Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4200, the National Defense Authorization Act. I too would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their leadership on this committee. These are two people who really have their heart with the troops, who are out there doing the job for us as Americans, and they lead the committee greatly. I am so appreciative of the efforts of the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton).

This Spring the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) declared that 2004 would be the year of the troops, and he instructed us as committee chairman to focus what we did on the troops. What do they need? What will make them the best equipped and best trained fighting force in the history of the world. And that is what we tried to do in this bill.

The conference report before us today is crafted in that spirit, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the troops by saying yes on the conference report today.

There are several items in the conference reports to which I would like to call attention, and I will do the one I am disappointed in first, and that is the BRAC provisions in here. We overwhelmingly in the committee voted, and have for the last couple of years, voted to delay the BRAC process for 2 years, and the reason for that is not parochial. It is because we do not think with the transition that we are going through in the armed services right now, in the war, that we have enough information to really make the decision that we will not be sorry for later. So we overwhelmingly in the House and in the committee voted to delay it. But that did not stay in the bill.

The one BRAC provision which I am very pleased with the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) put forward it is a very thoughtful provision and it will make the process work much better.

Second, this bill repeals the cap on the military housing privatization program effective immediately, ensuring that this extraordinarily successful program will continue to improve homes in which our service members and their families live. The House cast an overwhelming vote in support of the program this summer, and I could not be more pleased that we have found a way to allow it to continue. It would have been a tragedy if we had not done this.

Third, the bill authorizes more than $10 billion, an increase of approximately $450 million for military construction and family housing programs of the Department of Defense. By carefully applying these resources, the conference report provides for new facilities that will improve military readiness and enhance the quality of living for America's service members.

I would like to express my deep appreciation to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), of the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee and their staffs for their hard work this year in what was often a very frustrating process. But they worked with the authorizing committee like the Appropriations Committee, and authorizing committees should work around this House, and have completed the military construction bill working together.

This bill also recognizes and rewards the equally patriotic and committed civilian workforce. Passage of the bill signifies America's continued and unwavering support for all of our military troops, active, Reserve, Guard, airmen, sailors, Marines. I ask you to support the troops. Vote ``yes'' on the Ronald Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. It is an act that you can be proud of.

Mr. Speaker. I rise today to recognize and remember the life of former Republican Congressman Donald Brotzman of Colorado, who recently passed away at the age of 82. Congressman Brotzman honorably represented Colorado's second Congressional District from 1962 through 1975, during some of this great nation's most tumultuous and trying times.

He was born June 28, 1922 on a farm in Logan County, on Colorado's eastern plains. Both a musician and three-sport athlete at Sterling High School, Don Brotzman won a football scholarship in 1939 to the University of Colorado in Boulder where he was an all-conference center and varsity letter-winner in shot put and discus.

As war continued to rage on the other side of the world, Don Brotzman delayed his education and served as an Army officer in Yokohama, Japan, and the Philippines through World War II. Following the end of the war, he returned to Boulder to complete degrees in business and law in 1949.

Mr. Brotzman began working as a lawyer in Boulder in 1950, and was elected to the Colorado House of Representatives in 1952 and later the State Senate. Local media named him the outstanding freshman member in both chambers.

By 1959, he was appointed United States Attorney for Colorado by President Eisenhower and served as such until he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1962, where he was voted president of his freshman class.

Congressman Brotzman served five terms and helped to shape laws such as the Clean Air Act and the Public Broadcasting Act. He reached across the aisle to champion causes such as the Indian Peaks Wilderness Area west of Boulder, a national program to help runaway youth and a tax credit for higher-education expenses. Despite serving on the minority side of the aisle, he successfully found the funds to complete the Chatfield Dam and Reservoir, and sponsored the bill authorizing the building of Bear Creek Dam and Reservoir in Colorado.

Furthermore, he persuaded the Johnson Administration to sponsor a study that eventually changed the Army's environmental practices at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal in Adam's County, Colorado, and he was one of the first members of Congress to call for an all-volunteer military.

Colorado lost a great friend and a tremendous leader when it lost Donald Brotzman. His strong western values and commitment to always do what was right, despite partisan interests and outside persuasion, has continued to serve as a great example.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I rise today to offer an amendment that would reduce this appropriations bill by 1 percent, which would have been $899 million at what we started out. I am not sure what it will be now, 1.25 maybe if it continues like it was last night; but I am sure that this money will come back into the bill as we go along. So I would like to offer this 1 percent amendment.

My amendment is not intended in any way to slight the chairman or the ranking member. I know this has been a difficult task to draft this bill, and it is still difficult to try to put it together and make it come out like it should, and they are doing a good job of that. The chairman has worked with me very closely on some of this effort.

However, I again today offer the amendment to cut the level of funding in this appropriations bill. As most Members are aware, I have offered a series of these amendments over the last weeks as we have dealt with the appropriations bills. If we had adopted these amendments, Congress would have saved $3.2 billion for the American taxpayer. Currently, the projected deficit is over $422 billion for just the next fiscal year, and I do not believe it is too much to ask that we tighten our belt just a bit; and by just a bit, I mean we tight our belt by 1 cent on the dollar.

We have to draw the line somewhere. The budget we have is too large. We can do something about the deficit right now. By voting for my amendment, my colleagues are stating to the American taxpayers that they should not have to pay higher taxes in the future because we cannot control our spending today.

Mr. Chairman, I encourage support for this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, let me correct just one thing.

The gentleman makes a very good argument. By the way, we should have dealt with this at budget time; there is no question about that. The way this amendment is crafted, it does not reduce high-priority programs as well as low-. It allows the administration to determine where the 1 percent comes from; and, hopefully, they have got the good sense to not take it out of the high-priority programs.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against page 40, line 13, to page 42, line 15 because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and therefore violates section 2(a) of rule

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order on page 42, line 16, to page 42, line 21 because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and therefore violates section 2(a) of rule XXI.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against page 42, line 22, to page 42, line 26 because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and therefore violates section 2(a) of rule

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.

I make a point on page 43, line 1, to page 43, line 16 because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and therefore violates section 2(a) of rule XXI.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order on page 44, line 15, to page 47, line 19 because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and therefore violates section 2(a) of rule XXI.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order on page 47, line 20, to page 48, line 3 because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and therefore violates section 2(a) of rule XXI.

Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.

Mr. Chairman, I raise a point of order on page 56, line 6, to page 56, line 20, because it provides an appropriation for an unauthorized program and, therefore, violates section 2(a) of rule XXI.

Offered By: Mr. Hefley

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

title), insert the following:

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that would cut discretionary spending in this appropriations bill by $1.4 billion, an amount equal to 1 percent of the $142.5 billion discretionary spending price tag. As many of my colleagues know, I have offered a similar amendment on many of the appropriations bills.

Let me begin by saying, however, that I recognize the difficult job the committee has had in putting together this bill. It is complex, it is big, it is a lot of money, it is important, and there are many, many good things in this; and I commend the chairman and the ranking member, particularly, for their effort in this, to produce a bill with as many good things in it as there are.

However, the fact remains that the Federal budget for fiscal year 2005 is going to be too large. Until we can make a dent in the outrageous level of the Federal deficit, we must be even more diligent in reining in spending. I do not think it is too much to ask to trim the budget for this spending bill by a mere 1 percent and prove to the American public that we want to make a priority of balancing the Federal budget.

I also want to point out that this amendment is structured so that the administration would maintain the ability to determine which accounts should be cut or scaled back in order to achieve this rescission, rather than cutting all programs across the board. My intent is not to single out all programs for reduction, but I am confident that we can eliminate some of the waste and abuse and find a way to trim 1 percent of the total spending.

Thus, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment and reduce the amount of discretionary spending in this bill by 1 cent on the dollar.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Hefley

Amendment No. 5: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise again to offer an amendment to cut the level of funding in this appropriations bill by 1 percent. This equals about $5.6 million. This is not the biggest bill that we deal with. However, the increase in the bill is over 3 percent over last year. I do not mean this at all as a slap against D.C., our Nation's Capital, certainly not a slap against the committee, because as most Members are aware, I have offered a series of these amendments on the appropriations bills because I think we have to start drawing the line somewhere and some time.

The budget we have for next year is too large, and we can do something about the deficit now if we would start doing it. I would really be remiss, however, Mr. Chairman, if I did not commend the chairman and ranking member on a very difficult job that they have had to do; and, obviously, they have done a very excellent job of it as evidenced by the fact that we are not spending half a day on the D.C. bill down here, that they have worked out the problems beforehand.

So I commend them on a tremendous job that both of them and the committee have done. And it is many times a thankless job because most of the folks back home do not care what happens in the D.C. bill, and so it does not get them any great acclaim back home for the good job they are doing. But I would like to put in the record that they have done a good job.

Still, I do not think a cut of 1 cent on a dollar is too much to ask for or is unreasonable, given our current budget situation.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Hefley

Amendment No. 2: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Sec. 139. Total Federal appropriations made in this Act

(other than appropriations required to be made by a provision

of law) are hereby reduced by $5,600,000.

Offered By: Mr. Hefley

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

title), insert the following:

reduction of discretionary appropriations

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today, first of all, to congratulate the gentleman from Georgia (Chairman Kingston) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran), for crafting a bill that actually spends less money than it did last year. My amendment is not in any way intended to slight the chairman or ranking member. They are good friends and work hard at this, and they have done in many respects an excellent job. I know it is a difficult task to draft, and I want to express my appreciation for their hard work.

However, I am going to offer again, as I have on many of the other appropriations bills, an amendment to cut the bill by 1 percent. I know in committee how it works. In committee, it is difficult to get these bills out, and you have to get them out. So you make compromises, and you give a little here and you give a little there, and they usually come out, in my opinion, at least at a higher figure than is desirable if we are serious about trying to balance the budget.

So we do the best we can in committee and bring it to the floor, and I am asking for us to consider cutting one penny on every dollar so we can move towards that elusive idea of a balanced budget. If we would do just this 1 percent on each of the appropriations bills, it would have a tremendous impact on moving towards that balanced budget.

Mr. Chairman, I encourage an aye vote.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I cannot think of any two gentleman that I hate being on the opposite side of more than these two gentlemen, because they are so conscientious.

Let me say that I think there are ways that we can get at this 1 percent without doing all the damage that has been suggested. For instance, I have not used frank mailing in years. Maybe we do not need as big a frank mailing budget. I have never had my full complement of staff that they allow us to have. Maybe we do not need as many staff as they say we can have.

There are things like that that I think we could do to bring this budget down. I give several hundred thousand dollars each year back into the pot that I simply do not spend, because that is a budget that I can control. So if I mean what I say about balancing the budget, I feel I ought to try to control it. That has amounted to many millions of dollars over the time I have been here. So there are ways.

Mr. Chairman, I encourage an aye vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Offered By: Mr. Hefley

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

title), insert the following:

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to reduce the budget for the U.S. Court of Federal Claims by one-half. Due to an unchecked law, a handful of Federal judges who decide claims against the government are collecting full-time wages for less than part-time work.

The judges on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims are appointed for 15 years, but jurists turn their terms into lifetime appointments by remaining as senior judges and collecting their full six-figure salaries. Currently, the Federal claims court has 16 active judges, and it has 13 senior-status judges.

The workload of the court is hardly burdensome, as it averages fewer than two trials a year. While a handful of senior judges work a full docket, others handle only a fraction of their former caseloads; and still others, Mr. Chairman, still others do no cases whatsoever. They keep an empty docket. Yet all of them are paid the full-time Federal judge salary of $158,000 a year.

This is known in the legal profession by lawyers who know this court, it is called ``charmed existence,'' and it is an abuse of judicial authority and a waste of taxpayer money. I would hope we would support this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman agreeing to look into this; and I think that is important, whether this amendment passes or not.

There is somewhat of a movement within the other body to shut that court down completely. The value of it, there is a real question about it.

In a recent Associated Press story, let me just quote a few lines from it, it says, ``Judges on a little known Federal court that decides claims against the government are appointed for 15 years, but collect their full six-figure salaries for the lifetime of the workload average, and they average fewer

than two trials each in one recent year.'' It goes on to say, ``Taxpayers are spending top dollar for full-time judges who do not even perform part-time work.''

Finally, the statement is made, ``They go from doing next to nothing to doing nothing and we are paying for it.''

We still leave over $7 million in the budget for this court. We are not doing away with the court entirely. That decision is not being made at this point. I do not think this would be the appropriate place to do that. But this is a way to get at the abuse that is going on with that particular court and the abuse of taxpayer dollars.

Again, Mr. Chairman, I would ask for 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.

This is an amendment I have offered on a great many appropriations bills over the last few years. In my desire to begin to get a grip on the deficit spending that we are doing now, and it is not a reflection on the chairman or the committee and the job they have done, there is a great deal of good in this bill; but I rise today to offer an amendment to cut by 1 percent the level of funding in this appropriations bill. For the CJS appropriations bill that amends amounts to $398 million, and that translates to one penny on every dollar we spend. One penny is all we are talking about on every dollar that we are spending.

I recognize there are many important law enforcement provisions contained

within this bill, which is why I have structured my amendment using the Holman rule so that the administration may choose the accounts in which they want to reduce the spending in this bill. The tendency always is when you want to cut something or a Department is to say that the most desirable things are the things it will cut. No, it is not. The FBI that will get cut here or some of those law enforcement things, it will be the things that are the least important, if we do it in this way and under this particular rule.

As most Members are aware, as I said earlier, I have introduced similar amendments that would have cut spending in other appropriations bills and I have plans to continue doing so in other appropriations bills that are brought to the floor. My amendments are intended to draw a line. The budget for fiscal year 2005 is too large. We have the power to do something about the budget deficit right now. By voting for my amendment, Members are stating to the American taxpayers they should not have to pay higher taxes in the future because we could not control spending today.

Our budgets would be no different than the taxpayers' budgets at home. When we have less money, we simply need to spend less money, and there are plenty of places within the Federal budget where we are spending money that clearly does not make any sense whatsoever.

Mr. Chairman, I offer this 1 percent cut in the budget.

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

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

There is not a member of this Congress that is more conscientious or more concerned about the deficit than the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). I have the highest respect for him. I still say, Mr. Chairman, that we can find one penny on the dollar to cut in this particular appropriations bill. I would ask for 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.

First of all, I would like to commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), ranking member, for the very conscientious job they have done on this bill. They have had a difficult task. There is very much that is good in this bill, and I do not take away from that at all.

Also, I have sat here for an hour listening to the virtues of the Census Bureau; and, indeed, that is a very important function of our government, and I do not want to attack that.

But I do rise today to offer an amendment to reduce the budget for the Census Bureau by approximately $174 million. And the reason for that is that this is a particular thing, and let me read from the bill. $173,806,000 is for the reengineered design process for the short-form- only census. In a time of record or near-record deficits, and at any time, one wonders how in the world we can spend $173 million, almost $174 million, on redesigning a form, and a short form at that. And I think the short form probably does need to be redone, but at what cost? And I would suggest to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) that perhaps they could come back to us next year or the next as we get closer, and we are talking 5 years out, that they could come back to us with a little more reasonable effort about what it takes to redesign a short form. If we do not have people at the Census Bureau, and he talked about the thousand jobs lost and all of that, but if we do not have people at the Census Bureau that have the ability to redesign a form for a whole lot less than $174 million, then we need some new people.

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

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

I do not want to extend the debate on the virtues of the census. We have heard the same things over and over again, and all of us agree with that. And I have no desire whatsoever, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) said, to do away with the census. We are supposed to do the census, and we need to do it as accurately as we possibly can. And we are not with this amendment doing away with all the setup for the census. We are doing away with the engineering of one form at the expense of $174 million, the engineering of one form. And we have 5 additional years to look at this and determine what is reasonable. There is going to have to be some money to do this because the form ought to be redone.

So we have 5 years for them to come back to us with a reasonable figure, and we will grant that figure so they can do it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, with recent dedication of the WWII Memorial and the 60th anniversary of D-Day, all Americans were reminded of the courage and sacrifices made by members of the Greatest Generation. In particular, we've gained a greater appreciation

from our fellow citizens that served in the Armed Forces and their families alike. Today I choose to honor Lt Col (U.S. Army retired) Les and Mrs. Madlyn Curtiss, who began their military service to our Nation that extended 24 years and three wars. Colonel and Mrs. Curtiss are patriotic volunteers in the truest sense.

Colonel Les Curtiss enlisted in the Army as a Private and rose through the ranks to Master Sergeant. He served in the 13th and 82d Airborne Divisions, and later in the 187th Airborne Regimental Combat Team during the Korean Conflict. He received his commission as a Second Lieutenant in 1952, and was the Distinguished and Honor Graduate of his Officer Candidate Class. In 1958, he transferred from the Infantry to the Signal Corps.

As a Signal Corps Officer, Colonel Les Curtiss served as an Airborne Battle Group Signal Officer and Advisor to the 5th Military Region, Vietnam; Instructor at the Signal Officers Advance Course, Fort Monmouth, New Jersey; Deputy Commander, U.S. Army Element NATO, and Camp Commandant, Camp Voluceau, NATO, Paris, France; and attended the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

Both Colonel Les Curtiss and his life's partner Madlyn believed that no word was ever spoken that has held out greater hope than Freedom; and nothing demands greater sacrifice, needs to be nurtured, and comes closer to bring God's will on earth. They both believed that Freedom is worth fighting for; and while her husband served in a variety of Army command and staff positions, Mrs. Madlyn Curtiss faithfully performed her duty as well.

The World War II Generation made their mark in American History as soldiers; and they were undoubtedly very successful as veterans as well. In every field, they quickly assumed positions of leadership, often transforming entire industries, research fields, and professions, or creating new ones. After his retirement from the U.S. Army, Colonel Les Curtiss and his wife Madlyn moved to Colorado Springs, Colorado, and pursued a life-long dream of teaching. He assumed a position on the faculty at Falcon School District #49. Mr. Les Curtiss taught Speech, Mathematics, World Geography, Government, and History. He also served as the Chairman of the Social Science Department and President of the Falcon Teachers Association.

These two great American's were born in the immediate aftermath of WWI, they survived the Great Depression and answered their country's summons when totalitarianism and fascism threatened the world. As General George Marshall stated, ``they have made history, a great history for the good of mankind,'' and today I honor them for their service and commitment.