Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my sincere concern with the funding level for nuclear physics programs in the Energy and Water Appropriations Act Conference Report for FY2006.

While the Office of Science does receive an increase of $32.8 million over the fiscal year 2005 level, the nuclear physics programs are actually cut 8.4 percent below fiscal year 2005 levels. The Jefferson Lab in my district in Newport News, VA, is one of the basic research labs that would be negatively impacted by this funding level.

Just last month the National Academy of Sciences issued a report titled ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.'' That report underscored that the nation's economic health is seriously at risk without a sustained investment in science. The report noted that in Germany, 36 percent of undergraduates receive their degrees in science and engineering. In China the figure is 59 percent, and in Japan 66 percent. In the United States the corresponding figure is 32 percent. It seems to me that this is a time the nation needs to invest in science, not cut science programs.

Mr. Speaker, no Member is more concerned about trimming our budget than I am, but we cannot afford to cut programs like nuclear physics, that are the key to our country's success, both now and in the future. I wish to state for the record that I am extremely disappointed with the cuts to nuclear physics programs, and I will continue to work vigilantly in the future for this critical funding.

Mr. Speaker, today, I am attending the funeral of a long-time staff member of mine, and I will not be in Washington to vote. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted ``yea'' on the Conference Report for H.R. 2744, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006. I would have voted ``yea'' on the House Resolution condemning Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's threats against Israel.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Ney).

Is it the gentleman's understanding that Congress should and will continue to assess and address ongoing problems with the National Flood Insurance Program?

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman knows, this legislation will allow FEMA to provide much-needed relief to the residents of the Gulf Coast as they rebuild their homes and their lives, as well it should.

However, many residents in my district are still struggling to rebuild following Hurricane Isabel which struck Virginia in 2003. Some are still living in FEMA trailers and many have been shattered to learn that the flood insurance will not cover their losses. I have spoken to many misled policyholders who have had their claims mismanaged by the National Flood Insurance Program.

I would like to work with the gentleman to see that my constituents are treated fairly and to fix the system so that victims of Katrina do not have the same problems that we have seen in my district and other districts across the country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Ohio, and I look forward to continuing to work with him on issues related to the National Flood Insurance Program.

Mr. Chairman, I am deeply concerned that NASA's diminishing investment in aeronautics research and development will, in time, jeopardize the health of our aerospace industry as well as jeopardize the ability of the Pentagon to develop and field aircraft to defend our homeland and to carry troops and materiel to distant battles. NASA's investment in aeronautics research and development has shrunk by half since 1998 and the agency's proposed 5-year budget continues this downward trend. This has got to stop.

Over the decades, NASA researchers and engineers have made incalculable

contributions to aviation safety, efficiency, and noise and emission reductions. The current challenges facing the aerospace industry are no less daunting as we seek to transform the Nation's commercial aviation system, avoid aviation gridlock, and to continue to sustain America's preeminence in the world's aerospace marketplace.

Is it the gentleman from New York's intention to work for a stronger aeronautics research and development program?

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

I thank the gentleman for those assurances.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very simple. It strikes the language from the bill that prevents the Capitol Police from continuing the horse mounted unit, and it strikes language that requires the current horse mounted unit to be transferred to the Park Police.

This small yet valuable unit is irreplaceable in protecting the Capitol grounds against potential threats. The benefits of mounted patrols are recognized worldwide by law enforcement communities. Transferring the horse mounted unit to the Park Police is inadequate to meet the security needs of the Capitol complex.

In the past, the Park Police's horse mounted unit has been unavailable when requested by the Capitol Police. Additionally, with the Capitol Police's mounted unit dismantled, in the event the Park Police were able to respond, all of that manure that they were talking about, there would be no one to clean it, no mechanism in place.

The mounted unit is an important component of the Capitol Police's force to protect the Capitol grounds. I and Chief Gainer believe that the mounted unit is an inexpensive and effective resource in guarding the Capitol against potential threats, as well as an important part of improving community relations.

It is my understanding that the cost of maintaining this unit for fiscal year 2006 is somewhere around $155,000 to $160,000. Currently five horses are used by five mounted officers and two sergeants. The mounted unit provides greater mobility, increased visibility and an ability to view a larger area from a greater distance as compared to other officers.

Additionally the work of one mounted officer is akin to the work of 10 officers on foot. In these dangerous times with constant and changing threats against the United States Capitol Complex, the Capitol Police deserve all of the tools that they deem necessary at their disposal.

The mounted unit has proven very successful over the last 6 months. It has assisted with three arrests, worked 33 demonstrations, issued more than 200 notices of infraction, responded to assists in 9 reports of suspicious packages, responded to 16 calls for crowd control assistance, and responded to 28 calls for assistance in traffic accident incidents.

Mr. Chairman, I sincerely hope the Capitol Police's mounted unit can continue, as it provides an invaluable and unmatched service at protecting our Capitol grounds.

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?

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

Mr. Chairman, I heard my colleague from Virginia say the cost is now up to three quarters of a million dollars. I do not think we are getting rid of the police officers; I think we are just moving the five horses. Their salaries, I think, would be fungible. So I do not think you can count that. As far as being something we do not need because the Park Police are already out there with their horses, let me state that the Capitol grounds are statutorily defined, and because of that the Park Police do not have jurisdictions over the Capitol grounds, it is my understanding.

This program has only been in existence and operational since May of 2004. The GAO study, as the chairman stated, said that it is hard for them to quantify the benefits of the horse patrol because the performance measures are evolving, he failed to say the rest of it, and that data is still being collected on these measures. So we are trying to get rid of something that we have not even given a chance to see if it works. We are talking about $155,000.

I am quoting from the GAO results that they gave when they appeared before the Committee on Appropriations. The horses right now are housed, I heard my colleague from Virginia say earlier, that they were housed 20 miles away. That is correct, they are. And he says that they have to be under stress whenever they are in traffic. Well, I am a horsewoman. I have seven horses of my own. Let me tell you, it does not cost me $155,000 for seven horses. We have five horses here, and it certainly does not cost three-quarters of a million dollars, and we do not have to provide health benefits and retirement and the like to the horses.

I think we are cutting short a program that we have not given a chance. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. I think it is a good cause. I think the horses do a great job. It is great PR for us. I see folks going up and talking to our Capitol Police Officers. Yes, the police officers do have the bicycles, but I would venture to say the guys on the bicycles are not sitting up as high as the guys and gals on top of the horses. So if there is a problem, they cannot see over the cars; they cannot see through the crowds.

I am pretty passionate about this whole situation. Yes, I am. I just do not think we have given this program the time it needs to really be evaluated, and I go back to what the GAO study says, that it is still evolving. I will remind Members in the GAO study they do not recommend eliminating the mounted horse patrol. That is critical. They do not recommend eliminating it. Give it time. Let us let them have their day.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 2475, the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2006. I congratulate Chairman Hoekstra for presenting a strong bill that addresses our major intelligence requirements.

Madam Speaker, as chair of the Intelligence Policy Subcommittee, I have been tasked to look at the vast range of threats faced by the United States, and work to ensure that the intelligence services devote the necessary resources to respond to those threats.

As we consider this bill, we are in the midst of a war with a vicious enemy--a war on terrorism that must be won. Our troops are also engaged in a bloody effort to stabilize Iraq.

Our war-fighters must have timely, accurate information about the enemy, and this bill makes every effort to guarantee that intelligence is provided. Thus, there is an essential force protection component to this authorization.

But we cannot focus solely on the collection of near-term, tactical battlefield intelligence. We must also ensure that our political leaders have good information about big picture threats to U.S. interests globally.

The Intelligence Community must focus its resources on the nuclear programs in Iran, North Korea, and other major proliferators of weapons of mass destruction.

We must fully understand the ongoing military modernization of China, and know how Beijing intends to use its emerging capabilities. Russia remains a nuclear superpower with thousands of nuclear warheads, and prudence dictates we have good intelligence regarding Russia's intentions.

The behavior of these important nations can have a deep impact on our national security, and the United States must not become the victim of a ``strategic surprise''.

To protect our people and inform our political leaders, we must have the capability to collect good, accurate information. It is increasingly difficult to predict where the next crisis may erupt, but our leaders must have the ability to anticipate significant events.

H.R. 2475 places much needed emphasis on our collection and analysis capabilities. I am pleased that this bill increases the investment in human intelligence and the capabilities they provide for us.

It provides additional resources for professional training and language education for intelligence officers being deployed overseas.

The legislation also authorizes powerful new tools that will assist our intelligence analysts to sort through and properly understand the information that has been gathered.

At a time when the threats to u.s. national security are so great, H.R. 2475 supports the effort to provide our leaders with focused, timely intelligence. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and once again, I congratulate my chairman on his outstanding effort.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment in support of the Boy Scouts of America in order to reaffirm their long-standing partnership with the Department of Defense. This summer an estimated 40,000 Boy Scouts and their leaders will take to the 76,000 acres of land at Fort A.P. Hill to do something traditionally American: they will go camping. The Boy Scout Jamboree at A.P. Hill is a quadrennial gathering of Scouts and a celebration of what is good in America.

Mr. Chairman, I think we can all agree that institutions like the Boy Scouts and their Boy Scout Jamboree are welcome sights in our current times. I remind my colleagues that the Supreme Court asked that ``God save the United States and this honorable Court,'' and that our national currency reads ``In God We Trust,'' and that the military and congressional oaths of office end with ``so help me God.''

There are some who believe that this simple acknowledgment of God by young men is reason to sever a nearly 100-year-old relationship between the Boy Scouts and the Federal Government. This amendment will ensure that the Boy Scouts are treated fairly by guaranteeing their right to equal access to public facilities, forums and programs, and will clarify Federal law so that the Boy Scouts of America will receive the same amount of support from the Department of Defense as any other nonprofit organization in this country, including the right to continue the Boy Scout Jamboree at Fort A.P. Hill in Caroline County, Virginia, in my district.

The Department of Defense has every right to support the activities of the Boy Scouts of America, and this amendment will protect this important

relationship. This relationship between the Scouts and DOD should not be manipulated or infringed upon. The national jamboree is an incomparable opportunity for training our military, and it would be a detriment to our armed services and to the Boy Scouts to jeopardize it by frivolous lawsuits. Since 1937 when the Boy Scouts have held the national jamboree, six jamborees have taken place at Fort A.P. Hill since 1981.

Mr. Chairman, this relationship between DOD and the Boy Scouts of America is a mutually beneficial partnership, as many former Scouts choose to join the ranks of our Nation's Armed Forces.

It is worth noting that every enlistee and officer swear a similar oath before God as a prerequisite for service to our country.

In a time of uncertainty and angst, our Nation's young people face more challenges than ever before. As a parent and a concerned citizen, I have seen the temptations and the dangers that meet our children every day of their lives. I have seen the decisions that they must make, and I have seen the repercussions from poor decisions.

Yet here is a refuge, an institution that teaches civility, friendship, loyalty, honor, and character. It is an institution that encompasses all that is good in our society: faith, family, and country. The Boy Scouts of America has made a lasting contribution to America, and the partnership between the Pentagon and the Boy Scouts has played an important role in this contribution.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), our majority whip.

Mr. Chairman, I have several other speakers. I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Akin), who is chairman of the Boy Scout Caucus.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers either, and I urge adoption of the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the amendment offered by my colleague, the gentlewoman from California. For the last 9 years, without fail, this body has voted against funding abortions in DOD medical treatment facilities, and I trust that today we will make that number 10.

Military physicians and personnel are tasked to provide life-saving and nurturing care to our men and women of the armed services. In this amendment, we are asking them to facilitate the exact opposite of their mission by performing abortions.

Particularly at a time when their resources are devoted to addressing the needs of servicemembers suffering from wounds and trauma sustained in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, we must continue to support the doctors and nurses of the military in their effort to save and sustain life.

Mr. Chairman, American taxpayer dollars should not be used to pay for abortions, directly or indirectly, wherever they occur. Supporters of this amendment claim that taxpayer dollars would not actually pay for abortions, as you just heard. However, as previously pointed out, this simply is not true.

Taxpayers would be paying for these abortions by subsidizing the cost of the physician services, the hospitals, and the abortion equipment. Our current law protects against this, and I urge my colleagues to keep this commonsense policy intact.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on the birthday of an incredible American Statesman, and native of Virginia's First District, that I have the privilege to represent in Congress.

Serving during the ``Era of Good Feelings,'' and as the last of the Virginia Dynasty of Presidents, James Monroe was a man devoted to Virginia, and to his grateful Nation. Born in Westmoreland County, a graduate of the College of William and Mary, and a longtime resident of Fredericksburg, James Monroe was truly a son of America's First District.

During Monroe's Presidency, our young Nation underwent many important changes. Under his leadership, the United States purchased Florida, and his Presidency saw the decline of European colonial influence in the New World.

Perhaps fitting for an early American patriot, James Monroe passed away on Independence Day, 1831. He will forever be remembered in the hearts and minds of all Americans, but his ties to Virginia will always leave him to be fondly remembered in the Commonwealth.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Over the past decade, funding for NASA's Aeronautics Research has declined by more than half, to about $900 million. The President's budget proposes to cut aeronautics research by 20 percent over the next 5 years.

I am concerned that the United States is losing critical expertise in aeronautics research and development. This degradation will have a tragic impact on military and civilian aviation, which contributes significantly to our national defense and our economy. I believe that the President's funding levels for aeronautics programs should be reassessed and that the House should give priority to restoring these vital programs.

Will the gentleman commit to bring to the conference report language that will clarify that the resolution makes no assumption regarding the President's proposed funding level for NASA's Aeronautics Research programs?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for his answer.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today out of frustration with H.R. 1268, the Emergency Supplemental Wartime Appropriations Act. I support passage of this legislation, as I believe it is absolutely necessary to continue to fund the important activities of our brave men and women fighting the global War on Terrorism.

Our men and women depend on having the necessary equipment and systems to be successful in mission accomplishment. As a Member of the House Armed Services Committee, I am actively involved in efforts, for example, to better protect our troops while they are in harm's way. With that said, the inclusion of spending projects within this bill that certainly do not qualify as either ``emergency'' or ``wartime'' is outrageous.

The issue at hand is not whether or not it is necessary to fund the noble efforts of our soldiers, for that answer is self-evident. Rather, the question is about our responsibility to spend the American people's money wisely, and in a manner consistent with the established process. I do not doubt that the non-wartime, and non-defense related projects in this bill are worthwhile; however, the decision to fund these projects should be made during the established appropriations process. Certainly, it is inappropriate for this body to have to consider legislation under the guise of emergency, wartime spending, when in fact, that description is not completely honest.

Again, I support this funding legislation as it pertains to the support of our military, and our efforts to protect American citizens, and to promote peace and democracy in the Middle East. However, I do not support the inclusion of unrelated projects within this bill, and find it most unfortunate that Members of Congress are forced to vote on such legislation.

Mr. Speaker one year ago yesterday, November 23, 2003 the world witnessed an extraordinary political event involving the peaceful pursuit of democracy. In what has become known as the ``Rose Revolution'', the people of the Republic of Georgia, after several weeks of peaceful and bloodless protests following parliamentary elections which were determined to be fraudulent, forced a peaceful change in their government. On that day, opposition parliamentarians entered their Assembly, roses in hand, demanding that the will of the people, expressed by their recent vote, be honored. Given the strong support of the public the government of Eduard Shevardnadze collapsed.

Soon after, and under the effective management of interim President Nino Burdzhanadze, a free, fair and democratic presidential election was held. Mikhail Saakashvili, leader of the opposition protest, was overwhelmingly elected and sworn into office on January 24 of this year as President of the Republic of Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, Georgia is a small, but strategic country located in the Caucasus, between Russia, Iran, Turkey, and Central Asia. President Saakashvili is a young, energetic leader who has received educational training here in the U.S. and has repeatedly stressed the importance of strong ties with the United States. Since his election, he has committed his country to a strong effort against global terrorism and has deployed troops to Iraq. When President Saakashvili visited the United States Congress earlier this year he delivered a strong message of peace, stability, democracy, political reform, economic opportunity and closer cooperation with the West.

Recognizing the important developments taking place in Georgia, the Europe Subcommittee, which I Chair, passed H. Res. 483 in October, pledging the continued support of the United States for the continued development of democracy in Georgia.

Today, as we remember the events of November 23, 2003, we express our congratulations to the people and Government of Georgia and reaffirm our support for the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of the Republic of Georgia.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H. Res. 853, which expresses the Sense of Congress that the Department of Defense should continue to exercise its authority to support the activities of the Boy Scouts of America.

I am appalled that the Department of Defense agreed to warn its military bases worldwide not to sponsor Boy Scout Troops--just because the ACLU is upset that they require their members to swear an oath to God. I wholeheartedly disagree with this decision, and I think the Pentagon should reconsider this short-sighted settlement.

Over the last 30 years, the Department of Defense has been specifically authorized to host Scouts on its installations and to provide equipment, transportation, and other services for both national and international events such as the Boy Scout Jamboree. Furthermore, United States Code Title 10, Sections 4682, 7541, and 9682 authorizes the Department of Defense to sell and donate (in certain cases) obsolete or excess material to the Boy Scouts of America to support its activities.

In the First District of Virginia, the Boy Scout Jamboree is hosted at Fort A.P. Hill every four years. The success of this event is directly attributable to the strong relationship that the

Boy Scouts and the Department of Defense have built over the years.

The Boy Scouts and the Department of Defense have enjoyed a unique relationship with many former Scouts joining the ranks of our nation's military. The Pentagon's recent agreement threatens this unique relationship of two organizations dedicated to one important objective: service to God and country.

I would remind my colleagues that Boy Scouts are not the only people who swear an oath to God. The fact is that our own service men and women take a similar oath before God at the beginning of their service, and I will not support any action or agreement which attempts to endanger a partnership which clearly benefits both organizations. I urge the Pentagon to reconsider its decision and to continue to support the Boy Scouts of America.

Mr. Speaker, 2 months ago, this House overwhelmingly passed H. Con. Res. 415 regarding the October 31 Presidential elections about to be held in the Ukraine.

During the floor debate on that resolution, I noted that the development of a strong democracy in the Ukraine has been slow and difficult over the past 13 years. In recognizing this fact, I stated that no issue would be more important to the Ukraine's future standing with the West than the test its democracy was about to face in that Presidential election. I said that in many ways the election represented a historic opportunity for the people of the Ukraine to decide whether or not democracy can flourish in this important nation.

Those elections did take place on October 31. Since no candidate received over 50 percent of the votes, a runoff election was just held this past Sunday. Regrettably, and despite every effort we were told would be made by the Government for a free and fair election, the rhetoric was not matched by the actions and the elections seemed to have been seriously flawed.

A preliminary assessment of the elections conducted by the International Election Observation Mission (IEOM), consisting of representatives from the OSCE, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the European Parliament and the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, indicated that the second round of the presidential election did not meet a considerable number of internationally accepted standards for democratic elections. The IEOM report listed election day violence, intimidation of voters and observers, suspiciously high voter turnout in some regions, problems with ballot counting and the addition of several hundred thousand absentee ballots.

In a statement issued by Senator Richard Lugar who was observing the elections as the representative of President Bush, the Senator reported that it was apparent that a concerted and forceful program of election day fraud and abuse was enacted with either the leadership or cooperation of government authorities.

Mr. Speaker, this is disappointing and unacceptable news from the Ukraine. It seems incomprehensible to me that with the rocky relationship the West has had at times with the outgoing leadership in Kiev that the new President of the Ukraine would want to spend the next 5 years under a cloud of legitimacy as a result of an unfair electoral process.

Mr. Speaker, we in the Congress have long supported building a stable, democratic, and prosperous nation in the Ukraine and have tried to work with those individuals and organizations who shared our goals. Unfortunately, and regrettably, the conduct of these recent elections suggests that many in Ukraine's current government have not yet committed themselves to this goal and lack the political will to do so.

As chairwoman of the Europe Subcommittee I believe I can speak for the House in expressing our deep disappointment with the conduct of these recent elections and our concerns for the Ukraine's future. We join with the Bush administration in calling on the current President of the Ukraine, the Rada and the Supreme Court to conduct a thorough review of these elections and investigate the charges of mass fraud before any certification of the results is made. At the very least, it may be necessary to hold new elections in those cities or regions where the fraud was most blatant. We also call on all sides of the dispute to exercise restraint and avoid violence. Finally, if the dispute is not resolved in support of the democratic process, then I believe the Bush administration must begin a review of our relations with the Ukraine and take what ever actions may be necessary to express our displeasure with the actions of the Ukraine government and its leaders.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4324, the Thrift Savings Plan Open Elections Act of 2004. This simple, but important legislation will allow eligible individuals the opportunity to elect or modify contributions to the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) at any time, without penalty. The TSP is a voluntary, tax- deferred defined contribution plan for Federal employees and members of the uniformed services, through which Federal agencies provide matching funds to an individual's own retirement contributions. However, under current law, an eligible employee has only two opportunities a year to join the TSP fund and receive matching contributions, or to adjust their individual contribution amount. The changes implemented by H.R. 4324 will allow for greater participant access to the TSP, and will simplify administration. Given the hard work that our Federal employees and uniformed servicemen and women perform day in and day out, it is commonsense that they should have this increased control over their retirement contributions.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad my colleague from D.C. talked about protecting the FBI Academy in the national capital region because that, in fact, is located in what the gentlewoman calls ``way out there in Virginia'' which is my area.

I rise today in strong support of the Bartlett amendment, which directs the Department of Homeland Security to conduct a study to see if there is a need to expand the national capital region.

The terrorist attacks of 2001 demonstrated firsthand the need for the national capital region to be expanded. The I-95 corridor, which includes the Fredericksburg/Stafford area that I represent, served as one of the major evacuation routes for D.C. Anybody who drove down that 95 corridor on September 11, 2001, would agree that, as one of the main evacuation routes, it is necessary to secure sufficient infrastructure along I-95 to handle any mass evacuation.

The current definition of the national capital region should be expanded as a result of the new threats to homeland security. I urge all of my colleagues to support the Bartlett amendment. I urge my colleague from D.C. to look at where those areas that she says need to be protected, where they are located.