Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I come from cattle country out in Colorado. I can tell you that one of the things that has gotten our cattle producers worked up more than anything in recent times is this animal identification program. They are very, very worried about it.

The feeling is that it is going to take the small producer and put them absolutely out of business. The initial estimates for a national ID program range from $122 million to $550 million, and who will be responsible for that? USDA? The producer? The packer? Again, we don't know, because we have not defined the range and scope of the program.

The Australian Beef Association condemns their mandatory ID program because it is the farmers and the ranchers that have been forced to shoulder the burden. We can understand the need to deal with the Mad Cow problem, but at the same time, the idea that the possibility that every animal you have on your farm, including your chickens and your horses, all of the animals, would have to be identified by some kind of an electronic means is something that just doesn't make any sense at all.

We have spent about $86 million on it already. I think that we ought to go back to the committee and reconsider this. At this time, I would hope that we would not put any money into it whatsoever.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment that prohibits funds from being directed to an National Animal Identification program, which amounts to a total about $33 million this year. We all know this is a tough budget year, and in no way does this amendment intend to diminish the hard work performed by Chairman Bonilla and his staff. In fact, I applaud the Committee for decreasing the total bill by $7 billion below last year's level. Given our well-known budget problems, it is necessary that we evaluate what programs are working and what ones are not. When I look at the Animal ID program, one that the USDA has spent $85 million on in the last three years and at the earliest estimations, is expected to be fully operational by 2009, I do not see a program that needs $33 million more, rubber-stamped for it. Especially given that this program has seemingly very little direction and has produced very little so far, even though all 50 states are now of registering, very few animals are registered. The Department itself has changed its opinion on the fundamental direction of the program between May and August of last year, moving from defined timeline of implementation for a single national mandatory system to the collection of massive databases. When the Department, the States, as well as the numerous producer groups needed to assist in such a massive undertaking are undecided on even the goals of the program: Is it animal safety and disease control, or food safety? Let alone a course of action, this is not a program we simply need to throw more money at.

Initial estimates for a National ID program range from $122 to $550 million, and who will be responsible: USDA, the producer, the packer? Again we don't know because we have not defined the range and scope of the program. The Australian Beef Association condemns their mandatory ID program because it is the farmers and ranchers that have been forced to shoulder the burden. As this is currently set up, this makes for a massive invasion in privacy rights and will in many cases reinvent the wheel with current branding systems already in place. Furthermore, we must better define how implementation of Country of Origin Labeling will fit into this? We are foolish to look at Animal ID and Congress in a vacuum. In the report of this appropriations bill, the committee expressed concern for the program regarding ``mixed signals'' about participation and registration. Animal ID accounts for only about 4 percent of APHIS budget but I feel that this money would be better spent on programs like Avian Flu prevention and Emergency programs that are clearly defined, and do not threaten property rights.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I will take the admonition of Mr. Bonilla and Mr. Obey that we are going to be here way into the night if everybody takes all their time, and so I will not do that. I want the chairman to know I have 8 pages of scintillating argument here; but since I do not think it is going to change your mind anyway, let me just say that this is the amendment that you are familiar with that would cut 1 percent of the discretionary funding in the bill. It amounts to $178 million, which represents one penny off every dollar.

Mr. Chairman, I rise again today to offer an amendment to cut the level of discretionary funding in this appropriations bill by 1 percent. This amount equals $178.12 million dollars which represents only one penny off of every dollar.

As most members are aware, I have offered a series of similar amendments to several appropriations bills. I think it is important to state the affect these amendments would have on the deficit if they would be accepted on all spending bills.

We have to draw a line somewhere. The budget we have for next year is simply too large. We can do something about the deficit right now.

By voting for my amendment you are stating that American tax payers should not have to pay higher taxes in the future because we couldn't control our spending today.

Some of the projects in this FY 07 Agriculture Appropriations bill include over $4 million for Shrimp aquiculture research in 7 states. The USDA even testified in 2005 that this project's objectives of developing a sustainable domestic shrimp farming industry in the United States were met and completed in 1987. If the USDA concluded that the project's objectives were met 18 years before, why has Congress continued to fund this program at this level?

We also fund over $6.4 million for wood utilization and we've paid nearly $86 million on this program since 1985, $2.5 million for cotton research in Texas designed for in part, to expand the demand for cotton research in West Texas, almost $2 million to research red imported fire ants in Mississippi, as well as $878,000 for catfish genome research in Alabama.

These are just a few examples of the funding included in these appropriations bills.

The 07 Agriculture appropriations bill still provides nearly $17.8 billion in official discretionary spending, which represents over a $1 billion increase from the previous year and almost $500 million over the President's request. The authorizing and appropriating committees successfully eliminated a considerable amount of mandatory spending with help from the Deficit Reduction Act, but appropriators still shifted another $650 million from mandatory to discretionary spending which distorts some of the numbers. Last year the discretionary funds in this bill were essentially flat funded, but mandatory spending rose exponentially. We seem to be playing hot potato with these funds by trading off every year.

Our budget should be no different from the taxpayers' budgets at home. When we have less money, we should spend less money. It really is that simple.

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

Offered By: Mr. Hefley

Amendment No. 2: Page 47, after line 2, insert the

following new section:

Sec. 503. Each amount appropriated or otherwise made

available by this Act that is not required to be appropriated

or otherwise made available by a provision of law is hereby

reduced by 1 percent.

I thank the gentleman very much for yielding.

As chairman of the authorizing committee for much of this bill, I rise today in support of H.R. 5385.

This is a good bill. It provides more than $16 billion for military construction activities for the Department of Defense, including more than $5 billion to implement Base Realignment and Closure decisions and $4 billion for family housing for military personnel. It will make meaningful improvements in the facilities which our military people and their families live and work.

At the same time, I don't want to argue that it is a perfect bill. For instance, I would have liked to see an increase in funding for military construction facilities restoration accounts. I would also have preferred full funding of the BRAC's 2005 account, as cuts in this account will impact DOD's ability to implement BRAC moves in a timely manner. However, in general, it is a good bill which I am pleased to support.

With respect to the MILCON projects appropriated within the bill, I would note that they largely mirror those projects authorized in the Defense Authorization Act that passed the House last week. This approach whereby specific projects are both authorized and appropriated is unique to military construction activities and is a longstanding practice. Over time, it has helped ensure that construction activities for the Department of Defense are reviewed by multiple bodies within the Congress to ensure that they are viable, affordable, and necessary.

This year, through close scrutiny of the President's budget request, the authorizing and appropriating committees found numerous projects and requests that were flawed, unnecessary, or of low priority. By cutting those projects, we were able to do some of the more crucial projects.

The projects added to this bill are critical to military readiness requirements, such as the child development centers for families of military personnel, alert complexes for pilots, fighter jets that patrol the skies over our cities, and urban training facilities to teach our servicemembers how to fight in city environments.

On a final note, Mr. Chairman, I would like to acknowledge the members and the staff of the Military Quality of Life Subcommittee for their efforts. Their professionalism and willingness to maintain the working relationship and spirit of cooperation between our two committees is extraordinary. I especially want to thank Chairman Walsh and Ranking Member Edwards and their fine staff for their help in this process, and applaud them for producing such a very good bill.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I will try to be very brief because, first of all, it is wonderful to be here with my amendment at a time when the chairman is in the mood to accept amendments. I am sure he will probably accept this one as well.

This is one that I have offered for the last 3 years, and it is identical to them. It is an amendment which trims outlays for H.R. 5386 by 1 percent under the Holman rule, which means that if the amendment passes, it will be up to the administration to determine where the cuts will fall.

I think Mr. Taylor, as always, has done a solid and conscientious job on this bill. That said, I don't think that the funding levels in this bill are reflective of a country with a deficit in

excess of $350 billion. This amendment would trim a penny on a dollar across the agencies funded by this bill.

Last night there was a lot of pontificating about how we need to balance the budget and we need to get our spending under control. Well, this is a way to prove that you are really serious about that, not that this is going to balance the budget, of course. It is not. But it would at least symbolically say we care about this issue.

So, Mr. Chairman, I would move the amendment, and ask for support of the committee.

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

I would encourage its passage, and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for bringing this to the floor today. This is something we don't have to sell.

Madam Speaker, I rise, as the chairman and ranking member have to honor more than 20,000 peace officers from around the Nation who are visiting Washington, D.C., this week in honor of Peace Officers Memorial Day and National Police Week. These officers will commemorate the lives of 155 officers who died last year in the line of duty.

Today, we recognize May 15 as National Peace Officers Memorial Day and pay tribute to the commitment, sacrifice, and public safety and the services these officers provide for all Americans on a daily basis.

As we all know, September 11 stands out as one of the most tragic days in American history. We lost 72 police officers on that one day. That is the most on any single day in history. While that was unusual and an extreme example, these law enforcement officers are serving us and sacrificing and protecting us, showing heroism and valor every day in every community around the Nation.

Last year, as I said, 155 police officers were killed in the line of duty. Though unquestionably this is tragic, the 155 deaths were below the decade-long average of 163. Still, this is the second consecutive year that the numbers have increased and a trend that must come to an end in 2006, and thankfully is on track to do so so far.

Peace officers in every community have an admirable record of service and sacrifice, yet too many Americans lack a true understanding and appreciation of law enforcement's worth. This is why several years ago I participated in establishing the National Law Enforcement Museum in Washington, D.C. This past Saturday, 466 names of brave men and women were officially added to the memorial, including seven from my own home State of Colorado.

Peace officers face unprecedented risks, while bravely protecting our communities and our freedoms, and I hope my colleagues will join me today in paying tribute to our Nation's fallen officers and expressing our gratitude for the work these men and women do for us every day.

Offered By: Mr. Hefley

Amendment No. 7: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following new section:

Offered By: Mr. Hefley

Amendment No. 8: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Hefley

Amendment No. 1: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following new title:

Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much. I thank you, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Skelton and Mr. Ortiz for the very kind words. You kind of went over the top when you said I was the best rodeo cowboy. The truth is I was and still am a rodeo cowboy, still enter some charity rodeos, but if there has ever been a rodeo cowboy serving

in this body, I would say that he probably is better than I am. But I appreciate the kind words and I appreciate your yielding me time.

The gentleman from California, our chairman, and the ranking member as well, there is no one in this body that has more of a heart for the soldiers, for the people who dedicate themselves to defending us, than these two gentlemen do, and I think this is exemplified in the bill that you have before you today.

I am very, very proud to endorse and support this bill, because it meets the needs of the men and women in uniform while protecting our national security, and I think we can be very proud of it.

I think also Mr. Weldon emphasized one thing that I think is important as an example, Mr. Hunter, to our body here. So much of what we do in this body is for political advantage, one party, the other party, to get political advantage. This bill is truly a bipartisan bill. When you have 61-1, for crying out loud, it means that we sat down and tried to solve the problems that we solved. And we didn't solve them as Democrats or Republicans; we solved them as Members of Congress trying to do the right thing for our troops. I think we can be proud of the bill from that standpoint as well.

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz) and the other members of the Readiness Subcommittee and I worked very closely to examine the Department's funding for the military readiness, which includes $129.8 billion in operation and maintenance funds, as well as approximately $16.7 billion for military construction and implementation of the 2005 base closure and realignment round.

The actions we took this year balanced the current operations and maintenance needs of our Armed Forces with the need to transform our military into the force of tomorrow. We looked at the readiness levels of our military units, including the adequacy of training programs, the maintenance of equipment in theater and the service's ability to reset and recapitalize equipment that returns from war.

Our work led us to the conclusion that more needs to be done to support our core readiness needs, and, therefore, the bill before us today fully funds basic requirements such as ship operations, aircraft flying hours and depot maintenance.

The bill also requires the Army and Navy to fund these critical readiness requirements before embarking on costly modernization programs. This requirement is significant as it will ensure that transformation of the services does not come at the expense of today's military readiness.

It is also worth noting that this bill provides more than $10 billion for the construction of structures that range from child development centers to critical readiness facilities. I have seen many of the facilities where the servicemembers live and work, and I must say that these funds are badly needed. It is our responsibility to ensure that our servicemembers and their families live, work and play in modern and well-maintained facilities and homes. To do anything else threatens our Nation's ability to retain the best and the brightest people in the ranks of our military.

Several years ago, we began to look at where our servicemembers live and work, and in many cases it was third-world conditions, and we have been whacking away at this over the years to try to provide a decent place to live and work for everybody who wears the uniform.

Mr. Chairman, the bill before us is certainly worthy of our support, and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the lobbying reform bill because this legislation does not go far enough in reforming the rules of the House.

As the former House Ethics Committee chairman I feel H.R. 4975 does very little in providing comprehensive reform. This bill contains much needed changes to lobbying reform and I congratulate Chairman Dreier for putting together these much needed changes. Unfortunately, this bill is silent on reforming the rules of this institution to enhance the ethics process, which are equally as important as the lobbying changes.

We had an opportunity to implement comprehensive ethics reform in the House, but unfortunately we are not taking advantage of this opportunity. Real, meaningful reform in the House must include strengthening the Ethics Committee and the ethics process.

Representative Hulshof and I introduced a bill last month to strengthen the ethics committee in ways this bill does not.

Our legislation would do three things this bill does not:

It would increase transparency across the board, it would increase oversight, and it would give the Ethics Committee the authority to aggressively investigate potential violations when necessary.

Our legislation includes broad and sweeping disclosure across the board for all gifts over $20, all privately funded travel, all lobbyist registrations, all passengers on corporate jets, and all member financial disclosure statements. All disclosure would be on the internet and all in real time.

Mr. Chairman, the bill we introduced would give the Ethics Committee broader subpoena power during informal investigations, which is when the key decisions are made regarding whether to fully investigate a potential violation.

Our legislation would strengthen the independence of the chair and ranking member by giving them presumptive six year terms like other chairmen.

Our bill would also strengthen the independence of the ethics committee staff by making this a career office, like the parliamentarians office, yet with the accountability all staff should have.

However, neither the Republican leadership nor the Democrat leadership have offered a solution that addresses what is important, the Ethics Committee.

I think we've missed a good opportunity to do some good things and I look forward to working with my colleagues in addressing further reforms in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know who left me the $5 up here to buy my vote. I am not sure here.

I will keep my hands up here where you can see them.

Mr. Chairman, I have enormous respect for you and the committee, and you know that I do. But I am not happy with this rule. And I am not happy with this rule because I think it doesn't allow the House to consider real and meaningful ethics reform.

Now, you do lobbyist reform. But in terms of the ethics process reform, I don't think we really have much of that here. The rule does not allow the House to consider many of the provisions that would strengthen the integrity of the House and help restore public confidence. And I think actually we are missing an opportunity here.

I introduced a bill, along with Representative Hulshof, who was my colleague on the Ethics Committee, to strengthen the Ethics Committee in ways not allowed under this rule. Our bill is cosponsored by many Democrats and Republicans, and not just Democrats and Republicans, but the left and right wing of both parties. So philosophically it crossed lines too. And yet our amendment will not be considered in this rule.

Our amendment had broad and sweeping disclosure across the board. All gifts over $20 disclosed, all privately funded travel disclosed, all lobbyist registrations, all passengers on corporate jets, all Members' financial disclosure statements, all disclosed on the Internet in real- time. Most of this is not in the bill. And yet it would allow Members to, our bill that we wanted as an amendment, would allow Members to continue privately funded travel, which I think is important.

I yield to the gentleman.

I won't belabor the point any more, except to just simply say there was a lot of good opportunity here, I think, to really strengthen the ethics process. And I know there are some who would like to do a commission to that again. The ethics process works. It did work and it worked very well for a long time. It needs to be tweaked a little bit, and that is what this bill would do.

I see the majority leader on the floor. I would be happy to yield.

You said one side of the aisle is not interested in the Ethics Committee proceeding and working. There is enough blame to go around, I have to say. Both sides of the aisles have fouled this process up now. And we need to work together to get it back together. The Ethics Committee needs to work, and anything we do in the Ethics Committee reform process has to be bipartisan, or nonpartisan. You can't have an Ethics Committee that is partisan, and it has to be nonpartisan. So I would like to work with the majority leader, and I would like to ask

that if we are not going to have this as an amendment to this bill, that we have the opportunity to have a freestanding bill on the floor in the foreseeable future, in the near future, which would encompass much of what I have described here.

Mr. Speaker, I just lost my $5 here.

I don't want to take any more time because I know this is going to, we need to go ahead and get on with this thing. But I think we do have a serious opportunity here to do some really good things. And there are some really good things in this bill. I just don't think it goes far enough if we are really to have the reform kind of package that many of us would like to see.

Mr. Speaker, a reporter from a major news organization in the United States who is now stationed in Iraq made the statement the other day that if he wrote a single story that was positive about what was going on in Iraq, he would have to fight with his editor to get it published.

Is it any wonder that we have such a negative attitude in America about the war and the way it is going?

I think it is time for a little reality. During the last week of November, 526 insurgents were detained or killed and 104 weapons caches were discovered during 355 combined operations. And in those operations, 30 percent of them were conducted independently by Iraqi security forces. As of November 16, 2005, a total of 211,700 Iraqi security forces have been trained and equipped. The number includes 99,500 Ministry of Defense forces and 112,200 Ministry of Interior forces. Thirty Iraqi Army battalions have assumed primary control of their own areas; and on and on it goes, Mr. Speaker.

There is a lot of good news out of Iraq, and we ought to begin to listen to it.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for interrupting the progress here. I know all of us want to move forward and conclude as early as possible today.

I just wanted to take a moment to say thank you to Mr. Walsh for working with the authorizing committee so well. For years we have established, I think, an example for this House in how the authorizers and appropriators should work together, and the gentleman has followed in that tradition.

If Members remember, when we first began to look at this early in the year, we had those early meetings together, and we thought the outcome, because of the reorganization, might be very, very different than what we have today. The outcome, I think, is a good outcome. I think we are taking care of infrastructure needs that need to be taken care of in an area where so often these kinds of things become billpayers for other things.

Particularly when we are in the midst of a war and there are all kinds of demands, it is awfully easy to say with military construction and these feel-good things for our soldiers that we just put those off another year. We can put them off another year, and then we will do it, and next year maybe we do it and maybe we do not.

In this case all of the way around you have done an excellent job. We have provided for the soldier. We have provided for the infrastructure needs, and I am very, very pleased with the kind of relationship we have had in working with this. Your staff has been just terrific. With that, I will just say thank you and let you get back to your normal schedule here.

Mr. Speaker, we have just heard from two giants of this body, men that we are all very, very proud of. If we had any sense, we would all sit down right now and take the vote; and I will give up my time if everybody else will give up theirs, and we will vote. I am told no, that is not going to work.

So let me try to be brief. Both of these gentlemen expressed the conflicting views in a most sincere way, and I think we respect both of them.

But, Mr. Speaker, I do rise today in opposition to H. Res. 571. I want us to withdraw the moment the job is done, and that is what our troops are telling us, too. They want to stay there until it is done. That is what most of the Iraqi people tell us, do not leave us until it is done.

Mr. Speaker, there are some out there insisting that the mission on Iraq has been a failure, and our presence in Iraq has not been properly run, and we are not winning the peace. Frankly, I do not think that is true, and it only serves to lower the morale of the men and women fighting in Iraq while encouraging the terrorists who hate America.

The fact is those who assert that the Iraq policy is failing frankly fail to recognize the many successes that have occurred on a daily basis over there. What we are talking about is fighting terror and liberating a people. Look at just the political successes. They have had two elections, and those two elections, most of those people had never voted in a free election in their entire lives. On October 15, they adopted a Constitution. They did not know what a Constitution was, and 78 percent of the voters backed the charter of the Constitution.

We are making enormous progress toward liberty and democracy for the Iraqi people, and by extension the people of the Middle East. I say thank you, troops, for what you are doing. We love you, and we are going to be with you until the job is done.

Mr. Chairman, this bill attempts to right a great wrong.

The Supreme Court's June 23 ruling in the case of Kelo v. the City of New London struck at the heart of American liberties, effectively eliminating the pursuit of happiness or property as a basic unalienable right.

I think events since then have proven that the Court was wrong, at least in the eyes of the American people.

According the Institute for Justice, eminent domain reform legislation will be considered in 35 states over the next year.

Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote an opinion in favor of the Kelo decision, recently said he was troubled by the policy implications of the ruling and that, if he were a legislator, he would work to change it.

And, in a final stroke of justice, New London City Council recently fired the New London Development Corporation that was at the heart of the Kelo case. Unfortunately, this action came after $73 million in public dollars were spent and after it had razed virtually the entire Fort Trumbull neighborhood.

Akhil Reed Amar, a Yale law professor and author of the book America's Constitution, recently observed that the Supreme Court's exalted status as the infallible interpreter of the Constitution is a fairly recent phenomenon and that the Court has been proven wrong before. He pointed to the Dred Scott decision as one example.

This is another.

And when the Supreme Court is wrong, it is the duty of this body, the Congress, to correct it.

This bill goes a long way toward doing that. I'd like to see it go further. Because while I am a supporter of States' rights, I do not know whether individual States have the right to abrogate basic freedoms.

But I'll settle for this. We all took an oath to defend the Constitution and that's what this bill tries to do. Therefore, I urge its support.