Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition of the conference report on H.R. 2744, the Agriculture Appropriations Act for FY 2006 because of the Conferee's decision to further delay mandatory country- of-origin labeling until September 30, 2008.

Country-of-origin labeling allows the consumer to make informed decisions about what to buy and allows the consumer to support specific farmers or producers at their discretion. Quite simply, American consumers should, and need to have the right to know where their food comes from. Imported meat is currently sold under the guise of a U.S. product and there is no way for consumers to differentiate the origin of their meat. This policy is an unfair and unnecessary risk to the American consumer.

Congress passed mandatory country-of-origin labeling in the 2002 Farm Bill to be implemented on September 30, 2004. This bill will now further delay labeling four years from when it was originally scheduled to take effect. America wanted this provision in the last Farm Bill and Congress has again delayed its implementation.

Unfortunately over 40 of our trading partners have country-of-origin labeling programs already in place, and despite all of our resources and technology, the U.S. has not been able to determine a method of implementation that provides our consumer with the same information. Without this program in place, we are putting at risk two of our three largest beef export markets, Japan and Korea.

For these reasons I cannot vote for this conference report today, and it is my hope that Congress will finally take seriously what is best for this country and the consumer.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to join Chairman Hunter and Ranking Member Skelton in opposing House Joint Resolution 65.

I was not a fan of us doing this BRAC round. The gentleman from Illinois said that if 9/11 had happened before the approval of this round, we probably would not have had a BRAC round. But the truth is that we have reaffirmed this BRAC round time and time again since 9/11.

Each year I would offer an amendment in the Armed Services Committee to put off the BRAC for many of the reasons that the gentleman from Illinois has stated: to put off the BRAC for 2 years until we could see where we are about bringing troops home, to see where we are on our war against terror.

Each time it would pass overwhelmingly in committee, it would pass overwhelmingly in this House, and we would be shot down in the conference committee by the Senate and the White House. We lost that battle. That would have been my choice.

But once we have gone through this process, I think we should proceed with it at this point. Just 5 months ago, the House voted down an amendment that would have delayed BRAC, the 2005 BRAC, indefinitely. I argued then, as I do today, that we must allow the BRAC process at this point to run its course.

As it turned out, that course took several unexpected twists and turns along the way. On the positive side, the BRAC Commission removed several significant bases from the closure list. In doing so, they validated our belief that our military should not give up the ability to surge to meet future crises in times of war and peace, allowing this ability that is fundamental to our Nation's security.

On the negative side, the commission's actions on some issues like the commission's directive relating to the Naval Air Station Oceana, for example, raise a number of questions about the credibility underlying the BRAC process.

Considering that credibility is the foundation upon which BRAC is built, such questions are troubling. While I do not believe the BRAC 2005 outcome to be sufficiently flawed to vote to disapprove it, I have reached the conclusion that any future use of the existing BRAC laws to close or realign bases would be a mistake.

In balance, Mr. Chairman, I feel that this may have been the best BRAC process that we have had in all of the BRAC processes we have had. There are problems with it. It has never been perfect. It was not perfect this time. But I think it was perhaps the smoothest and best process that we have had.

To those of my colleagues who still may be on the fence about today's vote, I would point out that disapproval of the BRAC 2005 recommendations would guarantee yet another round of base closures in the very near future.

Bases on today's closure list would likely appear again on the future list. And those bases that escaped closure

this time would again be at risk of closure or realignment. Whether or not you support any given closure or realignment within BRAC 2005, I hope that all of my colleagues will recognize that the alternative, which is another round of BRAC in the near future, would be even worse.

My friends, I do not want to go through this again. Any of us who represent bases across this Nation do not want to continually go through this kind of agony. For all of these reasons, I will vote against H.J. Res. 65 and vote to allow the BRAC process to run its course.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Science.

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

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Souder).

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.

Several Members have spoken eloquently about the fact that this is our job. Mr. Taylor did an excellent job of that. Mr. Abercrombie did an excellent job of that, that we ought to be making these decisions, that we should not turn it over to a commission. I would agree with that wholeheartedly, except this is a job that we simply cannot seem to do.

We did not close a major base in this country from the 1970s until the BRAC process began. I did not like supporting the BRAC process when the BRAC process was first introduced, but I saw it as the only way that we could ever deal with the question of excess inventory.

I yield to the gentleman from Missouri.

I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we did, following the introduction of the BRAC process, but we did close that. But we basically do not have the power to do that, because if I have the power to close Mr. Skelton's base, he might vote to close my base, and we keep going around the room like that, and we are unable to do it.

So the BRAC process has worked for better or for worse. I see both sides of it. I chaired a committee that oversees the BRAC process. I do not want any more BRAC processes like this. But I would remind my colleagues again that if we vote for this resolution, and this resolution passes today, and we turn down this BRAC process, we will be back here in this room a year from now or 2 years from now, probably more like a year from now, we will be back in this room dealing with another BRAC process, and we will have the same arguments as we are having here today.

Now, it may be different people. Maybe some of the people that are dissatisfied today will be satisfied at the next round, but we would all have to go through this again next year or the next. And we would, all of our communities that have any base connected to them would have to go through this again. I am not sure we would get any better results, no matter what process we use, than we have today. Some would be happy, some would be unhappy, some would complain, some would want it to go just like it is. I think we would end up with the same kinds of results as we have today.

So while I agree that this is not a perfect process, I do not think we want to go through it again next year.

I would ask each of my colleagues to vote against this resolution, and let us proceed to make the best we possibly can out of this for the defense of this country.

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

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.J. Res. 65.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the legislation offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and would like to give you an example of why this bill is needed.

Seven years ago, the Fish and Wildlife Service contacted my office to state they were going to list the Preble's meadow jumping mouse as a threatened species.

It wasn't even a surprise. State and local authorities had known the mouse might be listed for years. And, at first, it didn't even seem like it would be that much of a problem. The mouse was a nocturnal animal that dwelt within a hundred feet of either side of streambeds.

The Front Range of the Rockies could also claim at least three government reservations--the U.S. Air Force Academy, Rocky Flats and Warren AFB in Wyoming--which offered the mouse almost untrammeled range in which to roam.

But over the course of the next seven years, the lines moved. Now the mouse's range extended beyond the stream beds, sometimes by miles. Habitat had to be protected, not only where the mouse had been found but also where it might be found if indeed a three-inch-long rodent could travel several miles to get there.

Over the past seven years, the State of Colorado spent approximately $8 million to preserve the mouse. Counties up and down the Front Range spent even more money to acquire open space and to develop habitat conservation plans, few of which, to my knowledge, were ever completed or even begun. This is not even counting the impact to private property owners, not knowing whether they could use or develop their property.

And after all this, all the money spent, all the needless planning and contention, it turned out the Fish and Wildlife Service was wrong. The Preble's meadow jumping mouse was not threatened. It wasn't even a separate subspecies. A scientist at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science stated this and the scientist whose 1954 work led to the original listing, agreed with the new data.

And so the delisting process started. Hopefully, we'll see it completed sometime in the near future though there is some evidence that Fish and Wildlife is taking its time in doing so. But meanwhile, the states of Wyoming and Colorado and its Front Range counties and cities and residents are out at least $8 million and probably more for no good reason.

After all this time and expense, nothing has been produced. That is why this bill is needed. If we are going to undertake these massive land-planning schemes, then the Feds ought to be sure of their facts. If they are going to mandate conservation planning and land set-asides, then maybe they ought to send the money along to do that. The states, counties and cities have other things they could spend their tax dollars on.

The ESA, as it currently stands, does nothing but keep attorneys and interest groups busy and needs reformed. So I say, let's try this approach. I urge your support of H.R. 3824.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a very special family in my district. Billy Jack and Anne Barrett and their six children recently experienced a life-changing event. They were chosen to receive a brand new home from the television show ``Extreme Makeover: Home Edition.''

I was amazed at the amount of work that went into replacing the Barretts' small family 101-year-old farmhouse with a 4,000-square foot two-story home, complete with red school house that Anne Barrett will use to continue home schooling the children.

The Barretts were selected for opening not only their hearts but their home to troubled children. In addition to their own two biological daughters, they adopted four high-risk teens who had been deemed unadoptable. They had seen the potential in these children and decided they would not give up on them as so many had.

The Barretts may not have the financial means or space to undertake their new responsibility; but with Christian values, love and horses, they have produced a wonderful family. I would like to thank Keller Homes, Extreme Makeover, and the more than 6,000 people who volunteered to make this daunting challenge a reality. I would like to commend the Barrett family for the example that they set for all of us.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have learned to do these pretty fast, and I do not think there is anyone here in doubt as to what it is.

I rise today to cut the level of funding in this appropriation bill by approximately 1 percent. This equals approximately $670 million. The bill is 6 percent over last year.

It seems to me that when we do not have the money, we do not spend over last year, or should not. I will emphasize again this is not an across-the-board cut; this is an off-the-bottom-line. They can make a choice of where it comes from.

This is the seventh time that I have offered an amendment of this type this year; and had those amendments been adopted, we would have saved $3.3 billion out of our spending for this year. Now, $3.3 billion sounds like a lot of money to most of us, but it is not in comparison with the overall budget we have for the United States Government; but, still, it is a tremendous step in the right way.

It is important to remember that we do not have this money. This money is debt we are burdening our children and grandchildren with to pay back someday.

I would like to congratulate the chairman and the ranking member and the committee on addressing an issue I followed in the spending bill for years. While I would have preferred not to spend a dime on Amtrak, the committee has dramatically reduced the spending in the bill, and that would go a long way towards forcing Amtrak to change its ways. Now, I know there was a vote to reverse that last night, but I trust that this battle is not over, and I hope it is not over.

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

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

I would just say to the gentleman, who is a dear friend and for whom I have the highest respect, we should not, he is absolutely right, we should not abdicate our responsibility to the executive branch; but sometimes around here what should be done and what is reality are two different things. I know what it is to get bills out of committee. The gentleman and I worked on the subcommittee on military construction for years together, the gentleman on appropriations and me on the authorizing, and we know what it takes to get bills out of committee sometimes. Sometimes this may be the only way to do it to get a hold on spending.

But anyway, Mr. Chairman, I encourage an ``aye'' vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this is no surprise to anyone. I rise again today to offer an amendment to cut the level of funding in this appropriation bill by 1 percent, 1 cent on the dollar. This amounts to $202.7 million.

I have offered this kind of an amendment on a number of these bills, and it is because I feel so strongly about the need for us to come to a balanced budget which we once had, and we have gotten very far away from.

The committee has done a good job in the sense that the amount of this bill is $2.5 billion less than what the administration called for. However, it is still an increase of $750 million over last year's Foreign Operations budget.

My sense is that if you do not have the money, you do not spend more than last year. That is the situation we are in right now. I will not go into this whole thing; I simply encourage an ``aye'' vote on behalf of the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation for every one of the cuts that the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Kolbe) mentioned, and they have done a good job where that is concerned, but I still hope we will get a positive vote on this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Hefley

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

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Hefley of Colorado

Amendment No. 10: Page 132, after line 13, insert the

following:

reduction in total appropriations

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I do not want to take a lot of time for this because I think we all know the scenario that is the result of this, but I do want to make the point again.

What I am rising to do is to cut the level of funding in this appropriation bill by 1 percent. This amount equals $1.425 billion, which represents only one penny off of every dollar.

This is not an across-the-board cut. The way it is structured, it lets the Department decide where this money should come from.

As most Members are aware, I have offered a series of these amendments over many appropriation bills. We need to draw the line; and the budget we have for the next year is too large, and we can do something about the deficit right now. By voting for my amendment, you are stating to the American taxpayers that they should not have to pay higher taxes in the future, because we can control our spending today. As hard as the chairman and ranking member have worked on this bill, there are still many wonderful things in the bill, very meritorious things in the bill, but things that do not have to be done, some of them.

This fiscal year's 2006 Labor-HHS appropriations bill provides over $142.5 billion in total discretionary resources. And we have seen discretionary spending increase in this bill by an average of more than 5 percent a year over the last 5 years, even though it is less this year than it was last year. I commend the committee and the chairman on that.

This bill spends $924 million over the President's request. Our budget should be no different than our individual budgets at home. When we have less money, we spend less money. I would encourage support of the Hefley amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I rise today to offer an amendment to cut 1 percent of the level of funding in this appropriation bill. This amounts to roughly $28 billion for the legislative branch appropriations bill, and it is no reflection on the chairman or the ranking member. They have done some very good things in here, particularly in that hole of waste we have in the East Front of our Capitol which goes on and on and on. They have done a great job in trying to rein that in.

I simply think that with all of these appropriation bills, with most of them, we can find 1 percent to cut, and that will move us in a tiny way towards a balanced budget. So I offer the amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Hefley

Amendment No. 16: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Offered By: Mr. Hefley

Amendment No. 7: At the end of the bill, insert after the

last section (preceding the short title) the following

section:

Sec. 5__. Of the amounts made available under title IV for

the account ``Corporation for Public Broadcasting'',

$40,000,000 is transferred and made available under title II

as an additional amount for the account ``National Institutes

of Health--office of the director''.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Obey amendment and in support of the Hunter amendment. I think the Obey amendment passes judgment before we know what the judgment ought to be in this thing.

We are assuming that this chaplain, one of the many chaplains that they have at the Air Force Academy, we are assuming she was reassigned because she blew the whistle, as the expression has been used here. What blew the whistle on this was the survey that they did of cadets, and a few of them said there was something wrong. And she said, yes, there was something wrong; and she has been reassigned.

When the Air Force was asked why she has been reassigned, they tell us it was because the person she was working for reassigned and it is customary to reassign. So let us not pass that judgment right now.

I think the Hunter amendment strikes the kind of balance that we really want. It does not pass judgment. It recognizes that studies are going on so we can get to the bottom of it and find out how much of a problem there might be there. It emphasizes that religious intolerance is unacceptable, and we all agree with that. Religious intolerance is unacceptable.

But it also recognizes the importance of the spiritual side of our lives and does not try to scrub religion from public life in America. There are some who would like to do that. We are looking up here at ``In God We Trust'' over the Speaker's rostrum. We open each day with a prayer. We do not want to scrub religion or faith from all public life. I think the Hunter amendment emphasizes that, but it also recognizes that we need to wait and pass judgment when we get all of the facts.

Mr. Chairman, I serve on the Board of Visitors at the Air Force Academy. This was not discovered by newspapers or a chaplain who blew the whistle. This was discovered during the normal administrative process of the Air Force Academy. They have discussed it with the Board of Visitors, and we have dealt with it for some time.

First of all, the Air Force Academy recognized there might be a problem, and they immediately jumped on it. They have had some problems out there. I do not know how it tied into this, but the gentleman from Wisconsin mentioned the sexual thing. That really was a scandal. I question whether we have a scandal going here.

But they knew that they were under the bright light because of what happened in the past, and they were on this immediately; and they are in the process of taking action. I do not think they need the help of the Congress of the United States to do this. I think they are on top of it.

As I said earlier, I do not think we have a scandal here. I think we have an administrative situation that the Air Force Academy and the Air Force are perfectly capable of taking care of. If that is not the case, when the studies come in, we will be able to see that and maybe we do need to get into it. We need to let this process work. We need to, I hope, not support the Obey amendment with that kind of language and support the Hunter amendment which strikes the kind of balance that I think we want. Then we will watch until the results of these studies come in and see if we need to move any further. I encourage defeat of the Obey amendment and passing of the Hunter amendment.