David Reichert

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, later today I will introduce legislation, the Stop the Sale of Murderabilia to Protect the Dignity of Crime Victims Act. And I will introduce that legislation with my good friend and former sheriff from Indiana, Congressman Ellsworth. Before coming to Congress, I served 33 years in the King County Sheriff's Office. I have seen the pain on the faces of victims and victims families, unexplainable, unimaginable pain that covers their faces and their families for the rest of their life. And, unfortunately, criminals today who are in our State and Federal prisons are using their fame and notoriety to make a buck. The Internet has become a gateway to an industry coined as ``murderabilia,'' where tangible goods owned and/or created by convicted murderers are sold for their profit. Today, on the National Day of Remembrance for Murder Victims, I'm privileged and honored to honor the memory of all victims. And my bill aims to shut down this business.

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. Madam Speaker, on September 7, 2007, I missed rollcall vote No. 863, on passage of H.R. 1908, the Patent Reform Act of 2007. I was in Iraq visiting Washington State soldiers. If I had been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. Madam Speaker, on September 7, 2007, I missed rollcall vote No. 864, on agreeing to the Conference Report on H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction Act. I was in Iraq, visiting Washington State soldiers. If I had been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, today I join my colleagues and friends and the entire State of Washington in mourning the loss of former Congresswoman Jennifer Dunn. She was my predecessor here in the House of Representatives, represented the Eighth District of Washington State. I'm shocked and saddened by the news of her death today, and my condolences go out to the family: her husband, Keith; her children, Bryant, Reagan, and Angus; their wives; and the grandchildren, who meant so much to her. And today as we were on the floor voting, Mr. Speaker, the news was presented to the Members of this body by a good friend, a longtime friend of hers, Doc Hastings is his nickname, from Central Washington. He had known Jennifer for over 30 years. And as Doc Hastings announced the news of her unexpected death, you could hear the sadness. You could hear the sadness. You could hear the gasp as the air went out of this room. Jennifer Dunn served this House for 12 years. She was a well- respected Member of this body. She was in leadership in the Republican Party, one of the first females in leadership in this House. She was one of those Members who reached across the aisle; who worked with all; who had a dedicated, compassionate drive to represent the people of the Eighth District. She served with passion and the heart of a servant. I first met Jennifer Dunn back in 1997 as I became the first elected sheriff in King County, Seattle, Washington. And I had the opportunity to travel back and forth between Washington State and Washington, D.C. to meet with our delegation. And Jennifer Dunn was always so gracious in allowing me time as the sheriff to come in and present the issues that were facing us in King County law enforcement. She was very proud of the fact that she helped start the school resource officer program with grant funds. She was very proud of the fact that she helped acquire funding for the so important fight against methamphet- amines that really are the scourge of this Nation today. She helped plant the seed of an effort in Washington State that still goes on today in the form of the Washington State Meth Initiative, people meeting today, deciding how to spend the money the Federal Government still provides as a result of her efforts in fighting the deadly addiction that meth causes in our communities. But one of the things that she was most proud of was her effort in passing legislation that led to the Amber Alert system that we have throughout this Nation that, as everyone knows across this country, has saved many lives, lives of our children, our most vulnerable of citizens and victims. So I am so honored and so proud to be the person who has been given the privilege to follow in such a great lady's footsteps. Jennifer Dunn, we will all miss you. Our prayers and thoughts go with the family.

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, we must continue to open markets to encourage American companies to innovate and compete with our global counterparts. This grows our economy and creates jobs. I am proud to represent a district in Washington State that integrates our Nation's leading technology innovators with a vibrant and highly productive small business community. Opening new global markets gives them the incentives to improve their products, produce more goods, and employ more American workers. I have seen these jobs created in Washington State firsthand, with trade accounting for one of every three jobs in the State of Washington. Free trade agreements with Peru, Colombia, Panama and South Korea are currently pending before Congress. We cannot allow these important agreements to languish in committee. I urge my colleagues in the majority to stop the delays, pass these free trade agreements and renew trade promotion authority. Let's advance the trade measures needed to grow our economy, create jobs and improve our relations with global partners.

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and thank both sides of the aisle on this great piece of legislation. It truly is an honor to be here this afternoon to speak on it on behalf of our veterans across the world. I am very pleased that part of the language that I have been working on, along with other friends here in the House of Representatives, works to make sure that our returning veterans have a job, make sure that their families are taken care of. I was in the Air Force Reserve for 6 years. That was a long time ago. I was never called to active duty. I worked for the sheriff's office then, and even back in the early 1970s, as I served our country in the Air Force and served our community on the streets as a police officer, I never had to worry when I served my one weekend a month or my 2 weeks every year that my employer would get upset with me and say, You know what, we can't support you here as you support our country and our troops across the world serving our country; we need you here every day. In fact, it was just the opposite. The sheriff's office said, We are proud to have you as a member of the Air Force Reserve. We are proud to have you come back and serve with us and have you continue to serve in the Air Force Reserve. And when I became sheriff later on in 1997, and after 2001, still serving as the sheriff in King County, we made sure that our Guard and Reserves had a job. And I could see it in the eyes of their spouses and their children and the rest of their family, because they felt loved, they felt cared for, they felt comfortable to know that when their loved one returned, they had a job. Imagine for a moment that you started a family, you started a business, you have employment, you have a profession, and all of a sudden it is taken away. When you return, it is gone. Your family has no job. You have no income. You are looking at maybe selling your house, selling your car. Health insurance might not be available. All of these things are things that our veterans in the last few years had to deal with upon their return. This bill fixes that. We are able to help them make sure that they have employment when they return from serving our country and keeping us free. I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation. What an honor it is to be here again today to speak on behalf of our veterans across the world.

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. Madam Chairman, I would like to thank our colleagues for their crusade in offering real reform for the American people. I am proud to be a part of this unique coalition of Members in support of this amendment. Why is a Member representing a suburban area of Seattle taking such an interest in the farm bill? The farm bill isn't just for farmers. It's funded by and affects every one of us across America. The underlying bill leaves American farmers and businesses open to challenges from the World Trade Organization. Trade is critical, crucial to our State and our farmers. One in three jobs in Washington State is linked to trade. This amendment is a critical step to bringing us into trade compliance so that our farmers and businesses have access to markets around the world. Currently, 19 congressional districts receive 50 percent of Federal farm subsidies; 348 congressional districts would benefit positively from this amendment. Every district in my State would benefit. The Washington Post referred to farm subsidies as Federal giveaways that cost all Americans but benefit few. This amendment funds many other American priorities; $1.2 billion to promote healthy food choices, $3 billion more to conservation programs, and $1 billion more to support fruit and vegetable producers. This amendment saves money, brings us closer to trade compliance. It does all this without raising taxes. In fact, it saves taxpayers $2 billion. We can't continue business as usual. Our taxpayers deserve an equitable balance. The time is now for reform. I urge my colleagues to support this critical amendment.

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support this morning of the funding levels included in the State and local law enforcement in H.R. 3093. This legislation reverses a dangerous downward trend in the Community Oriented Policing Services program, the COPS program. Specifically, it increases the COPS budget to $725 million, which is a $183 million increase over last year. It also includes $80 million in additional money for the Byrne grant system. I was the sheriff in Seattle up until 2\1/2\ years ago for the last 8 years of my career. I was in law enforcement 33 years. As a sheriff, I used the Byrne Grant funds. I used the COPS money. We worked together with our communities. We worked together with business. We made our communities safe. It is a vital program, a useful program, a necessary program. Mr. Speaker, we cannot have freedom, we cannot feel safe in our neighborhoods until we know we are safe, until we know our law enforcement is there to protect us. The COPS grant does that.

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, as a former sheriff of King County in Seattle, Washington, and a member of the Congressional Victims' Rights Caucus, I am proud to offer this amendment along with my colleague from Connecticut, Congressman Murphy, to provide $5 million to fully fund the Court Training and Improvements Program, offset from the Department of Commerce departmental management salaries and expenses account. The Court Training and Improvements Program enhances our courts' ability to keep victims of domestic and sexual abuse safe and to hold offenders accountable. It was authorized early last year as a part of the Violence Against Women Act but has not yet been funded. Mr. Chairman, this program must be funded. I spent 33 years of my life working in law enforcement, and during that time I walked into many unpredictable domestic violence situations. Responding to a domestic violence call is one of the most dangerous calls a police officer can go to. Domestic violence cases have their own unique challenges, and we in law enforcement have had to learn specific strategies for how to deal with those situations. People are physically and mentally harmed and homes are torn apart. I have seen how domestic and sexual abuse not only affects spouses but the children, the families, and the lives of the entire community. Safe homes and families are the root of a safe society. Statistics show that every year almost 1 million incidents of violence occur against current and former spouses, boyfriends, girl friends, and each year nearly 10 million children are exposed to domestic violence. We need to implement and fund every tool at our disposal to combat this terrible problem. One of the key ways to reduce the impact of domestic violence is to ensure that our justice system has the tools to deal with these cases. Too often lives hang in the balance as judges and court personnel make decisions without an understanding of the dynamics of abuse and violence in relationships. Judges themselves have repeatedly cited a need and a desire for specialized knowledge and judicial education regarding sex offenders and victims. The desperate need for trained judges and court personnel was recently brought to light in the tragic case of Yvette Cade. On the morning of October 10, 2005, Yvette was doused with gasoline and set on fire by her estranged husband while at work here in the suburbs of Washington, D.C. At the time of the attack, she had a protection order out against him, but a judge had dismissed her protection order 3 weeks before, saying she didn't need it. This judge had likened victims of domestic violence to buses that come along all the time. Cade's husband was recently sent to prison for attempted murder. Better-trained judges are essential if we are to keep victims and children alive and hold abusers and rapists accountable for their behavior. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment to improve our courts, protect the victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse, prevent future crimes, and ensure that perpetrators are appropriately punished. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to stand today with my good friend Mr. Etheridge in support of this amendment to the CJS appropriations bill. Nearly 4 years ago the President signed into law the Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefit Act. This legislation, which was championed by the author of this amendment Mr. Etheridge, corrected a technicality in how public safety officers' benefits were paid. Specifically, the law allowed for families of those killed in the line of duty, by heart attack or stroke, to claim the benefit. It sounds simple. I didn't have the opportunity to vote for this legislation because at the time I was the sheriff in King County, Seattle, Washington, completing my 33-year law enforcement career. During my time as a police officer, I saw firsthand the pain that a family endures when they lose a loved one. I have lost partners over those 33 years that I was in the Sheriff's Office in Seattle. I know that pain. It doesn't go away. But yet they go out on the street day after day after day, and they put their lives on the line. Their families are standing there with them. Unfortunately, the families, who are dealing with this pain, and who are eligible for this compensation under the Hometown Heroes Survivors Benefit Act, are being stalled and denied by our government. It took the Department of Justice almost 3 years just to issue a rule that would dictate how these benefits would be paid. On top of the 3 years, in the last 10 months, since the rule was issued, only 10 claims have been completed favorably, which averages to 1 claim a month. There are approximately 200 claims left, as Mr. Etheridge indicated, still in limbo. I have seen the tears of these families. We just met with three families last week. Through the Federal Government's inaction and complacency, more tears will be shed. This is absolutely unacceptable, outrageous. This amendment is simple. It will double the current funding for the Public Safety Officers' Benefit Program. This amendment will take away the excuse that the Department of Justice does not have the people or the resources to process these claims. The issue of taking care of first responders, as I have said, is close to my heart. Let's take care of the families. Let's implement a law that we put into the books years ago. Passage of this amendment will send a strong message to our Nation's first responders that we, the United States Government, truly stand behind them and their families. Please support the Etheridge-Reichert amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. I was proud to lead a bipartisan effort with Congressman Markey to advocate for long-term investment in NIH research. I am proud to stand here today in support of the Barton amendment. I hope the other 184 Members who joined us in advocating for these funds increase earlier this year will join us today in supporting this amendment. NIH funding is absolutely necessary, and I commend Mr. Barton for bringing this amendment forward.

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, as the House continues its consideration of the Labor-HHS appropriations bill today, I urge all my colleagues to support funding for the Children's Hospital Graduate Medical Education program. Even though this amount is lower than the amount suggested by some of us in the 109th Congress, the $307 million in this appropriation bill will go to training and educating graduate medical students who will help our children at our children's hospitals across this Nation. Especially close to my heart is my godson, Kyle, who at 18 months old was diagnosed with cancer and for the last 12 years has survived and has been helped and aided by these graduate medical students. So I urge my colleagues, please support this bill. It is so critical to the health of our children.

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. Madam Chairman, as the former sheriff of King County in Seattle, Washington, and the cochairman of the Congressional Children's Health Care Caucus, I am proud to offer this amendment supporting emergency medical services for children. I am pleased to be joined in offering this amendment by Congressman Matheson, and to have the support of Congressman King from New York, both of whom have been outstanding leaders on this issue. Our amendment will provide $2.5 million in additional resources for emergency medical services for children's programs offset from the Department of Labor's General Administrative Account. This vital program provides grants to States and medical institutions, to expand and improve emergency care for children who need treatment for life- threatening illnesses or injuries. This modest funding increase will help a program that has been nearly level funded for the past 6 years. It will better serve those who provide emergency care for our children. Children, as everyone knows, are not small adults. The illnesses and injuries that bring them into emergency rooms vary significantly, and they often need equipment that is smaller than what is used for adults, and medication in much more carefully calculated doses. Although children account for 30 million annual visits to the emergency rooms, many hospitals and emergency management agencies are not well equipped to handle these patients. According to the Centers for Disease Control, only 6 percent of the United States emergency departments have all the supplies they need to handle pediatric emergencies. Emergency Medical Services grants have been awarded to all 50 States, the District of Columbia and five territories. They have been used to train first responders to buy pediatric equipment for hospitals and to establish and improve standards for emergency care for children. Other grants have been used to create pediatric treatment guides for school nurses to test best practices and to incorporate pediatric care into State disaster plans. Madam Chairman, this is a simple amendment with a significant impact on emergency care for our children. I urge all my colleagues to join in supporting this important measure. Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. REICHERT. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. Madam Speaker, I rise today as the former Sheriff of King Country, Washington, to pay tribute to one of my King County Sheriff's Office Deputies, Richard Herzog, who was senselessly killed in the line of duty five years ago this month in the City of Newcastle. As a Sheriff's Deputy, Rich had an unwavering dedication to the community he served. He made the ultimate sacrifice on June 22, 2002, when his firearm was taken from him. He was shot while protecting the citizens around him. America lost a true hero that day and it is an honor to recognize him here today. Until a few years ago, I was one of the 870,000 sworn law enforcement officers in this country. I am familiar with the struggles that law enforcement officers face each day--even after facing the most threatening circumstances and risking their lives, officers return to duty at the beginning of their next shift to protect the citizens of their city, county, state and this country. Deputy Herzog was kind and caring. He served his country not only as a law enforcement officer, but he was also a twenty-year veteran of the United States Army Special Forces. Deputy Herzog was recently honored by the City of Newcastle at a dedication ceremony unveiling a new memorial in his honor. The incredible loss of Rich to his wife, SunCha, and daughters, Sonja and Erika--their sacrifice--their husband and father--is still experienced every day and for the rest of their lives. Madam Speaker, may we never forget the sacrifice the service of Deputy Rich Herzog and all of our fallen officers.

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to my dear friend, colleague, and mentor, Norm Maleng, who passed away on Thursday, May 24, at the age of 68. I stand here today in part because of Norm's influence, mentorship, and encouragement in both my run for King County Sheriff and the United States Congress. As the King County Prosecutor and one of the longest-serving elected officials in State history, Norm served the county, State, and our Nation with integrity and justice. In the public eye, he will be remembered for his prosecutions of high-profile crimes and his contributions to much of the major crime legislation passed during the 1980s. One of the largest law offices in the state of Washington, the King County Prosecutor's Office staff totals over 500 employees. Norm always wanted the best for each individual who worked with him and for him. As I've reflected on the many memories that I shared with him, one particular moment stuck out to me that I'll always remember. One day I said, ``Boy, I really have a challenge today, Norm,'' to which he responded ``There are no challenges, Dave, only opportunities.'' His philosophy was to approach each day with optimism and a smile. Through the impact he made upon the King County community, the families who found justice through his dedication, and the lives that he touched--his legacy will live on. In his honor, I ask that the following article be submitted into the Congressional Record: [From the Seattle Times, June 14, 2007] Maleng and UW: A Special Bond (By Roland Hjorth) Norm Maleng graduated from the University of Washington Law School in 1966. He was one of my first students and I felt a special bond because we both grew up on farms in rural communities. I think his commitment to public service grew directly out of his small-town roots. The law school is proud of its graduates who have led lives of public service. They have included two of our nation's most powerful senators, a speaker of the House of Representatives and members of the judiciary who have risen to national prominence. Norm Maleng was prominent in that company of leaders. He was a man of ambition and a man of values. But when he had to make hard decisions, values always trumped ambition. He was a deeply religious man whose religion was crucial in shaping his life, but he was too respectful of the views of others to be evangelical about it. Norm had the gift of being grateful for the things that molded his character, enhanced his skills and helped him to enter the legal profession. He was always grateful for the early life that his parents gave him. He was also grateful for his education at the UW Law School, once telling me that the law school was where he got his ``union card'' and he would never forget it; and, he never did. When I first became dean of the law school, I asked Norm to serve on our advisory board on strategic planning. He promptly became one of its most active and effective members. During our deliberations, he once said that almost all students enter law school wanting to do good and too often graduate wanting only to do well. He admonished us that this should never happen at the UW Law School. Norm's influence has had an impact on our requirement that every student must fulfill a public-service obligation before graduating. He was happy to know that the most thriving group in the law school is the Public Interest Law Association, which raises surprising amounts of money every year to support summer public-service law internships for law students. Norm was thrilled when the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation endowed one of the nation's most significant public-service scholarship programs at the UW School of Law. From his early leadership on the law school advisory board, he went on to serve as a trustee of the Washington Law School Foundation for well over a decade. Norm became president of the foundation and had completed his term of office shortly before his death. During that term, he led an effort to solicit contributions to the law school from law firms in this city and especially from members of those firms who are graduates of the UW Law School. I like to think he reminded many that this was where they got their union card. The Washington Law School Foundation has established a Norm Maleng Fund. I share the foundation's earnest hope that sufficient funds will be raised to establish a fitting memorial for one whose life has inspired so many of our students and so many lawyers in our community.

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to fully fund ICE's request of $26.4 million for its 287(g) program. Let's just get down to sort of the cop's nitty gritty here. Just 2\1/2\ years ago, I left the King County Sheriff's Office as the sheriff in Seattle, Washington, an 1,100-employee organization with a $110 million budget. I started in 1972 as a 21-year-old police officer in a patrol car for about 5 years. I worked in the jail, and I worked as a property crimes detective, and for the most part of my career, I was a homicide investigator. I worked with all kinds of communities. All the different diverse communities that we serve across this Nation exist in King County, Seattle, Washington. I understand the theory of the Community Oriented Policing program. We implemented that program in the King County Sheriff's Office. It is one of those programs that really comes natural to a police officer working on the streets in their patrol car. They want to connect with their community. They want to be friends with their community, as mentioned earlier by my colleague across the aisle. Part of the Community Oriented Policing program is to make friends and engage in conversation and build relationships, but it is also our job as law enforcement officers, local law enforcement officers across this Nation, to enforce the law. Sometimes we make friends doing that. We save lives doing that. But sometimes we make enemies. In the process of making friends and making enemies and protecting our neighborhoods, we also build partnerships with those communities, but we also build partnerships beyond that. We build partnerships with the Federal Government. We build partnerships with the FBI, with the U.S. Attorney's Office, with DEA, with ICE, with Border Patrol. I could go on and on and on with the Federal agencies that join in concert, in partnership, with local law enforcement every day. In Federal task force organizations, like the Joint Analytical Centers, the Joint Terrorism Task Forces, the HIDTA, High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas, the Violent Offenders Task Force, the VICAP Program, and I could go on and on and on with Federal agencies and Federal programs and Federal task forces that come together; it is about partnerships between local law enforcement and Federal law enforcement. And it is about training, joint training, with each of these agencies so that we can get our job done, that we can protect this country. I understand that. I worked as a partner with the Federal agencies when I wore a police uniform on the street. I worked with as a partner with Federal agencies as I wore my suit and tie and my uniform as the sheriff for 8 years in King County. These partnerships are essential. They create a seamless web, a seamless web of sharing information across all spectrums of the Federal, local, State law enforcement. There is no undermining of the local police department when partnerships are created with the Federal Government. It is an uplifting and exciting experience to work with all of these agencies and train together to finally learn what each one of us does and what we can bring to the table as a team as we protect our country. So Homeland Security now, as a fairly new agency with 22 departments, is another one of those agencies that we have to work with, and ICE is one of those. This training program creates an understanding. It helps police officers understand and respect civil liberties. It helps police officers understand and respect civil rights. It helps police officers at the local level in training with the Federal Government understand and respect the diverse communities that we serve. Why would we not want to have our local police officers participate in training that helps give us a broader understanding of the diverse community we serve? It makes no sense to me to be against increasing this budget to what ICE has asked for. It makes no sense at all. If we are truly interested in civil liberty, civil rights and respecting each other's diversity, we would want this training. Let's make a point clear: This is voluntary. This isn't mandated by the government. Every police department and Sheriff's office across the country can volunteer for this program. So, Mr. Chairman, this is a great program. I commend the gentlewoman from Virginia for bringing this forward. I fully support this amendment, and encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in favor of it.

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, as the ranking member of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, I rise today to offer an amendment that would restore a cut to the Department of Homeland Security's intelligence function. This bill cuts the analysis and security's intelligence functions. This bill cuts $8 million from that account from last year, and this bill cuts the analysis and operations account by $8 million from last year, and is $23 million below the administration's request. I simply do not understand why we would be cutting the intelligence funding. Let's be clear about this. Intelligence is what we use to prevent terrorist attacks. Good intelligence helped prevent the recent plots against Fort Dix and against John F. Kennedy Airport in New York. The Department of Homeland Security intelligence had a role in both of these cases, and, in fact, in the JFK plot the Department of Homeland Security was sharing classified intelligence with the private sector for more than a year before the threat was made public. My amendment attempts to strike an appropriate balance between response, recovery and prevention. This legislation, in its current form, includes cuts to intelligence and yet significantly increases response and recovery programs. While all are important to homeland security, I think we can all agree that it is better to prevent a terrorist attack than be forced to respond to one. According to the Department of Homeland Security, this bill would reduce the Department of Homeland Security's intelligence support for border security, terrorist travel, and human smuggling. It would severely impact the Department's ability to assess these threats, and would harm their efforts to focus on homegrown terrorism and violent extremism within the United States. My amendment simply adds $10 million for analysis operations to that account to help restore the Department's intelligence functions. This would eliminate the cut and provide a modest $2 million increase from last year. The terrorists only have to be right once, but to defend ourselves, we have to be right every time. Intelligence is the most sound investment we can make as a Nation to prevent terrorism. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment.

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for yielding. I want to just respond to a couple of points that were made. Part of this budget is classified, and we can say one thing, though, in open session, and that is that the Department of Homeland Security disagrees with your assessment. For instance, your report states that the Office of Operations and Coordination has significant unobligated balances. According to the Department of Homeland Security, as of June 7 of this year, OPS has obligated 63 percent of fiscal year 2007's funding and 99.9 percent of fiscal year 2006 carry-over funding. So let's just be real about this bill. If you are serious about intelligence, why are we cutting it by $8 million over last year's budget, $23 million over the suggested administration's budget? This is what it does: It will reduce our ability to deploy personnel to the southwest and northern borders to support border enforcement efforts. It will reduce our ability to identify and assess threats to the security of the Nation's land, air, and sea borders. It will reduce our ability to analyze the threat of homegrown terrorism and domestic terrorism. It will reduce our ability to provide an alternative perspective to terrorist threats. It will reduce our ability to collect intelligence and support those intelligence owners and operators of the Nation's critical infrastructure. And it will reduce our ability to analyze terrorist travel trends and methods. I have 33 years of law enforcement experience in the Seattle area, was the sheriff of Seattle before I came here, now serving in my second term in Congress. I understand the balance between response and prevention. I understand the balance of civil liberties and protection of the public against criminal activity. I understand the balance there. This bill puts this balance way out of whack. One million dollars taken from management in the Secretary's office, $11 million taken from the Under Secretary's office. They still receive a $79 million increase. The committee's recommendation in this report remains intact; therefore, civil liberty funding and privacy, counternarcotics funding levels remain intact. They are not part of our offsets. Also not a part of our offset is CBC.

Mr. REICHERT

Mr. REICHERT. Mr. Speaker, as a former member of the Air Force Reserve, I am pleased to rise in support of this important veterans outreach measure. We must continue to ensure that all of our veterans are aware of and receive the benefits that they have earned and deserve. These grants will help our states connect veterans with the many benefits for which they are eligible but may be unaware are available to them. But it is not just our states' responsibility to conduct this outreach, and I encourage all of my colleagues in the House to use the privilege of our offices to help veterans obtain needed benefits and services. In March, I held a Veterans' Resource Fair in my district. I brought 45 service providers together under one roof to help more than 350 veterans register for benefits, find jobs, and resolve pressing case work issues. I will hold another in just a few months time. My office stands ready to assist any one of you in conducting a similar event for the veterans in your district. We must work to support the men and women who made individual sacrifices to preserve our freedom not just on Memorial Day, but on all days. I urge my colleagues to pass this bill, and I hope that we will continue to join together to promote and protect meaningful benefits for our veterans. I yield back.