Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and thank him for bringing this amendment to the floor and managing the time. I also would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge the leadership of my colleague from Colorado (Mrs. Musgrave) on this issue. She has been a true champion, not only a champion inside this Chamber, but a champion for the values that I think a vast majority of Americans hold dear. For that she has paid what has already been recognized as a significant personal price. Again, I applaud her and I certainly admire her character and her tenacity.

Mr. Speaker, this debate seems to be framed by talking about what we are against. I think what we ought to be talking about, frankly, is what we are for. Too often in society, especially these days, it seems like we are against the very institutions that made this Nation great.

I see above your head, Mr. Speaker, the words ``in God we trust,'' and directly opposite you over my left shoulder is the medallion of the very first law giver, Moses. We all know where those laws came from, the very hand of God.

I think very often about the fact that we proudly profess that we are founded on Judeo-Christian principles. I think it is indisputable where those principles come from and what the origin of those principles is.

I believe that in the very beginning He created us, yes, all equal. The distinguished minority leader mentioned that a little bit ago, that we celebrate the fact that we were all created equal by our Creator, equal but different, and for a purpose. He showed us that purpose in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve. He showed us once again, and blessed that difference, at Cana, as my friend and colleague from Missouri just referenced, by Jesus performing his first miracle by blessing that wedding feast between a man and a woman.

I think there is a reason why marriage has always been such a sacred institution. I believe some things, some definitions in our society are absolute. Up isn't down, dark isn't daylight, black isn't white, fish isn't fowl, and marriage, since the beginning of time, as close as I can tell, has been between a man and a woman. If it was, indeed, good enough for our Creator, and it was indeed our Creator's plan, that we were created different for an absolute divine purpose, I think we best not be messing with His plan today.

It is important, I will disagree with my colleague from Missouri in this regard, it is very important that when a nation is, indeed, founded upon Judeo-Christian principles that we are willing to stand and define what we are for, lest we forget what we are about.

I strongly encourage the adoption of this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and the underlying legislation; in fact, in enthusiastic support. I am a cosponsor and have voted several times in this Chamber for permanent repeal of the death tax. This is not repeal, but it is relief, and it is significant relief.

I listened intently to the gentlewoman who spoke just before me. I found that a curious argument. I guess I see America and Americans a little bit differently. I think we ought to be incentivizing and stimulating and celebrating the achievement of the American dream every possible way we can.

I was in business myself, private business, all my life before I came to this Chamber, and as a community banker, I banked, I partnered with a lot of small business people. I celebrated their path to trying to create wealth and keep a business, especially a family business, going generation after generation.

I don't believe there is anything more egregious that government has ever done to disincent the achievement of the American dream than the death tax.

We tax everything you buy, everything you sell, you get to the end of the year, and if you happen to magically have something left, we want a piece of that. And then when you finally close your eyes for the last time, we are going to take our piece of what you have managed to accumulate through your lifetime. I think it is close to criminal, if not criminal.

Today we have an opportunity to provide some relief to those that do what so many come to this Nation for, to achieve the American dream. We have a chance to provide them some relief, some hope that what they worked all their life for, to accumulate something, maybe a business, maybe a family asset, pass it on to their children and their children's children, and that they might be able to do that without the threat of the Federal Government taking it away from them with excessive taxation.

It is with a great deal of pride and, frankly, a great deal of personal experience that I rise again in support of this rule and the underlying legislation. This is not, again, the permanent repeal that I think would be the best thing to do, but I think what we have before us is an opportunity to work with the other body to actually make law that will make a difference for Americans, American families, and our

constituents back home that we all support.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the memory of a remarkable gentleman from my district. Raymond Reinick was born in Kersey, CO in 1924. Growing up on his family's farm, he learned the value of hard work and developed a strong sense of pride in his country.

Raymond answered the call to duty when America entered WWII, joining the Navy and serving in the Pacific Theater aboard the USS Fond Du Lac as a Signalman Second Class. Having received the WWII Victory Medal, the Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal and the Philippine Liberation Medal, Raymond was honorably discharged from the Navy and returned home to work on the family farm.

Not long after Raymond returned from the war, he married Bernadette and began a family. Raymond worked as a stationary engineer for Union Pacific Railroad for almost 40 years, supporting his wife and four children.

Raymond passed away in 2003 and was buried at Fort Logan National Cemetery along side his comrades from the war.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to stand before this body of Congress and recognize Raymond Reinick's loyal service to our grateful Nation.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my distinguished colleague from Colorado for bringing this amendment to the floor, and as a former cattleman myself, I am very proud and pleased to be able to support it. I have been working here in this House with her and Members of the House Beef Caucus to reopen some of our markets to American beef throughout the world. What frustrates me most about the remaining bans on U.S. beef is that they are blatantly political. These bans are not based on scientific evidence, evidence which overwhelmingly shows that U.S. beef is among the safest in the world.

We have worked hard to demonstrate the safety of U.S. beef, and we have waited patiently for our trading partners to resume imports. Now it is time for us to do more.

I support this amendment because it sends a strong, clear signal to our trading partners that we are tired of waiting, and waiting needlessly. Now it is time to end the ban on U.S. beef.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to acknowledge Chairman Walsh and the members of the Military Quality of Life--VA Appropriations Subcommittee for their willingness to work with the VA to meet the needs of Colorado's veteran population.

The VA's effort to coordinate and reassess the current and future health care needs of our Nation's veterans has been a monumental undertaking. The CARES report cited numerous locations throughout the VA's nationwide network of medical facilities that are in need of improvement. A replacement facility for the VA Eastern Colorado Health Care System in Denver was one of the top priorities listed in the CARES report. Unfortunately, the original plan to share facilities with the University of Colorado was deemed infeasible. After years of hard work and negotiations, the VA has finally found a workable solution that meets their needs, and will allow them to continue their 50-year working relationship with the University of Colorado.

I commend Chairman Walsh for his commitment to this project, and for helping the VA reprogram existing funds for the purchase of the land. This is a critical first step in accomplishing the mission at hand.

While there is still much to be done in order for this project to be a success, I am optimistic that we will be able to overcome the obstacles and provide the veterans of the Rocky Mountain region with the hospital they deserve.

Mr. Chairman, again, I want to thank Chairman Walsh for his commitment to our Nation's veterans, and more specifically to the health care needs of Colorado's veterans. Without question, this project could not move forward without his assistance.

Mr. Chairman, I want to rise to express my strong opposition to language in the bill that earmarks $13 million in funding to continue operations at an existing U.S. Geological Survey mapping facility in Rolla, Missouri. This facility is planned to be closed based on a careful and thorough analysis of the 21st-century role of the USGS mapping. The amendment also prohibits the planned consolidation of the mapping functions at the USGS, which is estimated to save the American taxpayers millions of dollars.

Two formal investigations, including one by the Department of the Interior's Inspector General, have assessed the process used to select the consolidated site and have supported the decision.

I would like to yield back to the chairman and engage him in a colloquy and suggest to him that we have an obligation here in Congress to be prudent stewards of the taxes that our constituents back home pay and give them value for the dollars with improved service.

I believe this earmark fails both standards of accountability, and I would ask and hope that the chairman can correct that error in conference.

I thank the chairman.

Miss McMORRIS. Mr. Chairman, the northern portion of my district in Washington State is contiguous with the United States border with Canada. One of the Indian tribes in my district, the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, has for the last several months been experiencing an epidemic of crossborder drug smuggling activity from Canada onto its reservation. I mention this, Mr. Chairman, because since 1990 Congress has funded a very important program that as of late has had a direct impact in fighting this smuggling activity, and I am hopeful that the Congress can again restore the funds in this bill.

This program, identified as Lake Roosevelt Management/Enforcement funds in the Bureau of Indian Affairs budget, enables both the Colville Tribe and the Spokane Tribe to employ law enforcement officers to patrol Lake Roosevelt and its shoreline to enforce Federal laws and tribal health and safety laws. Lake Roosevelt is the 151-mile reservoir of the Grand Coulee Dam, the largest hydroelectric power plant in the United States and the third largest in the world. A portion of the dam lies within the boundaries of the Colville Reservation.

Currently, the Colville Tribe's law enforcement officials are under increasing strain due to crossborder smuggling activity that is on the rise. In recent months, numerous sightings of unmarked fixed-winged aircraft capable of landing on water have been reported on the lakes and waterways within and near the Colville Reservation.

Most significantly, on March 15 of this year, Colville tribal law enforcement officers funded with the Lake Roosevelt Management/ Enforcement funds seized an unmarked float plane from Canada that was attempting to smuggle illegal drugs into the United States through the Colville Reservation. After being alerted to the plane and after a long chase, the tribe's officers captured and detained the pilot and handed over to Federal law enforcement authorities an estimated $2 million in illegal drugs that had been dropped by the plane on the bank of Columbia River near the Grand Coulee Dam. Last month the U.S. Border Patrol honored the Colville Tribal officers that participated in this seizure.

In addition to this incident, other incidents involving float planes from Canada smuggling drugs through the lakes and waterways on the Colville Reservation have also resulted in arrests in recent months and have also involved the Colville Tribe's law enforcement personnel. I understand from the Colville Tribe that its law enforcement personnel register two to three reports of float plane sightings per week and that the tribe's police department has reason to believe that up to 25 aircraft may be involved in cross-border drug smuggling activities using the lakes and waters on the Colville Reservation.

The apparent ease with which these small planes fly back and forth across the northern border is truly cause for alarm. In commenting on these recent smuggling incidents, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Washington was recently quoted by a northwest newspaper as saying that ``a person that will smuggle drugs, guns, meth, Ecstasy and cash will also be the kind of person who would smuggle a special- interest alien or a terrorist.'' As disturbing as this prospect is, I believe that it is equally important for all of our law enforcement agencies on the northern border to have the resources available to combat these incursions, including the Colville Tribe.

Congress has in past years funded this program at the $630,000 level and our colleagues

should know that both the Colville Tribe and the Spokane Tribe contribute significant funds of their own and secure matching funds from various sources to keep these patrols running. Given the critical importance of this program to both border security and homeland security, and given the relatively modest request, I very much hope the chairman can support this request in conference, with an eye toward inclusion in the conference report.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I would join with my additional colleague from Colorado in supporting the gentleman's amendment. I entered into a colloquy earlier on the debate over the underlying bill and had that colloquy with the chairman of the subcommittee, and so my comments are in the Record. But I too am very supportive. I want to be on record as supporting the gentleman's amendment in every way, shape and form, and join my colleague, Mr. Udall, as well.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, simply put, this amendment will reduce funding for the National Endowment for the Arts by $30 million and transfer those funds to the United States Forest Service to reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfires.

Earlier this week, I was pleased to support the passage of the Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act because it will expedite the restoration of forest land affected by catastrophic wildfires. However, we can all agree that prevention comes first. Additional resources are needed if we are to get a handle on the wildfire crisis gripping the West.

In 2002, the American taxpayers spent over $1.5 billion containing these devastating blazes. When Congress spends so much annually to put out wildfires, doesn't it make more sense to spend that money on additional thinning treatments that could help prevent these fires from starting in the first place?

According to the House Resources Committee, 190 million acres of BLM and Forest Service land are at risk to catastrophic wildfire. To put that in perspective, this area is larger than the States of California and Arizona combined.

The Wall Street Journal reported that parts of the National Forest system contained more than 400 tons of dry fuel per acre, or 10 times the manageable or appropriate level. Disease and insect infestation have also contributed to an increase in combustible fuels.

In Colorado alone, my State, surveys have recorded that approximately 1.2 million trees were killed by mountain pine beetle outbreaks in 2004. This is nearly 100 times the mortality rate reported in 1996, the first year a study was released by the Colorado Forest Service on pine beetles damage.

Unfortunately, beetle kill leaves behind the kind of timber that turns small fires into the kinds of infernos that have devastated Colorado and other western States in recent years, destroying homes, poisoning the air, scorching critical habitat, and choking streams and rivers with tons of soot and sediment.

Even with increased attention to thinning and fuel treatments efforts with legislation like the Healthy Forest Initiative, more funding is needed.

Since the majority of our forests are federally owned, the burden to protect our States and local communities from the devastating effects of forest fires lies with the Federal agencies designated to protect them. Congress must fully fund their needs.

The question arises, Why take funding from the NEA? I actually applaud the progress that has been made recently by the NEA in repairing a very damaged image in the view of many Americans. It is important, however, to recognize that only a small percentage of funding for the arts comes from the Federal Government. In 2001, Americans spent $27 billion on nonprofit arts funding. At $124 million, the NEA funding is just a drop in the bucket for an art industry that seems to be doing exceedingly well.

Congress has to choose its fiscal priorities and obligations responsibly. This amendment amounts to one-tenth of one percent of total arts funding, but it is a massive help to ensure the safety of our western communities, prevent forest fires and save lives.

Anyone who has witnessed the devastation to life, property, wildlife, water and air from the monster that is a forest fire understands that investing in prevention infinitely outweighs the incalculable long-term costs of a forest fire. This amendment allows us to invest in prevention, Mr. Chairman, and I urge its adoption.

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman. I will be brief. I respect and appreciate the effort put forth by both the minority as well as the majority side of the committee on this issue.

But with all due respect, I would point out again that the private sector, and a very large private sector, supports our arts industry. The public sector, we in government, have an obligation to look after the government's assets and people's lives, and that is what is at stake with this amendment.

With all due respect to the comments that have already been made, no one looks after our national forests other than we in government, and I would encourage both the chairman and the ranking member at the next opportunity to come out to the West and visit and see the devastation the pine beetle damage has created in our forests. We are sitting literally on a matchbox awaiting someone to light the first match.

I urge the adoption of this amendment. I think it is common sense. I think it is about us in government establishing priorities to protect and defend our Nation's assets and our citizens' lives.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Beauprez

Amendment No. 5: In title III of the bill under the heading

``wildland fire management (including transfer of funds)'',

insert after the first dollar amount the following:

``(increased by $28,700,000)''.

In title III of the bill under the heading ``National

Endowment for the Arts--Grants and Administration'', insert

after the first dollar amount the following: ``(reduced by

$30,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Beauprez

Amendment No. 5: In title III of the bill under the heading

``wildland fire management (including transfer of funds)'',

insert after the first dollar amount the following:

``(increased by $28,700,000)''.

In title III of the bill under the heading ``National

Endowment for the Arts--Grants and Administration'', insert

after the first dollar amount the following: ``(reduced by

$30,000,000)''.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee and applaud him for bringing this legislation to the floor. It has made a difference in real American lives and the folks that we all represent.

I want to talk about one of those, Mr. Speaker. Her name is Linda Jones. Linda Jones operates two rental facilities in Westminster, Colorado, called Area Rent-Alls, just little equipment rentals like we have in all of our neighborhoods back in our districts.

She utilized section 179 expensing that is so much a part of this legislation that we are bringing in today, and in 2003, she bought $57,000 worth of new equipment. Somebody had to manufacture that equipment. Somebody had to retail that equipment. Somebody had to deliver it to a store. That is jobs.

From that, she saved $7,360 in expense. She applied that $7,360 to the health care costs for her employees. Health care costs were very much on the rise; she used the tax savings to benefit her workers in her shop.

The next year, she bought $64,000 of additional equipment and used the savings for the same thing, to buy down the increase in health care costs that she experienced on behalf of her employees.

Here is what she says: ``The availability of section 179 motivates me to continue to grow my business and is a key component within my business plan. My goal is to build my rental businesses of two more rental stores into one new location. The goal is achievable in a more reasonable time frame only because of the availability of section 179. It is a vital part of my planning for the future and ensuring a bright and profitable future for my rental business and my employees.''

It works for real, live Americans. It creates jobs and makes those with jobs lives much better and more secure.

I thank the chairman again.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the thousands of Americans who proudly call themselves Red Cross volunteers. I stand to show my support for their service to this country, their sacrifice in leaving their homes and loved ones to rush to the aid of fellow Americans in their own community, or another community hundreds, even thousands of miles away.

When you talk about the American Red Cross, you must never forget that you are talking about volunteers. More than 95% of Red Cross workers are volunteers. They are on no government payroll. They have no secret motives or hidden agendas. They are citizens in voluntary service of their fellow citizens.

March is Red Cross Month. We take the time to honor the compassion of the volunteer spirit.

In my own district, these good people are at work daily, teaching CPR, helping to collect lifesaving blood, teaching someone how to swim, and responding in the middle of the night to comfort one of their neighbors whose house has burned down. It is simply impossible to imagine our community without the Red Cross.

There is a reason why every president since Franklin Roosevelt has declared March to be Red Cross Month. This is an organization that mimics American's tendencies to help a neighbor in need, and provides an essential safety net affecting millions of lives. It has earned the right to be called a national treasure.

No one is more interested in building the best possible Red Cross than the people of the Red Cross themselves. Their only desire is to fulfill their mission of compassion and humanity--a mission they have upheld with honor for 125 years. Let us take care to guard this well- earned reputation, aiding and supporting them as they have aided and supported America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning in support of H.R. 4437, the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act, because I believe it is past time we took serious steps to secure our borders and the safety of this country.

Rest assured, this legislation is not perfect nor is it a silver bullet, but it is a good start in terms of shutting off the magnet that is drawing people into our country to work illegally. Specifically, this bill contains provisions to establish the mandatory use of an employee eligibility verification program, designed to help employers hire only those who are in this country legally.

I submit that I am just as pro-business as anyone else in this Chamber. As such, I believe the Federal Government has a duty to provide the business community with the tools necessary to abide by the rules and then we need to enforce them.

I believe the Border Protection Act takes us a big step in that direction.

Mr. Speaker, this has been an interesting debate, as it always seems like it is these days in this House. In 2003, I actually thought we did some very good things with the tax cuts we implemented, and I thought we did them for families back home in all of our districts. So on August 2, 2005, I joined with a colleague of mine from Colorado, Congresswoman Musgrave, a member of the Small Business Committee, and we explored the effect of at least one of those tax cuts that we are talking about extending today, section 17, which increases the allowable expensing limits from $25,000 on depreciable assets to $100,000.

Now, I think Linda Jones, the owner of Area Rentals back in Westminster, Colorado, will be delighted to understand that she is a member of a special interest and must surely be rich, by definition, because she got a tax break. What she did with that was, in 2003, she used $57,000 of the allowable expensing limits to purchase some additional equipment that she rents in her store. And because she saved a little over $7,300 in tax expense, and that came the same year she got a 30 percent increase in her employees' health care costs, she was able to maintain coverage for health care for her employees. The very next year she used an additional $64,000 of the expensing allowance to purchase even more equipment to expand her store, keep jobs, and, in fact, increase jobs.

Ron Lautzenheiser must be among the rich and the special interests, too, except he runs a big old tire center back in Fort Collins. When he did his calculations, wanting to expand, the increase in expensing limits contained in section 179 allowed him to figure out how to do that. He added two new stores and went from one big old tire center employing but a handful of people to now employing 50 people in three stores.

This is commonsense legislation for the real people back home, and I urge its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) for yielding me this time and especially for bringing this legislation to the floor.

I am sure that people who are watching this debate from home are absolutely perplexed as to why an idea that has received pledges of support from both sides of the aisle has deteriorated into such a partisan conflict, and I expect folks back home are, again, perplexed by that. I think we have had at least two Members from the other side that were here when this alternative minimum tax was given birth, and it touched very few people and I think with a very clear intent, to strike at people that were somehow considered wealthy and somehow considered to be taking advantage, perhaps by some definition egregious advantage, of the allowances of the Tax Code.

Let me tell you what I have found in my State not necessarily from the rich and the famous but from the very middle class and average, from farmers and ranchers, people in their garages and their machine shops, people that are running small businesses all over the State, laborers all over my State, along with the death tax, the one that comes up most frequently is the alternative minimum tax. What has not been said here today, and I again acknowledge the gentleman from New York who eloquently and accurately described how egregious this tax is and how it is invading every single worker, it seems like, in America, that if they already have not been hit, they fear that they soon will be, the cost of compliance with this tax.

By some estimates, it costs 15 percent additional surtax over and above the tax people send in just to figure out what they owe us. With the alternative minimum tax, we tell people they have got to figure everything twice just to figure out how much, always the highest amount, they owe the Federal Government. There is another estimate out there that says it is almost a $1 trillion cost of compliance with Federal regulation.

I urge the adoption of this legislation, and I thank the gentleman for bringing it to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, actually I am going to come to the well of this House tonight to celebrate, not besmirch the gentleman's youth nor certainly his wisdom. The gentleman from Florida and the gentleman from Texas, it is you, of anybody in this Chamber tonight, it is you and the millions of your generation that you represent in this Chamber, in this people's House that we ought to be concerned about. You are the ones that should be passionate because you are going to get stuck with the bill.

I thank both the gentlemen. And there has been a lot of heated rhetoric in here tonight. Let us talk at least a shred of truth. What this bill does is suggest that for a person to be Medicaid eligible has to have less than 3

quarters of $1 million of net worth. Now, is that harsh folks? Let us get real. Who out there in the real world believes that that is overly harsh, that to be on a welfare program, to be nursing home eligible, you have to have less than 3 quarters of $1 million worth of net worth? Not the world that I came from.