Floor Statements

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

The Democratic bill manager has adequately explained this bill, which authorizes limited Federal participation in a water reuse project in McLennan County, Texas. We have no objection to this well-intended bill.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I will just reaffirm the support that this bill has from our side of the aisle, I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1393. The Democratic bill manager has adequately explained this bill, which has passed the House in the last two Congresses in one form or another.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this point, I will yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on H.R. 1280, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

H.R. 1280 has been well explained by the majority, and we support the legislation.

At this point, I would reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on behalf of H.R. 689 and yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend Congressman Herger and his staff for their excellent work on this legislation.

After hearing from many concerned constituents, Congressman Herger has sought to help Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management officials better manage a complex mix of administrative jurisdictions in Shasta County, a place renown for its natural beauty. This legislation will help both agencies. It will also greatly benefit the off-highway vehicle users who have been using this area for generations.

Not surprisingly, this bill has widespread support among local OHV users. It is a rare feat to have two separate Federal agencies and the public all agreeing that a particular piece of legislation is worthy of praise. Congressman Herger should be congratulated for this. It is for legislation such as this that Congressman Herger has a reputation for addressing the needs of his Northern California constituents.

At this time, I would yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), the author of the bill.

We have no more speakers.

And I yield back also.

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

Thank you. I would like to thank the gentlelady for her kind words.

I am pleased to be the sponsor of this bill that directs the National Park Service to study the suitability of Camp Hale for designation as a unit of the National Park System. Tennessee Pass and Camp Hale served as the training site for the 10th Mountain Division, a specialized skiing unit whose heroism during World War II in Italy still inspires our Nation. Later, the site was used for covert training operations for Tibetan freedom fighters and other activities that furthered the cause of freedom during the Cold War.

The geography of the area is ideal for winter and high-altitude training, with steep mountains surrounding a level valley suitable for housing and other facilities. In addition to the 10th Mountain Division, the 38th Regimental Combat Team and 99th Infantry Battalion, as well as soldiers from Fort Carson, were trained at Camp Hale from 1942 to 1965.

Today, this landmark section of Colorado is the location of an outstanding ski area. With Park Service recognition, it will provide unique educational opportunities for learning about an important but little-known part of our history. Listing Tennessee Pass and Camp Hale as a unit of the National Park System will allow us to learn about and experience a unique episode of history in its original setting in this spectacular beauty of Colorado.

I also want to thank Senator Mark Udall, who last year as a Representative was a cosponsor of this bill with me and this year has agreed to be the Senate sponsor if, and when, this bill goes to the Senate.

At this point, I would yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2430 was introduced by the ranking Republican of the committee, Mr. Hastings of Washington, and has the bipartisan support of five other Members of the Washington delegation.

This legislation simply implements the recommendations of the National Park Service's 2008 final Environmental Impact Statement on mountain lakes fishery management in the North Cascades National Park.

Beginning in the 1880s, 91 of the 245 lakes within the park complex have been stocked with trout. When the North Cascades National Park was created in 1968, the Park Service continued to allow fish stocking under the supervision of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife.

To address subsequent questions about the environmental impact of stocking the lakes, the Park Service agreed to complete a NEPA review on fisheries management within the park. This review began in 2002 and resulted in a record of decision last year, which concluded that fish stocking could continue in 42 of these lakes without adversely affecting native ecosystems.

The legislation creating the North Cascades National Park specifically identifies fishing as an important recreational use. Although recreational fishing is called for in the park's enabling act and stocking has continued throughout its existence, the Park Service has requested that this authority be specifically authorized for it to continue.

H.R. 2430 adopts the 42 lakes identified in the Park Service's Environmental Impact Statement as a ceiling for fish stocking, directs the agency to work with the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife to supervise this activity, and limits stocking to native or sterile fish.

Passing this legislation will authorize fish stocking in limited circumstances in this particular park rather than relying on a waiver from the director of the Park Service to the agency's general policy against stocking lakes. This will ensure that allowing this activity to continue where it has been carefully reviewed and found to be appropriate does not set a precedent for other Parks.

Mr. Speaker, the National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee held hearings on this legislation on April 24 of last year, and it passed the House by voice vote on July 14, 2008. This bipartisan legislation has been carefully and narrowly drafted and has the support of recreation advocates, as well as State and local government. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I would yield back the balance of my time.

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

We have no objection to the joint resolution, and in fact, we wholeheartedly support passage of this measure. This measure encourages all people in the United States to recognize the legacy, as well as the future, of Native Americans as an intrinsic part of our Nation's culture and history.

Indian Country has produced such a treasury of wisdom and talent that it is difficult to know how to begin to describe it all. From the Indian people who encountered the Pilgrims, to those who helped Lewis and Clark, from the courageous souls who fought in the Revolutionary War, to veterans of the foreign wars, from Chief Joseph, to Maria Tallchief, to Jim Thorpe; Indian people from hundreds of different tribes have distinguished themselves across history as leaders, peacemakers, and in many walks of life. They bequeathed a legacy that inspires and enriches future generations.

It is right that this resolution encourages all Americans to recognize the day after Thanksgiving as a day to appreciate and learn more about Native Americans, and again, we support this measure.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I want to commend Representative Baca for his work on this issue and for his eloquent remarks. At this point I will reaffirm that we support this measure wholeheartedly.

I yield back the balance of my time.

I rise in support of House Resolution 421 and yield myself such time as I may consume.

This resolution celebrates one of the most popular national parks in our country. It is a beautiful part of the country that I have had the privilege of visiting on several occasions.

I congratulate Congressman Roe for bringing this resolution to the House so that we may recognize the 75th anniversary of the establishment of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

At this time I would yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan), whose congressional district includes about half of the Tennessee portion of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park.

I think it's evident from the remarks of Representative Duncan that he has a great love and appreciation and support for this beautiful national park, and the fact that it's the most visited national park in the entire park system attests to its popularity and its beauty.

I would urge all of my colleagues to support this resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you, Mr. Akin. I really appreciate what Representative Franks and what Representatives Coffman and Bishop have also contributed to this important dialogue. Thank you for your leadership in setting up this time.

And I like what our friend across the aisle, Representative Johnson, was saying as well. We really have to use this technology in this day and age more than ever, and it's of a great concern to all of us here, I'm sure, that the Obama administration is proposing a $1.4 billion cut in missile defense funding for the next fiscal year. And as Representative Franks has mentioned, airborne laser is one of the things that's on the chopping block. Two other things that are on the chopping block: one is the Multiple Re-Entry Kill Vehicle. That's where we send up a missile that has multiple kinetic interceptors on it that could take out even a decoy or several decoys if they're using countermeasures and take out multiple incoming rounds and get the warhead that's hidden among a number. That's the Multiple Kill Vehicle. And to cut the funding for the research of that right now when we know that the bad guys are developing this capability is really a bad decision.

Mr. Akin, the other thing that's proposed to be cut by this $1.4 billion slashing of our missile defense program by the Obama administration, unless Congress stands up and restores that funding, and I think we're going to work to try to get both sides of the aisle hopefully to accomplish that, but that is we are going to cut the number of interceptors. We're going to just stop where they're at now.

We have a couple of dozen interceptors in Alaska and California. And North Korea is testing intercontinental missiles they say for the purpose of putting up satellites, but no one believes them. And right when they're developing that capability, this is the wrong time to say we've made our last interceptor, we're not going to build any more. The timing is bad. And yet that's what this Obama budget cut will result in.

Yes, if I could just step back a couple of steps and look at defense spending in general. It's the only department where there are massive cuts being proposed. Everything else in the budget is going up. Social programs are going up, entitlement programs are going up.

Anything you can shake a stick at in our budget is going up, except for defense, and we are living in an increasingly more dangerous world. It's the wrong time to be cutting defense.

We are cutting F-22s. After this next year, we are going to build a few more and they are done, even though the Air Force would love to have many more than the roughly 200 that would be built by then. They wanted close to 400. I know they are expensive per unit, and yet they don't get shot down because they are so much more advanced than anything else existing in the rest of the world.

We can't decide what to do on tankers. Our heavy lift capability is being questioned. Some of our naval ships, classes of naval ships are just being zeroed out completely.

So we have some major defense cuts that are being proposed when everything else is going up in the budget. I don't understand that priority.

The first responsibility of a government is to protect the safety of the citizens living within its territory. So the first responsibility of the U.S. is the defense of our country, and yet we are slashing defense budgets and yet everything else is going up. I just don't understand that way of thinking. It's hard to understand that.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to recognize Holocaust Remembrance Day in Israel and the many sacrifices of the Jewish community. It has been sixty-four years since the Allies forced an end to the atrocities of World War II and the genocide of two-thirds of the 9 million European Jewish men, women and children.

Over the centuries, the Jewish people have persevered through hardships and seemingly insurmountable persecutions. In spite of these hardships, they have triumphed and today have a stable democracy in an important and volatile region. Still, they are surrounded by often hostile neighbors, some of whom have vowed to seek Israel's destruction and deny their very right to exist. Israel is a beacon of hope to Jews and freedom-loving people around the world.

Peace can never be achieved by asking Israel to risk its security. It is vital to our national interests to support Israel and work for peaceful relations in the region.

While a lasting peace has been elusive for Israel, one thing is certain--it will only come when every country in the region feels secure and safe from outside threats. I am proud, and America must be proud, to call Israel an ally and friend.

On this day of remembrance in Israel, I stand to ask every Member of this body to take a moment to reflect on the tragedy of genocide--and in particular the suffering of our Jewish allies.

Mr. Speaker, human lives should never be sacrificed for the promotion of science. The very purpose of science is to uphold and protect life. We cannot in one breath say we want to advance science in order to save lives, and in the next support science that devalues the life of the smallest and most defenseless humans. All human life is sacred.

The alternatives to embryonic stem-cell research are vast. There is no reason to force taxpayers to fund research that will destroy human life because the advances we are seeing from adult stem-cell research hold tremendous promise.

To date, there have been 73 treatments for disease ethically using adult forms of stem-cell research while embryonic stem-cell research has failed to provide a single treatment.

There is no one in this Chamber who does not wish to see science advance. But as we progress, we must be mindful that science is best when it is used within ethical boundaries. In our quest for progress, if we compromise the morals that support us, what good will our so- called progress be then?

Mr. Speaker, I rise also in support of House Concurrent Resolution 64, which urges the President to designate 2009 as the ``Year of the Military Family,'' and I thank the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Representative Skelton, for offering it.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to pay tribute today to the force behind the force--the military family. It has long been known that the military services recruit individuals but retain families. This has never been more true nor more critical than it is today. The support our troops receive from their loving families--mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, spouses and children--is intangible, and it is nothing less than a powerful force multiplier.

Dedicating a year to honor the service and sacrifice of our military families is the least we can do to say thank you and to call attention to this sometimes forgotten resource. Today, Mr. Speaker, millions of Americans have one or more family members serving in the Armed Forces. These incredible families attempt to lead normal lives while their loved ones stand in harm's way, fulfilling our Nation's oath to serve and protect.

But they do not just wait. They also serve. Military spouses spend countless hours volunteering in family readiness programs and wounded warrior networks, all while managing to be two parents at once. Military children, numbering almost 2 million in our country, attempt to be like other children while trying their hardest not to let sadness and worry overcome them.

Mr. Speaker, the strength of the military family is astonishing. As we celebrate military families, let us not forget the sacrifice of parents. Military parents give their sons and daughters to the Nation and pray ceaselessly for their safe return. They look forward to every letter and every phone call, while fearing the ringing of the phone and the doorbell at the same time.

Military children, Mr. Speaker, are a very different breed of young adult. They do not always have hometowns, but they do have a heightened sense of family, both in the traditional sense and in the special characteristics of the military community. Their home is where the military chooses to send them, and their family becomes all who surround them.

They do not hesitate to support their family when their father or mother walks out the door for 6 months, 8 months, or even more often now, a year. In most cases they are Mom or Dad's biggest fans. Many times the oldest child takes over as second in charge while serving as a rock for the youngest.

Even at a young age, military children know what the words ``ultimate sacrifice'' means, and these words are in the back of their minds every day that goes by. Military families have an uncanny resilience. They are some of the strongest citizens in this country, and I am privileged to recognize them not only today, but every day.

I have many such dedicated families in my strongly military district, the Fifth District of Colorado.

I urge my colleagues to support this very important resolution because without the support of our military families, our Armed Forces would not be the incredible power that they are today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to a new member of the Armed Services Committee, but she's already starting to make a strong contribution, the gentlelady from Oklahoma (Ms. Fallin).

At this point, I yield 4 minutes to someone who's made a strong contribution to the military--until January, he served for many years on the Armed Services Committee--the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for offering this resolution.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to the Republican Leadership standards on earmarks, I am submitting the following information regarding earmarks I received as part of [H.R. 1105 Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009]:

Request Member: Congressman Doug Lamborn, CO-05.

Bill Number: H.R. 1105.

Account: FL--Federal lands (Public Lands Highways).

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Colorado Department of Transportation.

Address of Requesting Entity: 4201 Arkansas Ave #275/ Denver, CO 80222.

Description of Request: $652,650 is included in this bill to help accelerate intersection improvements at Fort Carson Gates 5 and 6 as well as safety improvements along SH 115 between these two gates.

Bill Number: H.R. 1105.

Account: FL--Federal lands (Public Lands Highways).

Legal Name of Requesting Entity: Colorado Department of Transportation.

Address of Requesting Entity: 4201 Arkansas Ave #275/ Denver, CO 80222.

Description of Request: $2,280,000 is included in this bill to pay for preliminary and final design for full access to Peterson Air Force Base from Powers Boulevard. Peterson Air Force Base has recently completed improvements to its west gate, which is the main access point into the base from Powers Boulevard. This will address mobility and future congestion at the Powers Boulevard intersection by providing an interchange.

I thank the gentleman for yielding and, most of all, for his leadership on this vital interest of protecting life. So, thank you, Representative Smith, for the years of dedication and for that of your wife as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in honor of the sanctity of all human life. Last Friday, in a bipartisan effort that I initiated, 78 Members of Congress sent a letter urging President Obama to continue the Mexico City Policy, which separates abortion and family planning in America's foreign aid programs.

President Reagan first issued this Executive order in 1984. This policy, the Mexico City Policy, establishes a bright line between family planning activities and abortion, therefore ensuring that U.S. family planning funds are not co-opted by groups who promote abortion or provide abortion as a method of family planning.

Such activities sends a wrong message overseas that the United States promotes abortion. The Mexico City policy simply assures that taxpayer money is not used overseas to fund highly controversial abortion providers. The controversial debate of abortion has no business being included in foreign aid programs, and the Mexico City policy makes it clear that abortions are not to be funded overseas with U.S. tax dollars.

In these difficult economic times, the American people would not want taxpayers to fund groups that are trying to export abortions all over the world. Also, in a moral sense, it is simply wrong to make all Americans who pay taxes complicit in even the smallest degree with the funding of abortions overseas when tens of millions of Americans believe abortion, elective abortion, is immoral and wrong.

We strongly urge President Obama not to go down this road by forcing American taxpayers to pay for abortions overseas. We urge you, Mr. President, do not get rid of the Mexico City policy.

I thank you.

The gentleman from Missouri has laid a good background for what got us to the point. There is a lot of discussion going on right now today here in Washington about a stimulus package. It's been in the news.

The incoming President wants to deal with this, and I think by the middle of February we are going to hopefully pass something. I am concerned, though, that some of the elements in this program are not going to really solve the problem.

I haven't seen the bill. No one has seen the bill. There is no bill in front of us yet. There might be by next week. I hope so.

Exactly. I know there is another representative here who can talk about H.R. 470, which is a positive approach to the stimulus, to what will kick start our economy.

Representative, you are exactly right. Two things that I have heard bandied about that will probably be in the stimulus package that I think should not be, one is bailing out States. There is talk about sending a lot of money to the States for Medicaid and other expenses that they are running. They are running deficits in the number of States around the country.

The trouble is, every person who is listening to our dialogue right now wears two hats. They are a taxpayer to the Federal Government, and they are a taxpayer to a State or a territory government, every single person who is listening.

So we are going to take Federal tax money and give it to the States to solve their deficit but, in the meantime, we are creating a larger Federal deficit.

It's like taking a credit card debt that you are labeling under and say how can I pay off this credit card? Oh, I know, I am going to take out a new credit card, and I will take thousands of dollars in my new line of credit and pay off this credit card. You are not any farther ahead.

You are exactly right. So you are not any further ahead. In fact, you are behind, because the money has gone through the bureaucracy. It got sent back to Washington, it came back to the States. There's been overhead costs, you actually end up with less than you started with, so you are worse off.

But that's the part about the proposed stimulus, and I haven't seen the details, that I would really object to. That's going to be in the final proposal.

Will the gentleman yield?

The Federal spending projected for Fiscal Year 2009 is going to be 25 percent of the Gross Domestic Product. Right now that's over $1 trillion, and that's even before we add the possible deficit spending of a stimulus package, which could be up to another $800 billion.

Now, 25 percent of GDP, to put that in perspective, that is the most, in our Nation's history, except for World War II.

That's exactly right. The Republican Study Committee proposal, H.R. 470, is going to call for a modest spending decrease. Instead of this massive wave of spending, the bailout fever that Representative Jordan referred to, we call for a 1 percent decrease of nonmilitary and veterans spending, of the discretionary spending.

That would be, if you were a family making $40,000, that would be a $400 cut in your yearly budget. If a family could find $400 to save, out of $40,000, that would be like the Federal Government finding a 1 percent decrease, as opposed to this massive up to $800 billion increase for a stimulus.

That's the kind of thing that we have to do, Representative, is to tighten our belts. If families have to do that, if small business has to do that, the government should do that as well. And you're right, Representative, when you say we can go in 1 of 2 directions. The government can spend more money to try to stimulate, or people can keep their own hard-earned dollars and spend it themselves. And I believe the second approach is the best.

And I'd like to yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.

Yes, Representative Akin. Let me make a last statement about the voice of small business.

A few weeks ago, I sent out an e-mail blast to the Fifth Congressional District of Colorado. I asked, ``How is this economic situation affecting you, personally?'' My heart went out to the replies and to the angst that I heard from small businesses and from individuals.

For instance, Carol, who is a bookstore owner in Leadville, Colorado, is going to have to lay off two or three of her four part-time employees.

A cardiologist in Colorado Springs says, ``We have already had to lay off some personnel.'' He is going to have to lay off more.

I'll end with Deborah. She expresses concern for the next generation. She says, ``My descendents will be on the hook for big money when the bill comes due. Federal spending needs to be more than Federal revenue, period.''

That is the voice of small business. We have to live within our means because business has to live within its means, and that's the principle we need to follow as we debate this stimulus package in the next few weeks.

I yield back to the gentleman from Missouri.