Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, this quote from Daniel Webster appears above the Speaker's rostrum right up at the top of the Chamber. And it says this: ``Let us develop the resources of our land, call forth its powers, build up its institutions, promote all its great interests and see whether we also in our day and generation may not perform something worthy to be remembered.''

As families struggle with soaring gas prices, our Nation's energy solutions, I think, lie on Webster's words. House Republicans have offered a plan to

lower gas prices by developing the resources of our land in an environmentally safe way. This is an approach that is supported by some 60 percent of the American people in a recent Gallup poll. But the majority won't listen.

Instead, they let gas prices surge even higher by refusing to schedule a plan to break America's dependence on foreign sources of energy. Mr. Speaker, I think American consumers deserve better. It is time to develop the resources of our land and bring down gas prices on behalf of American families and small businesses. And that, as Webster said, would be ``worthy to be remembered.''

Let me thank my colleague from Illinois for yielding time and make clear that I want to vote for a bill that extends unemployment benefits to those who have been laid off in areas where we have high unemployment. But the bill before us is not targeted at States where we've seen the spike in unemployment. I mean, we've got an unemployment rate in Oklahoma, as an example, of about 2.6 percent, or maybe you could go to, I think it's South Dakota, where the unemployment rate is about 2.4 percent. Yet, under this bill, it's a Federal mandate one-size-fits-all for all 50 States. I just think that if we're going to be serious about spending taxpayer money, we ought to target that money to those areas where we have high unemployment and where people need our help.

The bill also eliminates the requirement that individuals put in at least 20 weeks of work to collect extended unemployment benefits. And when this was put into the law, and when we extended this law in 2002, almost all the Democrat members voted to do this. And what it means is that some people could work as little as 2 weeks and receive up to 52 weeks of unemployment benefits. I don't think that's neither reasonable, nor is it a good use of limited taxpayer resources.

I'm open to extending unemployment benefits, but I think this bill that we have before us falls far short of what we need to do. It's neither fair to unemployed workers who truly need our help, nor to taxpayers who are going to fund it.

I think we can do better. And before we send a final version of this bill to the President, I hope that we do better. And I hope we will work in a bipartisan way to come to an agreement to extend unemployment benefits in a reasonable, responsible way. But in the meantime, this bill is not the answer, and I would urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

Madam Speaker, I along with Mr. Hobson rise today to recognize Mr. Earl Morse, an Ohioan who has dedicated himself to honoring World War II veterans from across the country by making it possible for them to visit the national memorial built and dedicated in their honor.

Mr. Morse is a physician's assistant and a retired Air Force captain from Enon, Ohio. While working at the Department of Veterans Affairs, he realized that most of the veterans he took care of were not able to make the trip to visit the World War II Memorial in Washington, DC. Since Mr. Morse was also a pilot, he offered to personally fly one of his patients to visit the memorial.

Upon realizing the desire to visit the memorial was so great, Mr. Morse started to ask for help from other pilots to make these trips a reality. During an aero club meeting in January of 2005, he outlined a volunteer program to fly senior World War II veterans to visit their memorial with no cost to the veteran. The pilots would be asked to volunteer the use of their aircraft and their time. After Mr. Morse spoke, 11 pilots who had never met his patients signed up to establish the first of what would be many ``Honor Flights.''

In 2005, the Honor Flight program took 137 World War II veterans to visit their memorial. As the popularity of the program grew, the need for more volunteers and the use of commercial aircraft became necessary. By 2006, an estimated 300 Ohio veterans made the trip to visit the World War II Memorial.

The mission and ideals of Mr. Morse's Honor Flight soon spread across the Nation, and a network of community leaders and volunteers became established to form the Honor Flight Network. The program presently has 69 hubs in 30 States, and is working to establish hubs in all 50 States by the end of 2006.

Madam Speaker, on the eve of Memorial Day, we feel that it is only fitting to pay tribute to Mr. Morse, who has demonstrated his patriotism and his respect for a generation of men and women who sacrificed so much to ensure the security of this world, and to guarantee the freedoms that we enjoy today.

We thank Mr. Earl Morse for his outstanding effort to honor the legacy of one of our Nation's most valuable resources, our veterans. We wish him, and his organization, all the best with his continued effort to ensure his objective is completed.

Mr. Speaker, I have a privileged resolution at the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the House voted to override a bill that the President vetoed, except that it wasn't the bill that the House and Senate had passed. And rather than stop, try to determine what the problem was and then to work toward an agreement as to how we proceed, it didn't happen. As a result, we are now stuck in this quagmire of trying to determine how best to get this bill enacted into law. Yet, once again, instead of stopping, sitting down and working in a bipartisan way to understand what happened and how we ought to resolve this, the majority is continuing to just move vehicles to the Senate, hoping that they can sort it out.

Now, my colleague and friend from Minnesota says that this 1,768-page bill is identical, with exceptions, to the bill that the House passed. If I could ask the gentleman from Minnesota, did you read all 1,768 pages of this?

Did anybody read all 1,768 pages of this?

Reclaiming my time, this bill, 1,768 pages, was introduced less than 1 hour ago. There are no Members who have read this. I doubt there is any staff that has read all of this, because you couldn't possibly have read all of this over the course of the last hour. 1,768 pages, $300 billion over the next 5 years, $600 billion over the next 10 years. Yet we are going to expect Members to come down here and cast a vote on this, not knowing what is in here.

We thought that when we passed the farm bill, it was the bill that passed the House and the Senate. The President thought the bill sent to him was the bill that the House and Senate passed. We thought it was the bill the House and Senate passed. But, guess what? It wasn't. Now we are being asked to vote on a 1,768-page bill that spends nearly $300 billion over the next 5 years, we have had the bill for less than an hour, and everybody is hoping, hoping, it is the same bill that we passed, except with some enrolling corrections. I think that is a real stretch.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the ranking Republican on the House Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

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

Just myself. I will be happy to close.

So I can assume that the gentleman only has himself to close.

Let me yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time.

Most of my colleagues know that I opposed the farm bill when it originally came up, and I opposed it because it was filled with earmarks. There was a $250 million earmark for a ranch in Montana, there was an earmark for $170 million for salmon fisheries on the West Coast, and a number of other earmarks in the bill. And as has been pointed out, the more that this bill has lain around, the more that we have found other provisions in the bill that Members, let's say, it may have not caught their eye when it went through the House or the Senate.

The point that I am making is that given the commodity prices that we have in America, we can do better with this farm bill.

I understand the need for a farm bill and a need to ensure that America's farmers and ranchers have the kind of program that will ensure that America has a sufficient food supply and, frankly, a sufficient supply of food to export to many countries around the world.

But having said that, when we have over $5 a bushel corn, over $13 a bushel for soybeans, wheat in double digits, to be spending some $287 billion on this program I think is unwarranted. As I said when we considered the conference report on the farm bill last week, we can do better. This is the same old-same old that we have been doing for some 50 years.

While I appreciate the work that my colleagues put into it, I have worked closely with Mr. Peterson and Mr. Goodlatte for an awful long time, 18 years with my friend Mr. Peterson, 16 years with my friend Mr. Goodlatte. We have been through a lot of farm bills together and a lot of agriculture issues together. But at some point the American people look up and say, whoa, Washington, you are broken. And my point has been is that this farm bill is just another example; that at a time when we have got the highest food prices in the history of the country, we have the highest commodity prices we have ever had, we are continuing to go down the same old path.

The point that Mr. Flake brings up, something that I was unaware of in the

bill, something I think most Members were unaware of in the bill, is this new revenue assurance program that allows American farmers over the next 2 years to lock in at today's prices for the future.

Now I think that is the best deal in the world. How many Americans wouldn't like to say, I am going to lock my salary in for the next 5 years, guaranteed. No chance they would ever lose their job, no chance that their pay will ever get cut. Let me tell you, when it is too good to be true, it usually is.

Now if the farm bill isn't bad enough, the process that we are going through to try to rectify an error is--again, remember we have had this bill just over an hour. I am hurting my back trying to lift this thing, 1,768 pages, and just over 1 hour ago we got this.

I know the intent of the gentleman from Minnesota, the chairman, is that this be identical to the conference report that we passed. But nobody knows. Nobody has read it. Nobody has had a chance to read it. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, this will be the last time that the defense authorization bill comes to the floor of the House under the able hands of our Republican ranking member, Mr. Duncan Hunter.

Duncan has been a valued member of the Armed Services Committee for the 28 years that he's been here. I know for a lot of us he's our friend, he's our colleague and someone who brings not only a great amount of knowledge about this defense bill, but also brings a lot of passion with it.

And I just think that we ought to honor Duncan for a job well done.

And this is bigger. Let me also thank his able staff who have done a marvelous job in helping Duncan be a great ranking member and a great chairman.

I appreciate my colleague for yielding, and I'm not going to talk about the farm bill.

I'm a little concerned and have serious doubts about the process that we're

using to bring this bill considering that the bill that the President vetoed is not the bill that the Members are being asked to override.

Remember, there were 12 titles in the farm bill that we sent to the President. The bill that we have, that we're overriding, contains 11 titles. Title III of the bill is missing.

Now, the reason I rise is because I have got doubts about the process that we're engaged in, and I have doubts about the constitutionality of what it is that we're doing. And people were in such a hurry to bring this bill up here to the floor that no one would take the time to consider what is it that we're doing; is it constitutional, and should we proceed under the conditions we find ourselves.

We don't know why title III of the bill that we sent to the President is missing in the document that we're considering right now.

So it is not just me as a Member. I think there are other Members on both sides of the aisle that are wondering should we proceed with this and is what we're doing constitutional, is it breaking precedent with what we've done in the past. I would just ask my colleagues, and especially ask the majority, why we couldn't take some time to understand what happened in this process, why title III isn't included in the bill that we're moving to override.

And so until there are answers to this, I would suggest to the majority that we ought to consider suspending activity on this until such time as we know we have answers to the questions that Members on both sides are going to have.

I would be happy to yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, I don't know whether the President signed the bill that included title III or not. I don't know where title III fell from the bill. That's the point I'm making.

Until there are answers as to what did happen, how we proceed is critically important to the constitutionality of the process that we're engaged in here.

Mr. Speaker, we just finished a vote several minutes ago on the override of the farm bill, except that the override vote occurred on a bill that had never been considered by the House or the Senate, since the bill that we voted to override apparently is missing one title of the bill--or the conference report--that passed the House and the Senate. I am concerned about the procedures, the process, and the constitutionality of what we've just done.

I would like to ask the majority leader if he can help myself and the other Members understand just what are we dealing with here.

I would be happy to yield.

Reclaiming my time, we may have transported to the President a portion of the bill that passed the House and Senate, but we did not send to the President, apparently, the farm bill conference report as passed by the House and the Senate.

I think what's of grave concern to me is, yes, I understand that mistakes do happen in this process, but before the consideration of the override debate and vote, we were aware of the problem. And I just think that in deference to all Members, we could have waited before consideration of the override so that all the Members would understand just what we're dealing with and the problems that are contained therein. I just think that in the rush to move this override vote, we don't know what precedents of the House we may have stepped on and what constitutional problems that we may have. I would remind my colleague that there was a very small mistake made in the Deficit Reduction Act several years ago that's been the subject of a lawsuit and privileged resolutions and moral outrage from some of my friends on the other side of the aisle, which, frankly, the Deficit Reduction Act error pales in comparison to what we have here.

So I would ask my colleague, I think we need to get to the bottom of what happened.

I don't know that the override that we just cast--we voted to override a bill that had never been considered by the House or the Senate, and I don't know how that is constitutional.

I would be happy to yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, in terms of how this problem gets fixed, is there some consideration for how we fix this error?

I would be happy to yield.

Let me yield to the gentleman from California.

I would be happy to yield.

If I could yield to my colleague from Missouri.

I would be happy to yield to the majority leader.

I would be happy to yield.

I would just add, what has happened here raises serious constitutional questions, very serious. I don't know how we can proceed with the override as it occurred, nor do I think we should proceed with some attempt to fix it until such time as we all understand what happened, what are the precedents of the House, and how do we move forward.

As a result, I really believe that there ought to be a motion, I may make the motion, to vacate the vote that has occurred until we all understand better about what it is that we are dealing with.

I would be happy to yield.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from California.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to have introduced this legislation which marks the 35th anniversary of Operation Homecoming, and honors all Americans held prisoner of war in Vietnam.

On February 12, 1973, the first wave of the longest held POWs from Vietnam left Hanoi for their first taste of freedom, dubbed Operation Homecoming. Our colleague and my friend Sam Johnson was one of the men who flew out of Hanoi after nearly 7 years in captivity.

For me and any other American watching, Sam's return, and the return of all those heroes serving in Vietnam, was a bittersweet moment. Yet it was a moment that we must never forget because of what they did to defend the cause of freedom.

This resolution is just one more way for Congress and for our Nation to thank those who were held prisoner of war in Vietnam. And on a personal note, it gives me a chance to thank Sam, once again, for his service and his friendship.

Mr. Speaker, America owes our Vietnam POWs and all of those who serve a debt of gratitude, and it is only fitting that Congress today should recognize their heroic sacrifices today and every day.

Let me thank my colleague for yielding and ask my colleagues what is it that we are doing here? We got 1 week before we break for the Memorial Day recess. Admiral Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, has said we have to have the funding for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We know that come early June, layoff notices go out to contract employees who work at the Pentagon. Why? Because we can't seem to get this bill finished. And why can't we get it finished? Because we have a bill in front of us that has all types of unrelated spending beyond what is needed to fund our troops.

The gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) earlier this week, introduced a clean troop funding bill, a bill that the President called for with the changes that were made up here to make sure that we got funding to the troops as quickly as possible. That is the bill that ought to be on the floor today, not a bill that handcuffs our generals, starves our troops and puts them in a position where they can't succeed in their mission in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The bill also includes a $54 billion tax hike on small businesses around the country. And if there is a time when we don't need to be raising taxes on small businesses, it is now. They are the engine of new job growth in our country. And what are we going to do? We are going to put more taxes on them.

I think that what we are doing here is that we are playing political games on the backs of our troops. You know it. All this bill is going to do is delay the process for weeks and weeks and weeks while we play political games because you know the President is not going to sign this bill.

Why don't we move Mr. Lewis' bill? We can do it today. We can do it early next week. It is a clean troop funding bill that takes care of our troops and honors them on the eve of Memorial Day instead of playing political games on their backs.

Let me thank my colleague for yielding.

Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, I have been around the House Agriculture Committee for nearly 18 years. The chairman and I came together. We are good friends, and so is the ranking Republican, Mr. Goodlatte. And I know they have worked hard to produce this bill.

But clearly, most Americans think that Washington is broken. And this farm bill frankly is another example of that. I know there is some reform in this bill. But when you begin to step back and look at the bill, we didn't get anywhere near the reform that I think most Americans would expect.

At a time when we have got the highest commodity prices that we have seen in a generation, you would think that we would take a slightly different approach to the farm bill. But unfortunately, because of the process, because of the negotiations, it didn't happen. I just want to point out what I would describe as the most egregious part of this.

I, or one of my designees, will have a motion to recommit this conference report. And it is no secret that politicians have traditionally used and abused the farm bill for their own pet projects. There are three pet projects in this bill that I am going to single out in my motion to recommit.

One, it would strip out the ``Trail to Nowhere,'' a land swap that was airdropped into the bill by the senior Senator from Vermont. The language would require the U.S. Forest Service to sell portions of the Green Mountain National Forest exclusively to Vermont's Bromley Ski Resort. And believe it or not, to accommodate this obscure demand, portions of the Appalachian National Scenic Trail may

have to be moved. They are actually going to move the Appalachian Scenic Trail, possibly have to move it, because we are going to sell this land to a ski resort. I don't think the taxpayers ought to have to bankroll this boondoggle.

Secondly, our motion will strip out a $170 million earmark for the salmon industry that was airdropped into this bill in secret. The provision was never considered in the House. It was never considered in the Senate. One hundred seventy million dollars to bail out salmon fisheries. Now you should also note that after Hurricane Katrina, when the entire gulf coast fishing industry was annihilated, they actually only got $126 million from the Federal Government to fix their fisheries. I don't think taxpayers ought to be required to put up the money for an airdropped earmark that was brought into this bill never having been considered in either body.

Finally, our proposal would strip out a $250 million earmark secured by the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, the gentleman from Montana. This earmark, incredibly enough, is targeted for forests to house fish. Yes. We are going to target a forest that houses fish, incredibly, what we would call ``forest fish.'' Only one forest in the country happens to have fish in it. And it just happens to be based in Montana, located in Montana where the Senator is from. I don't think the taxpayers ought to have to pay $250 million to take care of forest fish.

Listen, the American people are struggling with the high cost of living, whether it is the cost of gasoline, the cost of food, trying to make sure that they have got health care, concerned about whether they have a job tomorrow or will be able to afford their home mortgage. And here we are moving a farm bill that has earmarks in it that just don't pass the straight-face test.

And so I would ask my colleagues, if you think that this is a wise use of taxpayer funds, you can go ahead and vote against this motion to recommit. But I would invite my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, if you think that taxpayer funds could be spent more wisely, vote for the motion to recommit, and let's make this bill a better bill. We can do better.

I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

I know this has been a difficult several days, but I just want to remind everyone that there are some serious process fouls that are going on. And the majority leader, the Speaker, members of the majority during 2005 and 2006 made significant efforts to be critical of the then-majority, some of it, frankly, earned.

But what is happening here, the process that's being used for the big housing bill, the process that's being discussed for the supplemental spending bill closes the minority out of any amendments and any motion to recommit.

I just hope that the majority leader and the members of the majority understand, and I think many of you who have been here for some time understand clearly, the grievance that we have. We don't have many ways to express our grievance on the housing bills because we have no amendment that we can offer. We have no substitute that we're allowed to offer, no motion to recommit. As a result, all we're asking for is to be treated fairly.

The gentleman will know, and other members of the majority and minority will remember, that in 1994 when we took the majority, some of our leaders wanted to treat the minority the way they had been treated. I argued to no end that we should treat the minority the way that we had asked to be treated when we were in the minority. I didn't always win, I'll be the first one to admit that, but I would suggest that given the statements that have been made in 2005 and 2006 about how the then-minority was treated, all I would suggest to you is just treat us the way you asked to be treated, simple as that.

Would the gentleman yield?

With all due respect, the minority in this House has a right to be heard.

No amendments, no substitutes, no motions to recommit. Last night, we get rid of all the Special Orders. At some point, the majority has an obligation to treat the minority with respect. It is not happening, and that's why we're going to continue to wage this fight to be heard on this floor and represent nearly half of the American people that we're here to represent.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the retirement of James ``Choppy'' Saunders, a leading citizen of Middletown, Ohio and to express my appreciation for his dedication and commitment to public service. Since 1986 Choppy has given freely of his time and talents to Middfest International and for that I offer him my utmost congratulations and thanks.

Choppy's love for his community goes far beyond his involvement with Middfest and his 17 years as its General Chairman. He has served on many boards and commissions. He is the past President and First Vice- President of the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Planning Authority and Regional Council of Governments, President of the Middletown Board of Health, President of the Middletown Area Chamber of Commerce, Board Member of the Middletown Area Neediest Youth and of course was the first African American elected to the Middletown City Commission.

Choppy's record--as a committed community man and as a good neighbor helping those in need--will leave an enduring legacy in Middletown. His leadership will be missed, but the footprint he has left will inspire many to emulate his good works.

Choppy, I offer my congratulations and gratitude for your long and successful career in public service. I wish you well in your retirement, and I hope you continue to achieve happiness and success wherever your life journey may lead you.

Let me thank my colleague from Florida for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, it's my honor to join Speaker Pelosi in celebrating the 60th anniversary of the State of Israel. This is just the first opportunity for us to honor the foundation of the Jewish State leading up to its anniversary on May 14.

After 60 years, Israel may not be our oldest ally, but there is no doubt that it's among our most treasured. Since its establishment 6 decades ago, Israel has been a pillar of strength, integrity, freedom and, above all else, friendship.

They're not simply allies by chance. Our friendship has flourished over the last 60 years because we share the same values. First and foremost, we recognize that we would not exist if not for the grace and power of God.

Faith forms our Nation's very foundation and is reflected in everything we do. We value liberty, and recognize how precious it is in a world where it's not only rare, but often under attack. And we recognize the responsibility we have to defend our freedom. That's why we have stood beside our Israeli allies for the past six decades and why we are taking the fight to those committed to destroying the Jewish state and, for that matter, destroying us.

Mr. Speaker, the bonds of trust between Israel and America have never been stronger or more important than they are right now. Our Nation will stand firmly beside our Israeli friends over the next 60 years just as we've done over the last 60. And with a shared faith in God, a respect for liberty, and a commitment to its defense, our friendship will only grow deeper.

May God bless the Jewish State of Israel on this anniversary and all of those that will follow.

Madam Speaker, I rise to recognize the grand opening of the Treaty Room and the Crossroads of Destiny Exhibit at the Garst Museum in Greenville, Ohio

One of most significant historical moments in Darke County was the signing of the Treaty of Greene Ville, which ended forty years of conflict over the upper Ohio Valley and opened the door for western settlement, leading to Ohio's statehood. This exhibit tells the story of life on the frontier: war, resolution, loss, progress and the growth of a nation.

While Darke County is no longer the Western edge of the United States, its citizens retain the finest qualities of frontier settlers: generous hearts, a zeal for public service and the passionate patriotism that General Anthony Wayne, General William Henry Harrison, Meriwether Lewis and William Clark exhibited more than two centuries ago.

It is my pleasure to congratulate The Garst Museum, the Darke County Historical Society and the citizens of Darke County on the grand opening of this new exhibit.