job Corps deter gangs; prosecuting young people as adults will not. Collaborative interventions like Adopt-A-Gang program protect our community; mandatory minimum sentencing will not. Mr. Speaker, none of the provisions in this bill have proven to be effective ways of dealing with gangs and violent youth behavior. Instead of taking a comprehensive approach to the problem, H.R. 1279's ``punishment first, prevention last'' methodology does not dedicate any efforts toward early intervention, education or rehabilitation. Ask any cop. Aggressive policing alone will never break the cycle of gang violence. However, one of the things this bill also does not address is the shortage of police officers across the country. The Federal Government is cutting the COPS program. Local communities all across this country are laying off police officers at a time when we should be increasing the number of police who are on our streets. Intervention and preventive programs like Head Start, Job Corps and the Ten Point Coalition are crucial to any hopes of deterring gangs. Mr. Speaker, for the past decade, this House has worked in a bipartisan manner to effectively draft and pass comprehensive juvenile justice legislation. This bill is a sharp break with that tradition. Getting tough should mean passing legislation that works, not just passing legislation that sounds tough. Mr. Speaker, finally, let me just say that 16 Democratic amendments were not made in order by the Committee on Rules last night. Why? I have no idea. According to our schedule, we are going to be done today by around 4 p.m. Surely it is not because we do not have the time to be able to debate some of these important amendments. This is the kind of legislation where people from different communities, from urban areas and from rural areas who are dealing with this issue of gang violence have important ideas. They brought them forward in the Committee on Rules last night. Yet, last night, the Committee on Rules said to 16 Democrats that you will be shut out of this debate. I do not think that is the way we should be discussing a bill like this. So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1279 and oppose the rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from Washington just said that our local law enforcement would appreciate the support of the Federal Government. I could not agree with him more. Then why are we cutting community policing programs? I mean it does not make any sense to me. And why did the Committee on Rules last night deny the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Capuano) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) the right to offer an amendment that reauthorizes the Community Oriented Policing Services, the COPS program for fiscal year 2006, 2008? That was denied. We could have had a vote on the floor today on that amendment and a full debate, and that was denied in the Committee on Rules. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley) had an amendment that would require that the purchase of firearms, ammunition and explosives to be made in person and to require records to be kept on how the purchases were made. The reason why this is an important amendment because more and more we find out that gangs are purchasing weapons over the internet. Yet that was not even made in order. I know the gun lobby does not like that amendment, but even so, if we want to make sure that gang members have a more difficult time getting access to firearms, we certainly should have debated that amendment. The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) had an amendment that would make it illegal to transfer a firearm to any individual that the Federal Government has designated as a suspected or known gang member or terrorist. I am trying to find where the controversy is with that amendment. Yet the Committee on Rules would not allow that amendment to be made in order on the floor today. The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) had an amendment that strikes the section of the bill that allows the Attorney General to charge as adults those juveniles who commit violent crimes and are at least 16 years old. We can disagree on whether or not juveniles should be tried as adults, but, nonetheless, it is an important enough issue that we should have debated it on the floor here today and let Members decide that. And yet that was not made in order. The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) had an amendment that establishes funding for prevention and intervention programs for the suppression of youth and gang violence. That was deemed to not be made in order. The gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff), the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza), the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson), and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez) had an amendment that authorizes the expansion and the enhancement of law enforcement and community-based prevention and intervention programs targeting criminal street gangs, gang members and at-risk youth. That was ruled out of order by the Committee on Rules. I mean, I can go on and on and on. There are really good ideas here, and yet, for whatever reason, the Committee on Rules last night said they are not going to have their day on the House floor. And I do not understand why, and nobody who has spoken on the other side has explained to me why those amendments were not made in order, not even the Chairman of the Committee on Rules. We have the time. This is an important issue. These amendments should have been made in order. And, quite frankly, I think it is a disgrace and does a great disservice to a lot of people in this country who care about this issue that these Members were denied their right to offer these amendments. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.