Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Flake

Amendment No. 16: Add at the end (before the short title)

the following:

Sec. 7__. None of the funds made available by this Act may

be used to pay the salaries and expenses of employees of the

Department of Agriculture who make payments from any

appropriated funds to tobacco quota holders or producers of

quota tobacco pursuant to any law enacted after July 1, 2004,

terminating tobacco marketing quotas under part I of subtitle

B of title III of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 and

related price support under sections 106, 106A, and 106B of

the Agricultural Act of 1949.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

I stand today, I guess, as a pig at a wedding here between those who want to fund the program that probably ought to be defunded and those who want to fund it more than it is being funded at current.

The President said that we ought to hold the line at about $35 million. The OMB analyzed the MEP and said, ``Ultimately firms should be willing to pay for the cost of services that contribute to profitability if they determine the services are worth it.''

That is what we as Republicans ought to stand for, and instead we are saying let us help them out some more. For those who do not believe this is corporate welfare, I would suggest that you do go to the Web site, which says MEP is a nationwide network of not-for-profit centers in over 400 locations nationwide whose sole purpose is to provide small and medium-sized manufacturers with the help they need to succeed.

Well, I would suggest that if a business is having trouble succeeding, it is probably because there is not a market for its good or services or its competitors are doing it better.

Now, is it our role as government to actually try to go in and help them out? I would say yes, but we ought to do it by little more of what the gentleman suggested was benign neglect. I think our small and medium-sized businesses out there are crying for a little benign neglect when it comes to government in terms of lesser taxes and less regulation. Let us give them more of what we have been over the past couple of years, which is lower taxes, less regulation, and let them compete on their own.

Now, I come from Arizona where we are long-suffering in terms of professional football. The Cardinals had fewer rushing touchdowns last year than they have in years past. What are we to do? Dispatch a government team or a bunch of experts to tell them how they can have more rushing touchdowns and compete a little more, put a little more fannies in the seats? I do not think we are going to do that, but reading this, I think, What is next? If we are going to do it for manufacturing, why not professional sports?

I would say it is time to back away. Government's role is to provide a conducive regulatory and tax environment and then please stay out of the way, particularly in times of human deficits, $400 billion deficit this year, and we are increasing spending on this program. I would urge a rejection of the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, the Flake-Davis-Emerson-Delahunt amendment simply prohibits the enforcement on the new Department of Commerce restrictions published June 22 of this year.

These new restrictions added to the list of items prohibited in the sending of gift parcels, namely, clothing, personal hygiene items, seeds, fishing equipment, soap-making equipment, and veterinary medicine and supplies. As I read through the new list, it occurs to me that these items would promote self-sufficiency among Cubans.

The rationale in the new regulations, however, seems to promote a dependency of Cubans on their oppressive government, the same government that has deprived them of freedom for the past 45 years. To quote the Federal Register that contains these new restrictions: ``Such parcels decrease the burden on the Cuban regime to provide for the basic needs of its people.'' By prohibiting these items from being sent to Cuba, we are, in fact, promoting dependence of these people on a dictator.

This amendment would simply take us back to June 21 of this year, at which point several restrictions were already in place.

The message of this amendment is that it is unreasonable for our government to prevent Americans from sending clothes, personal hygiene items, seeds, et cetera to people in Cuba who are struggling under the dictatorship of Fidel Castro. Withholding of such items will have little affect on Castro and a significant effect on individuals who already struggle for the basics.

This amendment would also prevent the enforcement of the new restriction that says gift parcels can only be sent once a month per household instead of once a month per individual. Again, why should we limit the help that Cuban Americans can send to their families?

Finally, it would prevent the enforcement of the new restriction that says travelers are only allowed to carry 44 pounds of luggage, another way to limit the amount of help that can be sent to struggling families.

In Cuba, the average salary is about $10 a month. When a Cuban family receives simple household items in a parcel, it can save its limited income and spend it on food and other necessities. It is hard to think of an economic sanction that does more harm to the welfare of families in Cuba or does more to make the United States seem mean-spirited towards families who already have the misfortune to live under Communism.

We Republicans have diverse views on the Cuban embargo, but we are united on family values; and we should stand up for them here.

As President Reagan said in 1984, ``We must be careful, in reacting to actions by the Soviet Government, not to take out our indignations on those not responsible.'' I would submit, Mr. Chairman, that that is what we are doing here. We are taking it out on those who are not responsible.

The United States should not be targeting economic sanctions directly against Cuban families, nor should we take away from Cuban Americans the right that all immigrants have, to help loved ones who are left behind.

I urge support of the Flake-Davis-Emerson-Delahunt amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Chairman, I feel compelled to say again, this is not about travel. This is about the freedom of Cuban Americans to send packages of soap and clothing and personal hygiene items to their families in Cuba.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Missouri (Mrs. Emerson).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume before yielding to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I just wanted to clarify what the rule actually says. The rule we are seeking to amend states this rule removes seeds, clothing, personal hygiene items, veterinary medicine and supplies, fishing equipment and supplies, and soap-making equipment from the list of commodities that may be sent to Cuba in gift parcels.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume before yielding to the gentleman from Idaho.

I would just say that let us do stand for freedom, let us allow Cuban Americans to observe the freedom that they have to send personal hygiene items and food, medicine, and clothing to their family members in Cuba.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to the time remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

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

Mr. Chairman, up until most recently, this has been an enlightening discussion. I think it is unfortunate that those who seek to enhance the freedom of individuals to decide whether or not they can send their families services or goods, that is considered racist or that is considered patronizing or condescending. Nothing can be further from the truth. We are simply allowing freedom.

It would be the ultimate irony if we allow Fidel Castro, as William F. Buckley said in a column today, it would be the ultimate irony if we allow Fidel Castro to impinge on the rights of Americans.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Flake

Amendment No. 22: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 410) recognizing the 25th anniversary of the adoption of the Constitution of the Republic of the Marshall Islands and recognizing the Marshall Islands as a staunch ally of the United States, committed to principles of democracy and freedom for the Pacific region and throughout the world, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the concurrent resolution under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, the United States and the Marshall Islands share deep bonds of history and friendship. We have enjoyed the uniquely close alliance over the past half century. The ties between us stretch back to World War II when we struggled together to liberate the Marshall Islands from Japanese occupation.

During the intervening decades, these bonds of blood have grown into an abiding alliance. The Congress reaffirmed that alliance late last year when we approved the amended Compact of Free Association between the United States and the Republic of the Marshall Islands, which extended the strategic and economic ties between our two countries.

When the Marshallese people adopted their Constitution in 1979, they formed a democratic government, committed to the rule of law and individual liberty. It was a critical development in their transition from the U.S.-administered trust territory into a sovereign independent nation.

The people of the United States saw our shared ideals of freedom and democracy take root among our friends in the Pacific; and when full sovereignty followed in 1986, we gained a stalwart ally in the community of nations.

I commend this effort to commemorate that event and our continuing alliance with the Republic of the Marshall Islands, which deserves our unanimous support.

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity a couple of times now to visit the Marshall Islands, once years ago and again this January, and to be able to visit with President Note and other members of the Parliament and other ministers as well and to visit a couple of the islands and to witness the friendship firsthand with the Marshallese people.

It is significant to note that nearly a hundred Marshallese citizens have actually been serving with our Armed Forces in Iraq and other theatres of war. They have been a very staunch ally of ours, and I think it is also significant to note that in the United Nations, the United States has no better friend and ally than the Marshallese. The Marshall Islands votes with the United States 99 percent of the time. That is something that is not shared with any other country or nation. So we owe a debt of gratitude to the Marshallese people; and to recognize them for the adoption of their Constitution 25 years ago, I think, is a significant step. It means a lot to them, and it should mean a lot to us.

There is also another reason that it is important that we recognize the Marshall Islands for what they do and have done for us in the past. Our nuclear testing dates back to the 1950s when we did Operation Bravo and in other operations where we tested nuclear devices, and the Marshallese people have cooperated and helped us in that regard for over a half century; and for that we owe a debt of gratitude.

From the military base at Kwajalein, I was able to see our base there and see what we are currently doing today; and it is a great operation there, and we have the full cooperation of the Marshallese, which makes it much easier to accomplish what we need to.

They have been a stable democracy in the Pacific for over 25 years, and this is due in part to the fact that the United States during the U.N. trusteeship period fulfilled its commitment to promote democratic self-government and self-determination for the Marshall Islands. These efforts led to the establishment of local self-government, and this culminated in a constitutional convention in which delegates representing the people of the Marshall Islands proposed that they be constituted as a self-governing nation.

This happened, and in 1979 the people of the Marshall Islands adopted their own Constitution and declared themselves a republic. This Constitution established a parliamentary governmental system with separation of powers and a bill of rights guaranteeing democracy, freedom, and limited government for the Marshallese people.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments and just to say again that we had the opportunity, myself and the gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo) of the Committee on Resources, to travel with Secretary Gale Norton, Secretary of the Interior, to the Marshall Islands earlier this year, and were able to meet with the President and others. I know they appreciate this gesture, and we have no greater friend than the Marshall Islands.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2121) to amend the Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship Act of 1990 to authorize additional appropriations for the Eisenhower Exchange Fellowship Program Trust Fund, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2121.

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

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the gentleman from Illinois (Chairman Hyde) I am pleased to speak to a bill introduced by the distinguished gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt). The measure authorizes an increase in the Eisenhower Fellows Trust Fund that was established in 1992. The proceeds of this trust fund finance this well-respected exchange program. The increase will be directed towards programs in the Middle East.

The Eisenhower Fellowships is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization created in 1953 to honor President Eisenhower. Eisenhower Fellowships promote international understanding and productivity through the exchange of information and ideas among emerging leaders throughout the world. The program brings rising leaders from other countries to the United States and sends American counterparts abroad with a custom designed program for each participant.

The fellowship program seeks to create a network of leaders whose ties to one another and the United States may foster peace, productivity and progress. This is accomplished by creating programs that enhance the capacities of men and women leaders likely to have an impact on their nation's development. Programs are designed to build on the individual's professional skills as well as develop contacts within the United States. These experiences are devoted to the growth of the individual Fellows, to the advancement of their effectiveness as leaders, and to their ability to contribute to progress and reconciliation among diverse groups.

The advantage to the United States in such interaction affords our citizens the opportunity to understand the aims, achievements and problems of different countries through meeting proven young leaders of these countries.

In closing, the Eisenhower Fellowships promote international understanding and productivity through the exchange of information, ideas and perspectives among emerging leaders throughout the world. This is important and useful to our future as a member of the globalized society.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I did not expect to be here. I have no notes other than what I just jotted down a second ago because I thought this year when we are facing deficits of nearly $500 billion that nobody would dare stand up and ask for an increase in funding for the NEA or the NEH.

I am surprised and, frankly, disappointed that we are doing that. How can we, as Republicans, on this side in particular, as a party of limited government, stand up and call to increase funding for the NEH and the NEA at any time, but particularly this year.

If there is $13.5 million in overhead at the Department of the Interior, and the argument is we are not increasing funding, we are simply moving it from one side to the other, I would suggest, as my colleague from Pennsylvania suggested, let us return that to the taxpayers. Let us lower the deficit. But to simply take it over and increase funding, which will simply lead to more increases and more increases, as we have seen in previous years, is simply not the way we ought to go.

It was noted earlier that this is only point zero, zero, zero whatever of the Federal budget; we can afford that. Just point zero, zero, zero whatever, we can afford that.

Well, if that is the case, if we look at arts funding, Federal funding of the arts is only point zero, zero, zero whatever of what is spent on the arts. The other happens to be spent by patrons of the arts, myself and others who actually go and view it or listen to it, or enjoy it in some other form.

Certainly the dire consequences that are spelled out on the other side of the aisle for the arts if the Federal Government cuts back its share or does not increase its share are not going to happen because the arts are important. People realize that. It does not take the Federal Government to tell people that.

I encourage my colleagues to understand that we are in a big deficit situation, nearly $500 billion. We hear the other side of the aisle talk about that a lot, but then propose to increase programs like this. I would suggest that both our side of the aisle and theirs ought to get serious about containing this deficit, and we ought to start by not increasing funding for the arts at this time.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to offer an amendment on page 47, line 8.

I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to offer an amendment on page 47, line 8.

Our amendment was changed. At the time the relevant section came and went, and by the time we had finished it, it had gone.

Mr. Chairman, yes.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to offer an amendment on page 47, line 8.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

That is correct.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin for the point he raised.

He mentioned that several other areas of the bill had been cut. I am aware of that, precisely because I recommended some of those cuts. In fact, I testified both before the Committee on the Budget and before the Committee on Appropriations to reduce the money available for land acquisition, Federal land acquisition, because we keep adding Federal land, and it just adds to the PILT problem.

PILT, as we all know, is short for payment in lieu of taxes. This is a program whereby counties in rural areas, in particular I am from Arizona, 87 percent of Arizona is publicly owned. Some 50 percent, 60 percent of the State is federally owned, and counties find it difficult to provide the services that other counties with more private land are able to provide, and when we continue to add Federal land, we exacerbate the problem of these counties being able to fund services.

I come from a rural area of the State and I have seen these problems firsthand. So what we need to do is fully fund PILT. We do not need to add more land for the Federal Government. That is why I made those recommendations, and I think it is fitting and proper that we can find the money in other accounts to actually fund this.

What we have recommended is that we find savings of $13 million in the facilities capital account of the Smithsonian and $2 million from the grants and administration account of the National Endowment for the Humanities. Both of these accounts were increased by that same amount or more in this past year. So we are simply slowing the rate of growth in these areas and fully funding PILT.

The PILT program has been authorized at $340 million; yet it has only received $226 million in this bill. That is $1 million more than last year's level and woefully short of what is needed. It is important to note that this year's budget resolution stated that the budget resolution can accommodate funding for the PILT at a fully authorized level; however, it was only increased by $1.3 million.

As I mentioned, we are not advocating an increase in PILT overall. That is important to all fiscal conservatives. What we are saying is that we should move some of the funding and increases in areas that have increased over the past year and move them into this area where we all recognize, and the gentleman from Wisconsin said it well, that we ought to increase the funding in this area.

I should note that this amendment is supported by the Western Caucus, and I know a few of these Members will be speaking on it shortly.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, today the House approved by voice vote H.R. 4417, a bill to modify certain deadlines pertaining to machine- readable, tamper-resistant entry and exit documents. I applaud the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Congressman Sensenbrenner, for advancing this important legislation, which is the first step in ensuring that the United States and Visa Waiver Program countries are able to honor the obligations that were put into law in the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002.

I am concerned, however, that H.R. 4417 does not grant the Administration the full two-year period that will be necessary to achieve the issuance of biometric, machine-readable, tamper-resistant passports that meet international standards. The Secretaries of State and Homeland Security have stated that not even the United States will be ready to issue such passports by October 2005. The uncertainty and confusion created by a one-year extension for both potential travelers to the U.S., as well as the industries that serve them during their stays here, must be taken into account. The Senate is considering legislation that would grant the Administration the two-year period that they seek. I believe that this approach will facilitate an efficient completion of the passport development and issuance process, while also taking into account important national security concerns.

Offered By: Mr. Flake

Amendment No. 8: In title I, under the heading

``Departmental Management--payments in lieu of taxes'', after

the first dollar amount insert ``(increased by

$20,000,000)''.

In title II, under the heading ``Smithsonian Institution--

salaries and expenses'', after the second dollar amount

insert ``(reduced by $22,000,000)''.

Madam Speaker, those of us who have had the good fortune to be born and raised in Arizona have always had the words and life of Barry Goldwater to shape our political philosophy. It was during the Goldwater campaign of 1964 that Ronald Reagan came to national prominence. During that campaign, Reagan delivered a speech so memorable that it was known thereafter simply as ``The Speech.'' It was, in my opinion, the greatest political speech ever delivered.

In it, Reagan included the words, ``You and I are told that we must choose between a left or right, but I would suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down: up to a man's age-old dream, the maximum in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the antheap of totalitarianism.''

Equally memorable was the line: ``This is the issue of this election. Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.''

Madam Speaker, having now spent 4 years in the far distant capital, I can attest that this insight from Ronald Reagan still bears remembering.

I was never able to meet President Reagan personally. It is one of my great regrets in life. But like all Americans, I am well acquainted with his goodness. I will always be grateful that he was my President.

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully request the opportunity to record my position on rollcall votes 177, 178, and 179. 1 was regrettably absent from the chamber on May 17 during rollcall votes 177, 178, and 179. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 177, ``yea'' on rollcall 178, and ``yea'' on rollcall five.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Kennedy- Snyder amendment. I urge its adoption.

This debate we are having right now points up the importance of having a nonpolitical process. That is why the BRAC came about. That is why we have to stick to the schedule.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff representing all the chiefs want the Congress to continue the 2005 rounds of the base alignment and closures as authorized by Congress. They do not want us to leave this issue in because of the savings they want to accrue. This will be essential for the restructuring of the military forces. To delay all the efforts of the military, to accomplish this restructuring, to leave our bases and local communities in doubt for another 2 years is not doing either the military or the community any favor.

Delaying the transformation of military bases overseas and at home, it ties the hands of our military at the same time they are fighting the war on terrorism.

We owe it to our Armed Forces to give them the savings and the structuring reprocess that they need. I urge strong adoption of this amendment. I thank the gentleman for offering it.

Mr. Speaker, today I voted ``no'' on final passage of H.R. 4280, the Help Efficient, Accessible, Low Cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2004.

This is not the first time I have had to make this difficult vote. On March 13, 2003, I voted against H.R. 5, which contained nearly identical language to H.R. 2480. Both in 2003 and today, I have heard arguments as to why the Federal Government should act and why this proposed reform is badly needed. Hearing these arguments on many occasions has not made it any less difficult to vote against this bill, but I am not convinced that the Federal Government should preempt State law in this area.

Those supporting this bill have made some compelling arguments as to why Congress should step in and institute these reforms. They cite the national nature of insurance plans, whereby a doctor in Arizona might have to pay more for malpractice insurance due to an over-the-top jury award in Florida. They also note that, as doctors close up shop or stop providing high-risk care in specialties such as emergency medicine and obstetrics and gynecology, patients are forced to cross State lines in order to seek out treatment. We have all watched with dismay as hospitals have been forced to shut their doors and doctors have opted to treat patients without malpractice insurance due to the high costs of premiums. Certainly, the trial attorneys who line their pockets with egregious fees aren't suffering as a result of the mess they've made with unscrupulous lawsuits. These arguments only underscore an already evident need for the States to pursue medical malpractice reforms. However, as one who believes firmly in federalism, I am wary of supporting legislation that would, in effect, preempt other States' constitutions.

For example, California instituted real medical malpractice reform 25 years ago, which H.R. 4280 seeks to emulate. However, if the final version of H.R. 4280 differs from California's reform, then their system may ultimately be usurped by the new Federal authority created by this legislation. Punishing California's sensible reforms would be a terrible outcome.

The natural evolution of health care delivery suggest that a Federal solution such as H.R. 4280 may one day be necessary. But right now it's up to the States to begin that process, and I am already a part of those efforts in Arizona. The States should follow California's example, which has been an undeniable success over the past 25 years.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for bringing forth this crucial amendment.

We learned overnight that more than $1 billion was added in earmarks to this project. This bill is out of control, and unless we have the Isakson amendment, there is simply no semblance of equity to this bill.

If this amendment fails, we have only one recourse and that is to ask the President, Mr. President, please veto this bill. Please veto this bill. This Congress is out of control, and it is in desperate needs of some adult supervision.

With that, I ask for support for the Isakson amendment.