Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2658) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the motion to go to conference on H.R. 2559, and that I may include tabular and extraneous material.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 2559) making appropriations for military construction, family housing, and base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other purposes, with a Senate amendment thereto, disagree to the Senate amendment, and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, on September 9, 2003, I was unavoidably absent and missed rollcall vote Nos. 481-488. For the record, had I been present, I would have voted: No. 481, ``no''; No. 482, ``no''; No. 483, ``no''; No. 484, ``no''; No. 485, ``no''; No. 486, ``no''; No. 487, ``no''; and No. 488, ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to protect the well-being of the American people by voting against H.R. 2427, the Pharmaceutical Market Access Act, which would allow the re- importation of drugs.

It is estimated that more than 10 percent of drugs worldwide are counterfeit, and in some countries, more than half the drug supply is fake. We have seen in this country the tragic consequences of counterfeit drugs.

For example, many American AIDS and cancer patients were victims of a counterfeit version of the injectible medication, Procrit. Hawked as the life-prolonging Procrit, the counterfeit drug proved to be lethal, non-sterile tap water. How many more cases like this will we experience with re-importation?

In fact, multiple FDA commissioners have declared, ``Consumers are exposed to a number of potential risks when they purchase drugs from foreign sources.''

I sincerely appreciate my colleagues' efforts to make prescription drugs more accessible. However, this pursuit of accessibility compromises the health and safety of American citizens. I encourage all my colleagues to ensure the safety of our citizens by voting against

Mr. Speaker, this week Congress has an opportunity to pass legislation to implement a free trade agreement with our partner in commerce, the nation of Chile. I might mention also Singapore, but I am going to focus on Chile.

Since 1997, when Chile adopted free trade agreements with MERCOSUR, Mexico, and Canada, U.S. companies' share of the Chilean import market has fallen by 7 percent, amounting to something like over $1 billion. Meanwhile, the countries that have a free trade agreement with Chile gained over 9 percent of that market. There can be no question that our loss to the Chilean market is directly related to missed trade opportunities. The Chile FTA will turn this around.

If we vote to pass H.R. 2738, we ensure future American competitiveness in Chilean markets and the continued growth of our own economy, which will benefit all Americans. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support and vote ``yes'' on the Chilean Free Trade Agreement.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs, I rise to strongly support this bill. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will do likewise. I commend and thank the gentleman from Arizona for his hard work and leadership as the chairman of the subcommittee. He has consistently sought to accommodate the many concerns expressed by Members while remaining focused on bringing a responsible and effective bill before us here today. That, of course, is not an easy task; but he has accomplished it effectively, and he has the good help obviously of the ranking member, the gentlewoman from New York. I also thank the committee staff for their tireless work. They are an excellent group, and we are lucky to have them in this House.

Mr. Speaker, foreign assistance remains an inseparable part of our Nation's overall foreign policy, national security and economic interests. This is a responsible bill that effectively allocates the foreign assistance that we have available. For the first time ever, this foreign operations bill includes funding for the Millennium Challenge Account, some $800 million. Our President deserves some great credit for proposing this initiative. The strength of the MCA, or Millennium Challenge Account, is that it focuses responsibility for economic growth on the policies of the governments of developing countries. One important lesson the United States has learned from our experience is financial assistance can only be effective when developing countries are committed to establishing the necessary economic, legal, and political reforms.

With our financial assistance, we can help a country grow; but we cannot make a country grow. The governments have to have the right policies in place. In light of this reality, MCA funding will be targeted to projects in specific nations that govern justly, invest in their people, and encourage economic freedom. I urge my colleagues to support the funding for this very important initiative.

Mr. Speaker, one of the most important contributions this bill makes to our foreign policy is the annual assistance package to the Middle East. Israel, of course, is our closest ally in the region and shares our values of democracy and freedom. I am pleased that this bill fully supports the administration request of $2.6 billion in military and economic assistance to Israel as well as $50 million to support the resettlement of Jewish refugees. The United States must continue to stand in strong support of Israel. In addition, this bill provides some $1.9 billion to Egypt and over $450 million to Jordan, both critical allies of the United States.

Further, I am pleased that this bill provides $35 million for Lebanon to support the American educational institutions and the excellent USAID mission there. Combined with our funding for Morocco, Yemen, the West Bank and Gaza, and our regional programs like the Middle East Partnership Initiative, our programs in the Middle East, if focused properly, can help foster changes in the region.

The Middle East faces severe development challenges. Reports such as the ``2002 Arab Human Development Report'' by the United Nations Development Program has provided a clear diagnosis of this problem. It is my hope that American assistance to our Arab allies will help support institutional changes that lead to greater freedom, political empowerment, and economic growth.

Mr. Speaker, this bill also helps to strengthen our relationship with our friend and ally, Armenia. Armenia continues to suffer from blockades by its neighbors. Our assistance to the country helps to offset these conditions. Therefore, I am pleased that this bill increases assistance to Armenia to $70 million, some $20.5 million above the President's request. I look forward to working with the chairman in conference on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, there are other important elements of this bill, including trade capacity building, foreign military financing for new NATO members and, of course, significant funding beyond the President's request to continue the fight against the HIV/AIDS crisis in Africa and around the world. I believe this to be a good bill, within the allocation provided to the subcommittee, and represents a responsible contribution to our Nation's foreign policy, national security, and economic goals.

I once again want to commend the chairman for his efforts on this bill. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this what I believe to be a great bill, a balanced bill. We need to do it right here in the House today.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I would like to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Hobson) for putting an emphasis on this issue. I would also like to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Visclosky) for his work on this bill, and also both of their staffs.

Let me say, Congress has been debating this issue for a number of years, this whole issue of a waste repository, that, frankly, has taken decades to get to this point. As the chairman pointed out, rather than keeping spent nuclear fuel at on-site locations at 103 spots around the country, sound science tells us that a geologic repository at a central, safe and remote location is the way to go.

Now, this Congress has spoken not once, but three times, twice with votes that were over 300. I think that is very telling. It is very compelling that we should move forward, and there are no show-stoppers on this location as being a problem for the safe repository, the safe deposition of this spent fuel.

I commend the committee for the critical funds it put into their bill for Yucca Mountain. This is a national priority. The money will ensure the spent fuel currently kept on site in our Nation's communities, our lake shores and the environment will be removed in a timely fashion.

Some would suggest that a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain is not a good idea and that we would be better off if we just left that spent fuel on site. Such thinking cannot be, could not be more wrong; and Congress has spoken not once but three times overwhelmingly to move forward.

The fact is that the amount of space available for spent fuel storage at these 103 commercial nuclear power plants in America is rapidly shrinking, and when the on-site storage space run outs, it is gone. There is nothing. We cannot build an annex. We cannot build a room, a shack to put it in and it would be safe if we were to.

With all of the uncertainty in today's world, it is critical for us to remove the spent fuel from those facilities and store it in a central, safe, and remote location. As the chairman has said, even leaving this spent fuel on site only escalates the security concerns and, worse, the potential for mischief and terrorism.

Nuclear energy, which represents approximately 20 percent of the Nation's energy supply, provides a viable, cost-efficient, and clean alternative to fossil fuels. Nuclear power is a vital component in the engine that drives the American economy. Funds contained in the program will enable the Department of Energy to initiate repository operations hopefully in the year 2010.

I again want to commend the chairman for making the nuclear waste program a priority in the bill. He recognizes, as does the ranking member, that it is a national priority; and I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, today we pay tribute to chambers of commerce for their efforts to improve our communities and strengthen economy. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Detroit Regional Chamber in particular. This year it is celebrating its 100th anniversary of existence.

Chambers of commerce are integral to millions of companies, large and small, throughout this country. They represent businesses and promote their interests before federal, state, and local governments. The Detroit Regional Chamber is no different. Currently over 19,000 businesses across southeast Michigan are members of the Detroit Regional Chamber, and that number continues to grow.

During their century of existence, the Detroit Regional Chamber has had a major impact on Michigan and the United States economy. House Concurrent Resolution 215 highlights its excellence and I am pleased so many of my colleagues from Michigan could cosponsor the resolution. I would particularly like to thank my friend, the ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and fellow Michigander, Congressman John Dingell, for introducing this resolution with me and working with the Chairman to see this resolution could be brought to the floor today.

House Concurrent Resolution 215 recognizes many of the chief accomplishments of the Detroit Regional Chamber. In 1903, the Detroit Board of Commerce was formally organized with 253 charter members. Since then, it has been known by several names, most recently in 1997 it officially became the Detroit Regional Chamber.

The resolution points out the Detroit Regional Chamber's involvement in a 1910-11 campaign to gain voter approval of a $2 million bond proposal to improve the roads of Wayne County and played a prominent role in the formation of the United States Chamber of Commerce. It also notes the Detroit Regional Chamber's help to develop the first traffic lights in Detroit in 1925 and the establishment of a bus network connecting inner-city workers with their jobs in 1969, which resulted in the creation of the Southeast Metropolitan Transportation Authority (SMART).

Later this week on Wednesday the Detroit Regional Chamber will celebrate their one hundred year anniversary at Greenfield Village in Dearborn. Unfortunately, I will be here in the House of Representatives and will not be able to attend, but I am pleased the House could recognize the Detroit Regional Chamber by considering this resolution.

I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks, and that I be permitted to include tabular and extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 2559.

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

(Mr. KNOLLENBERG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to present to the House H.R. 2559, the fiscal year 2004 military construction appropriations bill. This legislation provides funds for all types of construction projects on military installations here in the U.S. and abroad. Projects range from barracks and housing to training ranges and runways.

I would like to thank my ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), for his advice and support and cooperation in producing this recommendation. He has been a good partner, and I appreciate having the gentleman there to work together on this bill.

I would also like to express my appreciation to all members of the subcommittee for their help in putting together this year's bill. I commend the good work done by the subcommittee staff, Tom Forhan, Brian Potts, Mary Arnold, Kim Reath, and Valerie Baldwin. This has made my transition to chairman an easy one. I want to thank my personal staff, Jeff Onizuk and Lieutenant Commander Scott Gray. I appreciate the long hours they have put in making this the best bill possible.

The bill presented today totals $9.196 billion, which complies with the 302(b) allocation for both budget authority and outlays. This recommendation is, however, $41 million below the President's request, a reduction of less than \1/2\ of 1 percent. Excluding funds provided in response to the global war on terrorism and Operation Iraqi Freedom, the bill is $605 million or 6 percent below fiscal year 2003 enacted levels.

For the first time in recent memory, this subcommittee has produced a recommendation that is below the President's request. This is the hand that we were dealt under current budgetary constraints, and we have tried to deal with it in as fair a manner as possible.

I assure Members the committee did due diligence to find as much savings as possible for the bill, and I believe we left no stone unturned in this process. This bill continues the subcommittee's bipartisan tradition of quality of life first for our service men and women. This is our paramount goal, and I believe we have reached it.

As many Members are aware, the Department of Defense is undertaking a privatization effort for military housing. For those of us who have seen the results thus far, this is an exciting development. What it means for the family housing account of this bill is that less money does not mean less housing. It means that we are getting more bang for our buck. For example, take the Residential Communities Initiative at the Presidio of Monterey. Using only the basic allowance for housing, the BAH, 2,168 new homes will be built and 41 historic units will be renovated. In addition, the private contractor will build wider roads, playgrounds, amenities such as community centers and swimming pools, and so on. What had been substandard housing will become an enviable community for our military families, and it will come at no cost, no cost to the family housing account in this bill.

The bottom line is that the funding in this bill does not slow down the effort to revitalize our military family housing. In fact, that effort is accelerating because of this privatization initiative.

I would like to take a moment to highlight some key areas in the bill. First, $1.24 billion is provided for troop barracks. This is a $62 million increase from last year's level. This sends a positive message to our unaccompanied personnel stationed all around the world that their quality of life is a priority.

The bill includes $194 million for hospital and medical facilities, an increase of $25 million above last year's level. This is another positive quality-of-life message, one intended for all service members as well as their families.

$274 million is provided for community facilities, an increase of $45 million above the President's request. These facilities include child development centers, fire stations, schools, and physical fitness centers.

$465 million is provided for the Guard and Reserve components, an increase of $95 million above the President's request.

The bill fully funds the President's request of $1.2 billion for new family housing units and improvements to existing units, and $2.7 billion is provided for the operation and maintenance of existing family housing units.

I would like to highlight the overseas military construction program for just one moment. In support of a global repositioning effort, the President's amended budget submission and the recommendation before Members today rescinds and/or reduces overseas construction requirements by $327 million. Of these reductions, $279 million has been applied to construction requirements in the United States. It is my opinion additional cuts will adversely impact the quality of life and mission readiness of our troops living overseas, including those who are fighting the war against terrorism and also in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Therefore, I cannot recommend additional cuts in this area to my colleagues.

We have worked closely with the authorization committee in producing this legislation. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Hefley) and his staff for their assistance.

In conclusion, we have focused our efforts on programs that directly support the men and women in our Armed Forces. We would like to do more. We always have and always will. But in my opinion, the recommendations in this bill are solid and fully fund projects that are vital to the security of the United States. The bottom line is this: with this bill, we meet the military's mission critical infrastructure needs and enable its efforts to improve the quality of life for our men and women in the Armed Forces. This is a fair bill. I encourage all my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I include the following tabular material for the Record:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26JN03.001

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TH26JN03.002

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

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I do. I make a point of order against the amendment because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill and therefore violates clause 2 of rule XXI, which states in part ``An amendment to a general appropriations bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

At this time I ask for a ruling from the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill, through page 19, line 19 be considered as read, printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve a point of order against the motion to recommit.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the motion to recommit because it proposes to change existing law and constitutes legislation in an appropriations bill, and, therefore, violates clause 2 of rule XXI.

The rule states, in pertinent part, ``An amendment to a general appropriation bill shall not be in order if changing existing law.''

The amendment proposes to alter the application of existing law.

Mr. Speaker, today we have an opportunity to provide our seniors with a new prescription drug benefit and improved access to health care. It is a long overdue step in updating and improving Medicare.

Today's legislation will provide help for those who need it most. Our 6.5 million low-income seniors will receive a fully covered premium and a cost sharing benefit when their drug benefit switches from Medicaid to Medicare, paying no more than $2 per generic prescription, and no more than $5 for name brand drugs. This will also save states about $6.8 billion a year in Medicaid costs.

It is imperative that Medicare advance with technology. Prescription drugs are an increasingly important part of modern medicine, helping to relieve pain, cure disease, and enhance the lives of millions of Americans. Adding a drug benefit and updating how existing benefits are provided will be a very significant accomplishment.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to vote for this legislation that helps our seniors by providing a prescription drug benefit that they deserve.

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

Mr. Chairman, I speak in opposition to the amendment which I believe is nothing more than a blatant attempt to use the legislative process to give one American company an unfair competitive advantage over another American company. It is wrong and should be defeated.

The amendment seems innocent enough. No funds should be used to procure Coast Guard vessels in the National Security Cutter Class or Offshore Patrol Cutter Class unless the main propulsion diesel engines are manufactured in the U.S. by a domestically operated entity.

Now, that sounds just like a restatement of the Buy American Act, but it is not. The Buy American Act does not consider the nationality of the contractor when determining if a product is of domestic origin. Manufactured articles are considered domestic if they have been manufactured in the U.S. from components ``substantially all,'' quote, of which have been mined, produced or manufactured in the U.S.

``Substantially all'' means that the cost of foreign components does not exceed 50 percent of the cost of components.

Now, when the Coast Guard wants to purchase diesel engines for its ships, it has two options, Detroit Diesel in Michigan, Utah, Kansas and I believe Ohio, and Fairbanks Morse Engine in Wisconsin. Both are fine companies that manufacture their engines in the U.S. with components, substantially all of which come from the U.S. as well. They both comply with the Buy American Act, creating a healthy competition for the Coast Guard's contracts, which I think we would all agree is a good thing; but it seems that some people do not want competition.

Detroit Diesel is a subsidiary of that German company Daimler Chrysler, which is based in Germany, while Fairbanks Morse Engine is based in the U.S. and notably I believe only in Wisconsin.

The current procurement program for the Coast Guard Deepwater program, for which these engines will be built, is already under way. If this amendment were to be signed into law, Detroit Diesel will no longer be eligible for Coast Guard contracts because it is not a domestically operated entity.

Fairbanks Morse Engine will corner the market, not because it builds better diesel engines than Detroit Diesel, but because it found a way to shut out the competition; and it will have done so by changing the rules in the middle of the game.

There are 5,000 Americans working in those four States for Detroit Diesel. They build diesel engines that the current law says are American products. These Americans should not be penalized because their parent company is based in another country. Congress should not even be involved in this issue.

This amendment is frankly outrageous. It is not our job to give one American company a competitive advantage over another, and I obviously implore my colleagues to not be fooled by what seems to be an innocuous amendment, but there are 5,000 Americans who work for Detroit Diesel who are waiting and depending on us and the Members of this body.

Mr. Speaker, today we have a key vote in front of this House on one of the most unfair and unjustifiable taxes in our Nation today.

Today we can permanently repeal the estate tax otherwise known as the death tax, to save millions of hard-working Americans from the ordeal of losing a family business at the same time as a family member. Unfortunately this is a prospect that is all too real for many small businesses.

Americans for Tax Reform says that 70 percent of small businesses do not survive the second generation as a result of the death tax. With our current economic uncertainty, we need to make it easier for our small businesses to survive, not harder. We can take a big step toward that end here today by passing a permanent repeal of the death tax.

I urge the House to vote this most unfair and unreasonable of taxes out of existence permanently.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize an outstanding Army Officer, Lieutenant Colonel Lisa Leonard, who has served with distinction and dedication for almost 2 years for the Secretary of the Army, as the Congressional Liaison Officer for Military Construction Appropriations, Congressional Budget Liaison Office under the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Financial Management and Comptroller. It is a privilege for me to recognize her many outstanding achievements and commend her for the superb service she has provided to the Department of the Army, the Congress, and our great Nation as a whole.

During her tenure in the Congressional Budget Liaison Office, which began in July of 2001, Lieutenant Colonel Leonard has provided members of the House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Military Construction as well as our professional and personal staffs with timely and accurate support regarding Department of Army plans, programs and budget decisions. Her valuable contributions have enabled the Subcommittee on Military Construction and the Department of the Army to strengthen its close working relationship and to ensure the most modern, well trained and well equipped soldiers attainable for the defense of our great Nation.

Mr. Speaker, Lisa Leonard and her husband, Lieutenant Colonel Mark Leonard, have made many sacrifices during their careers in the Army. Her distinguished service has exemplified honor, courage and commitment. As she departs the Congressional Budget Liaison Office to embark on yet another great Army tour in the service of a grateful Nation, I call upon my colleagues to wish them both every success.