Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the line-item veto measure before the House today.

I know the authors of this measure are sincere in their efforts and believe this measure will lead to a better Federal Government.

But being sincere doesn't make their efforts right, nor does it make them wise. Rather, they are fundamentally wrong.

For 200 years, the unfortunate truth is that power, slowly but surely, has been shifting from the legislative branch of Government to the executive branch. We all know this to be true.

It should come as no surprise that this President, or the prior one, want this expanded power. The real surprise would be if this Congress finally stood up and said no.

We all know that the President today has the ability to veto any bill Congress passes. And we all know he has not done so.

Some of my colleagues will argue that we make it too hard for him to veto a bill. That is nonsense.

Every day we have to vote on bills with many imperfections. They contain provisions we might support and others we strongly oppose. But we have to balance the good and the bad in each bill and then cast our vote and defend it to our constituents.

Why should the President be any different? Why should he get to undo a hard-earned compromise? I need not remind any Member

of this body that many times the President has a role in that compromise--yet this measure would allow him to selectively undo that deal after the fact.

Let's talk for a minute about spending.

Even the sponsors of this measure don't really believe it will save any taxpayer money.

They talk about earmarks and equate them with wasteful spending.

In reality, there are only two types of spending--that which is congressionally directed and that which is recommended by the President. This measure places the recommendations of the President higher in importance than spending directed by the U.S. Congress.

If the authors of this measure have such faith in the administrative branch of Government, why do we have 11,000 unused FEMA trailers sitting in a field in Hope, AR?

Why were millions and millions of dollars wasted on $2,000 credit cards that didn't go to victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, but were instead spent on things I ought not mention on this floor?

I could go on and on about $600 toilet seats and $400 hammers, but everyone here gets the point.

Let's be clear Mr. Speaker, the taxpayers aren't going to save a dime with the passage of this measure. Instead, we are going to weaken the Constitutional role of Congress, further strengthen the power of the executive branch, and provide a few Members of this body with the ability to go home and say they did something--however harmful it might be to the future of our Nation or inconsistent it might be with the intentions of our Nation's founders.

My mother used to tell me, ``Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.'' My mother's advice would be well heeded by those who believe this measure is in the best interests of our Nation.

Mr. Chairman, in accordance with earmark reform proposals currently under consideration in the Senate, I would like to place into the Record a listing of Congressionally directed projects in my home state of Idaho that are contained within the report to this bill. These are projects that I asked the Defense Subcommittee to consider this year and I am grateful for their inclusion in this bill.

I'd like to take just a few minutes to describe why I supported these projects and why they are valuable to the nation and its taxpayers.

The report contains $2.7 million for a technology entitled Vacuum Sampling Pathogen Collection and Concentration. Developed by Microbial- Vac Systems', Jerome, Idaho, the advanced ``Vacuum Pathogen'' collection and concentration systems are critical to continued advancement of DOD's applications for manual and robotic sample acquisition and traceability of bio-threat agents in food safety and environmental settings. Commercialization of the technology was significantly advanced with an appropriation in last year's Defense bill but there remains a need to further develop and manufacture both systems to meet the general national defense and homeland security requirements for safe, rapid field-accessibility of sterile disposable units and improved field decontamination protocol. With the funding in this report, manufacturing capabilities will be expanded to provide military and civilian markets with sufficient numbers of sterilely packaged pathogen collection and concentration systems to meet the anticipated emergency immediate and long-term demand during hostile attacks and post-attack remediation/decontamination monitoring and verification procedures. Sample location and traceability will be enhanced with the addition of GPS or RFID tracking capabilities imbedded within the technology and activated during sample acquisition.

This project was requested by Microbial-Vac Systems in Jerome, Idaho.

The report contains $2 million for the Cyber Threat Validation Center at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL). The INL has demonstrated exceptional capability and depth in the Cyber Security and Critical Infrastructure Protection research, development and delivery arenas. The Cyber Threat Validation Center (CTVC) for the Department of Defense (DoD) and Intelligence Community (IC) would leverage and expand the existing analytic, research, and end-to-end system testing capabilities to deliver technical grounded analysis on emerging cyber security attack techniques and their impact on critical real world systems. The analysis will focus on the investigating emerging attack techniques with the objective of understanding how they might be applied against Defense Critical Infrastructure to include vital Public Works Defense Sector systems.

I chose to request this project after learning about the capabilities of the INL in protecting our Nation against cyber based attacks on critical infrastructure systems. The Department of Energy and Department of Homeland Security have significant investments in the ongoing work at the INL. This DOD project will build on those capabilities and benefit from them.

The report contains $2 million for the Idaho Accelerator Center (IAC) at Idaho State University's (ISU) Small Accelerators and Detection Systems for Defense Applications program. Ongoing work at IAC suggests that transportable accelerators can now be developed to actively identify suspected nuclear

materials/packages in the field, neutralize biological/chemical agents when discovered, decontaminate areas where bio/chem agents may have been released, and detect explosives and contraband in a variety of challenging circumstances. The IAC and the ISU academic community, in collaboration with scientists and engineers from the private sector and national laboratories, has been involved in developing technology for the remote detection of hazardous materials and contraband for more than 15 years. Through these associations the IAC has devised non- intrusive means to identify the contents of containers of various kinds that may contain Fissionable material, Radioactive material, Explosives, Hazardous material (biological or chemical), and Contraband (FREHC) for homeland and national security applications.

This project was requested by Idaho State University in Pocatello, Idaho.

The report contains $1 million for a program entitled Systematic Hierarchical Approach to Radiation Hardened Electronics (SHARE). As many of us know, consistent, reliable performance of integrated circuits (IC) used in space communication, surveillance, and guidance systems continues to be a potentially debilitating problem for the military services. The problem has been aggravated by the rapid and unsettling contraction of the industrial base needed to design and produce the specialized electronics that must perform in applications requiring high reliability in a challenging radiation-charged environment. As one of the principal users of radiation-hardened (RadHard) electronics, the U.S. Air Force is pursuing technologies that will ensure a ready and economical domestic capability for producing radiation hardened microelectronics using advanced commercial processes. SHARE has been identified by the Air Force as a critical capability that will enable collaboration among circuit designers, simulation software vendors, and foundries under the direction of SEAMS Center AFRL at Kirtland AFB, NM.

This project was requested by American Semiconductor in Boise, Idaho.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide a list of Congressionally- directed projects in my region and an explanation of my support for them.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of our continued mission in Iraq as part of the Global War on Terror.

I am proud to say that throughout the Global War on Terror, thousands of Idahoans have fought valiantly side-by-side with their fellow countrymen and newly freed citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan. During a visit to Iraq in May 2005, I had the opportunity to visit with the brave men and women of the 116th Cavalry Brigade. I was amazed at their level of professionalism and their enthusiasm for the mission. They took great pride in their contributions and were fully committed to finishing the job. I have been similarly impressed by our nation's military as a whole.

When I consider what action should be taken in Iraq I look to the advice of the experts, those who are on the ground fighting the war. The message I continually hear from our soldiers and generals is: Finish the job, complete the mission.

I know there have been many calls in the United States lately to withdraw our troops from Iraq or set some kind of artificial deadline for withdrawal. Mr. Speaker, I strongly disagree with this defeatist attitude. In fact, a premature withdrawal from Iraq would be disastrous for America.

In an interview with Osama bin Laden just prior to the 1998 terrorist attacks on the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, bin Laden referred to the United States as a ``paper tiger'' because of our withdrawal from Somalia after the tragic loss of 18 U.S. soldiers. Al-Qaeda learned from this, and similar events, that the United States would retreat rather than fight. During the War on Terror, Al-Qaeda has counted on Americans to similarly become demoralized and once again withdraw from the fight. It is the cornerstone of their strategy.

If we lose heart and withdraw from Iraq before the mission is complete, Iraq will become a permanent breeding ground of hate and terror instead of the stable mid-east democracy it is becoming. Our enemies will become further emboldened by their perceived victory. A premature withdrawal from Iraq would only strengthen their resolve to use cowardly and barbarous terrorist attacks to achieve their ends. An artificial timeline for a withdrawal would only have similar results. The enemy need only sit back, wait, and then step forward to declare victory once U.S. forces have left. As a consequence, Americans and democratic societies throughout the world will be in greater danger than ever before.

We simply cannot afford to back down, return home, and hope this threat will dissipate on its own. The terrorists must be confronted and must be defeated. We cannot pass this mission on to another generation. This is our job and the time is now. By stepping up and completing this mission we will give the gift of greater peace and stability to future generations.

I can understand why so many want to cut and run, it would be the easy thing to do. I do not hesitate to say that the mission in Iraq is a difficult one and it has been costly. The price for freedom is all too often painfully high. I, for one, do not ever want to receive another notice that a fellow Idahoan, or any American,

has fallen or been wounded in this war. However, quitting now would only prolong bloodshed in the long run, not end it.

Once again Mr. Speaker, I support America's efforts to complete the mission in Iraq, and I call on my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to commit to its completion. At such a perilous time in our nation's history let us stand united.

Mr. Chairman, in accordance with earmark reform proposals currently under consideration in the House and Senate, I would like to place into the Record a listing of Congressionally- directed projects in my home state of Idaho that are contained within the report to this bill. These are projects that I asked the Transportation, Treasury, and HUD Subcommittee to consider this year and I am grateful for their inclusion in this bill.

I'd like to take just a few minutes to describe why I supported these projects and why they are valuable to the nation and its taxpayers.

The bill contains $2,000,000 for the City of Rocks Back Country Byway in my Congressional District. This 16.7 mile long project is located on the popular City of Rocks Back Country Byway in Cassia County, Idaho and provides the only direct access to the City of Rocks National Reserve. When fully completed, the project will pave a 1.0 mile gravel segment, reconstruct 15.7 miles of deficient roadway, correct deteriorated road and slope conditions, provide a wider road with shoulders and guardrail, and improve the road's alignment by reducing the number and severity of sharp curves and steep grades. These improvements will increase safety for the driving public and provide safer access for bicycle and pedestrian traffic. These improvements will also significantly reduce the amount of on-going maintenance required to keep the route usable.

This project was requested by the Idaho Transportation Department.

The report contains $500,000 for the I-84, US-93 Interchange project near Twin Falls. This is funding to improve an interchange on a segment of the Interstate Highway System. The project will realign and reconstruct the interchanges south of I-84 at US-93, provide a new grade over US-93, and remove the height-restricted structures which have previously necessitated a signalized intersection. These activities will relieve congestion caused by fast growth and increase safety in the city of Twin Falls.

This project was requested by the Idaho Transportation Department.

The report contains $4 million for the Idaho Transit Coalition's program to improve bus and bus facilities all across the state of Idaho. The funding will assist Ada County Highway District's Commuteride, Boise State University, the Coeur d'Alene Tribe, the City of Ketchum, the Ketchum/Sun Valley Transit Authority (KART), the City of Moscow, the City of Pocatello, the University of Idaho, and Valley Regional Transit. The majority of these projects are identified in the ``Idaho Statewide Public Transportation Needs and Benefits Study'' compiled by the Idaho Transportation Department in 1996 and subsequent local studies and plans. All projects are identified in the Transportation Improvement and the Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan. The current request represents only a small amount of what will be needed to maintain and expand Idaho's public transportation capital system to meet the demands of the State's rapidly growing population.

The funding was requested by the Idaho Transit Coalition.

The report contains $250,000 for the Magic Valley Boys and Girls Club in Buhl, Idaho. The funding will assist in building a Boys & Girls Club youth center in the town of Buhl, Idaho, which will serve over 800 children and teens annually from the communities of Buhl, Castleford, and Hagerman. This 7000 sq. ft. facility will be adjacent to an existing approximately 7000 sq. ft. gymnasium. These federal funds constitute only a small portion of the overall funding required for this project and will help leverage significant private sector donations.

The funding was requested by the Magic Valley Boys and Girls Club.

The report contains $400,000 for the community of Rexburg, Idaho's Greenways and River Corridor Improvement Project. This funding represents a very small portion of the overall funding for this project. The City of Rexburg itself has jump started the project with a Rexburg Redevelopment Agency infusion of $5,800,000. The funding will help develop public access to the riverfront through river trails, build and improve city streets and parking lots in the river corridor, and construct a public amphitheater.

The funding was requested by the City of Rexburg, Idaho.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide a list of Congressionally- directed projects in my region and, an explanation of my support for them.

Mr. Chairman, in accordance with earmark reform proposals currently under consideration in the House and Senate, I would like to place into the record a listing of the Congressionally- directed project in my home state of Idaho that is contained within the report to this bill.

The project provides $3 million within the Army Corps of Engineers Section 595 program for rural water infrastructure upgrades in Idaho communities. The funding was authorized in the last Water Resources Development Act.

This funding is critical to assisting rural Idaho communities in upgrading their water and wastewater treatment facilities. In many cases, this funding is required to comply with unfunded mandates passed down by this Congress and federal agencies.

Perhaps the most striking example of why the federal government has a responsibility to assist these communities is the burden the EPA's revised arsenic standard is having across America.

In the small Idaho town of Castleford, the Mayor and City Council had to lay off their only law enforcement officer so they could pay for the arsenic study required by EPA's unfunded mandate. This small town of just a few hundred people has been forced to come up with at least $2 million--a sum that would have been wholly impossible without some assistance from the federal government.

In addition, these funds help rural communities in Idaho facing economic hardship--like the rural community of Rupert. Rupert, just last week, learned that one of its major employers, Kraft Foods, is closing its cheese plant in the community. The vital water funding in this bill will assist Rupert in attracting new businesses by offering improved services at lower costs than would otherwise be possible.

I'm proud to have obtained this funding for Idaho communities and look forward to working with them in the future to meet their water resource challenges.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide a list of Congressionally- directed projects in my region and an explanation of my support for them.

(1) Rural Idaho Environmental Infrastructure, $3,000,000--pg. 28.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.

Boy, there is more rhetoric on this floor about GNEP and what is going on there than I have heard in quite some time. The fact is the Federal Government has the responsibility under the Nuclear Policy Act to take care of the byproduct of this stuff. Those people who use energy that is partly produced by nuclear energy have been paying a tax in order that the Federal Government would build a repository and finally take control of this. If you want the byproduct, the waste product of nuclear waste to be handled by private companies and have them in control of it, then I think you are asking for big problems.

For years, I have been asking the Federal Government, the Department of Energy, to give us a vision of what they see as the future of energy development in this country and how we are going to supply the baseload needs in this country. GNEP is the first comprehensive forward-looking plan for nuclear energy development that I have seen come out of this or any administration in decades. It takes into consideration the entire fuel cycle, from the mining uranium to final disposition of spent fuel.

It will render civilian nuclear material unusable in nuclear weapons. I will repeat that: It will render civilian nuclear materials unusable in nuclear weapons. It will use much of the energy in the fuel rods that is left behind now. And GNEP promises to make Yucca Mountain the only repository our Nation will need for the final disposition of spent nuclear fuel.

If you believe that global warming is a problem, if you believe that we can't afford to shut down nuclear power plants today that contribute over 20 percent of our electricity, and I suspect much of it in Massachusetts, the gentleman's home State; if you believe that we can't shut that down and that it makes sense to provide our baseload with an emission-free type of energy, such as nuclear power, and if we don't pursue GNEP, then we better start looking and debating on this floor where we are going to put Yucca II, Yucca III, Yucca IV, and Yucca V, because that is what is going to happen.

The simple fact is, most Americans now support nuclear energy, and most Americans know that we can't meet our growing energy needs without it. I urge you to defeat this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. This bill does in fact cut $49.7 million to State grants.

This cut was done for several reasons: to fund the higher congressional priorities that were cut by the administration; in reaction to a DOE IG report regarding the implementation of the program; and an assessment of what the grant program is adding to energy research and development, the mainstay of the DOE portfolio.

The IG report did say DOE does not know if the program is working. The IG report did say that States aren't sure what energy savings are coming from these State grants. The IG report did say that the States have large uncosted balances, and aren't spending the money that they do get in the grant and award process. The IG report did say energy savings proclaimed by proponents can't be tracked to State grants solely. They may be from other programs that we do support, like weatherization.

But I want you to know that the IG report did say that given the broad goals of the program, funds were being spent consistently. However, I would contend we ought to look at what the States can spend this money on and do: State employee salaries, travel and administrative supplies. In fact, of the States examined by the IG, 66 percent had administrative costs in excess of 29 percent to as high as 57 percent, but these are allowable under the grant statute.

Finally, I would contend that these grants may have served a useful purpose 20 years ago to raise the consciousness of energy efficiency and conservation. But, frankly, these services are not now in demand by the public, and our dollars are better suited for making the technologies available that are in demand, rather than feel-good ``coordination'' activities of this program.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

Again, we are here debating these things and whether some of these things ought to be funded at all. There are programs that are not requested in the President's budget which some of us feel are appropriate. Some of them would be things like money to reimburse States for criminal costs associated with illegal immigration. The President hasn't requested that in his budget, but many of us feel it is appropriate that it ought to be put in there. I believe even the gentleman from Arizona believes that that is an appropriate thing.

Now, of course, if we would put that in there, that would be an earmark, because it would be Congress directing the spending rather than the administration making that request.

Earlier the gentleman mentioned the NREL laboratory and the fact that they had to lay off something like 32 people. What wasn't said is that this committee gave them unlimited reprogramming authority, that if that was going to happen, they could have reprogrammed the money. But they didn't do that. They chose not to use it. They chose to lay the people off. And then, magically, when the President was going to come out there for a press conference, guess what? They found the money to rehire those individuals. At the same time, the Secretary goes to, I believe it was Australia, and announces a new program down there without any funding authority whatsoever.

So to suggest that things done by the administration are appropriate but things done by Congress are inappropriate and, as the gentleman and I have talked many times, the fact is you are not going to reduce spending by eliminating these things. You are going to do it by getting a budget resolution which is lower so that that money isn't available.

But I guarantee you if you cut out this money, or any of these other earmarked projects, the money is going to be spent on something else. That is the reality, and that is what we have to address.

Mr. Chairman, in accordance with earmark reform proposals currently under consideration in the House and Senate, I would like to place into the Record a listing of Congressionally- directed projects in my home state of Idaho that are contained within the report to this bill. These are projects that I asked the Agriculture Subcommittee to consider, both this year and in previous years, and I am grateful for their inclusion in this bill.

I'd like to take just a few minutes to describe why I supported these projects and why they are valuable to the nation and its taxpayers.

It is important to remember that the vast majority of these funds go to two entities.

First, the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service, CSREES, grants included below are targeted to our nation's Land Grant Colleges. In the case of Idaho, these funds are used by the University of Idaho to conduct research on a variety of crops important to the Pacific Northwest. I have also supported research in Washington and Oregon because their research is invaluable to my constituents as well.

In assessing the value of these requests, there are some important considerations that must be made. World labor standards and costs are far below those of the U.S. Our Nation's farmers are subjected to far more stringent environmental regulations than those of many of our competitors. Input costs in the U.S. far surpass those of other nations. And energy prices, including farm diesel, are rising dramatically.

So how can a U.S. farmer remain competitive in a global market? Through greater productivity and efficiency, increased yields, and better defenses against diseases. These are the very things that agriculture research funding delivers for U.S. producers--and for U.S. consumers.

If you want to rely on foreign nations for our food in the way we rely on them for our oil, then by all means eliminate these important agriculture research programs. But if you believe, as I do, that maintaining a domestic capability to produce our food is a national security issue, then you ought to support these research programs and fight for their continuation.

The second entity that receives the bulk of these funds is the Agriculture Research Service, ARS, and its stations across rural America. In Idaho, these institutions are conducting vital research into some of our most important crops--sugar, potatoes, small fruits, and aquaculture. I encourage all of my colleagues to visit an ARS station to see firsthand the value of this research. If you do, you will learn that these researchers are doing amazing things with very limited budgets. These projects are usually small in terms of their funding, but the benefits that flow from that research cannot be measured in dollars alone.

Two of the projects below are funded through the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, APHIS. These two programs are critical to combating brucellosis in bison and cattle and in assisting ranchers whose livestock are harassed and killed by predators like wolves.

The Greater Yellowstone Brucellosis funding is particularly critical to my home State of Idaho. Idaho recently lost its brucellosis free status and these funds are critical to establishing a management plan that will allow Idaho to regain its brucellosis free status.

The Tri-State Predator control funding is hardly a handout to ranchers. The federal government forced wolf reintroduction on Idaho and other western states and it is duty-bound to pay for the deadly and gruesome impacts of this decision.

The final project on this list is the Idaho One-Plan. The Idaho One- Plan is a unique collaboration of agencies, industries, and associations dedicated to assisting Idaho farmers and ranchers in their continuing natural resource stewardship responsibilities. The program was developed jointly with state and federal resource agencies, the University of Idaho Cooperative Extension program, the Environmental Protection Agency, and local commodity groups. It's a successful program that has enormous value to not only the Idaho agriculture community and the environment, but to other states that might be interested in a similar collaborative process.

Mr. Chairman, any effort to remove these projects from the bill would not only result in zero savings to taxpayers, it would stop dead these important efforts to enhance and protect our nation's food supply.

I appreciate the opportunity to provide a list of Congressionally- directed projects in my region and an explanation of my support for them.

1. ARS aquaculture research--Aberdeen ($628,843) pg. 17;

2. CSREES NW Small Fruits Research--ID, WA, OR ($443,000)

pg. 36;

3. ARS Potato Breeding--Aberdeen ($365,156) pg. 18;

4. ARS Sugarbeet Research--Kimberly ($702,592) pg. 19;

5. ARS Sustainable Aquaculture Feeds--Aberdeen ($99,000)

pg. 19;

6. ARS Viticulture--Corvallis, OR ($852,861) pg. 19;

7. CSREES Grain Legume Plant Pathologist--Pullman, WA

($244,125) pg. 20;

8. CSREES Alternative Crops--Canola ($1,175,000) pg. 33;

9. CSREES Aegilops Cylindricum--Goatgrass (WA, ID)

($355,000) pg. 34;

10. CSREES Cool Season Food Legume Research (ID, WA, ND)

($564,000) pg. 34;

11. CSREES Grass Seed Cropping/or Sustainable Agriculture

(WA, ID, OR) ($450,000) pg. 35;

12. CSREES Increasing Shelf Life of Agricultural

Commodities ($863,000) pg. 35;

13. CSREES Potato Research (national program) ($1,497,000)

pg. 36;

14. CSREES STEEP III ($640,000) pg. 36;

15. CSREES Wood Utilization (multi-state) ($6,371,000) pg.

36;

16. APHIS Greater Yellowstone Brucellosis--ID, WY, MT

($10,455,000) pg. 72;

17. APHIS Tri-State Predator Control ($1,324,000) pg. 74;

18. NRCS Idaho One-Plan ($200,000) pg. 87.

Mr. Chairman, while I do not want to respond to this specific project, I do want to respond to what

the gentleman from Arizona talked about just a little bit ago. He mentioned 10,000 earmarks and $29 billion last year. And he seeks to reduce the spending because somehow I guess the implication is that that $29 billion is wasteful spending. What that is is $29 billion that Congress has directed how it is going to be spent and not the administration.

When the administration proposes a budget, it is a recommendation that comes to Congress. It is full of earmarks. Administration earmarks. Earmarks that they believe how the money should be spent. Congress in their budget process, in their hearing process, in the Appropriations Committee make certain determinations. Some of them, in fact, most of them are that the administration's requests are appropriate. Sometimes we disagree with them. We say spending ought to be done somewhere else. We have different priorities. Those are called earmarks. I call them congressionally directed spending.

To tell you the truth, I wish we congressionally directed all of the spending. Remember, the President just makes recommendations. It is this Congress's responsibility to determine where the spending is going to go and to tell an administration or an agency that some of this money, a very, very small percentage of it is going to be spent in certain projects that we think are important, at least a majority here do, I think is our role. And to suggest that all $29 billion or 10,000 earmarks, whatever the amount was, is wasteful spending is to mislead the American people.

Are there some wasteful things in there? Sure. But if you think giving the money just to the administration to determine how it ought to be spent rather than Congress directing it, all of the sudden it is going to be spent appropriately, then I want to know why there are 10,000 trailers sitting in Hope, Arkansas.

The administration can waste money just like Congress can. Sure, there is some spending in there that we would all say is inappropriate, but that is our job to get after it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Let me first say, the gentleman from Arizona has every right to do exactly what he is doing. I believe he is sincere in his efforts, and he is right, we are not potted plants. We are elected representatives. The funny thing about democracy is a majority has a tendency to rule, and if the gentleman offers something and a majority vote against him, then they have obviously supported what he does not. That is the way the process works.

I do not ask for congressionally directed spending that I cannot justify. In fact, not all of the congressionally directed spending that I have requested is for projects in my district. Some of them are in other districts for things that I think are important. One of them is the wood utilization program. In fact, I post all of the congressionally directed spending that I have had part in obtaining on my Web site. I want my constituents to be able to see it, and I tell them if they think there is anything in there that is wasteful, that we should not be spending on, to call me and talk to me and let me know.

In fact, I entered in the Record earlier today on this bill all of the projects that I had had any part in directing the congressional spending on so the people could see them, and I have put in the justification for them that I felt.

The gentleman said that the Labor-HHS bill last year was the only one we got right, and I would only ask, you know, by putting no congressionally directed spending in there, who knows their districts better, who knows the needs of their constituents better, bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., or the people they elect to Congress? To suggest the only reason we put them in there is to gain the votes of a majority of this place to pass a bill, is wrong. To suggest that every congressionally directed spending earmark, as you would say, is wasteful, is wrong.

Now, with the wood utilization program, I want to show you a list, and I will not enter it into the journal because it would take up too much paper, these are the saw mills that have closed since 1998. You can go through here: Alabama; geez, California's had

so many, It is something like 98; Georgia, 18; Idaho, 17; Arizona, 17; Louisiana, 24; Oregon 218. These are the saw mills that have closed since 1998 because we have stopped using and cutting timber.

Because of the Healthy Forest Initiative and because of fire suppression in the past, we have got a lot of stands that are small diameter timber. The days of cutting the old-growth, large trees are pretty much gone. We have to learn how to use small diameter timber, and that is what a lot of how this program is for, is how do we effectively use small diameter timber?

The research that is being done in these programs at I guess 11 different State universities that receive this funding are to help the industry develop products that are used today with the small diameter timber, and there are wood byproducts that occur.

To me, that is an appropriate use of congressional spending, and so I support it and I justify it, and we will see if the majority agrees with you or me.

I thank the gentlemen for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I do not disagree with what the gentleman from Colorado is saying. There has been devestation in our forests. We do need the funding for firefighting and so forth. But I will tell you that taking it out of the NEA is the wrong place in the bill.

Mr. Chairman, they have done a tremendous job under the chairmanship of Gioia. They have brought the NEA back to what we originally intended it to be, and that is a means of getting the arts out to the rest of America, to rural America, particularly.

And if you will look at some of the programs that they have, their masters program and the Shakespeare program and others, they have done a great job of getting the rest of rural America exposed to those types of things. That is what the NEA is all about.

And yes, there is private organizations that fund a lot of these. But oftentimes it is in conjunction with private and public financing. Sometimes they just finance a very small portion of it. So I think that while I agree with the gentlemen's intent in terms of fire protection, taking the money out of the NEA, which is substantially below what it was in its high peak as was mentioned, I think is the wrong direction to go and would set this program back, when it is moving in the direction that we all hope it will go.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's amendment, but I will be voting against it.

Mr. Chairman, I stand to oppose this amendment offered by the gentleman from New York. In committee, the gentleman from New York offered an amendment that conditioned eligibility for future leases on renegotiation of price thresholds in old leases. Today's amendment seeks to obtain the same coercive result by indirection.

I share the gentleman's concern about the lack of price thresholds in leases negotiated by the Clinton/Gore administration in 1998 and 1999. The Department of the Interior's Inspector General has appropriately launched an investigation into this, as has the Resources Committee. However, these leases were valid legal contracts signed between the government and these companies in good faith. They paid hundreds of millions of dollars in bonus bids for these leases, bidding on the basis of the royalty relief that they were being offered.

If the lessees seek to maintain their valid legal rights under these contracts, the amendment would penalize them for doing so, in violation of their due process rights under the Constitution. At best, the amendment is an invitation to litigation, which the government will likely lose at a high cost to the taxpayer. A more dire impact will be the lack of development of energy resources that America badly needs.

The amendment would disqualify many companies from bidding on new leases. Remember, these leases were valid leases signed by the government, legally binding. They are contracts. So what we are going to do is penalize these companies because they are abiding by their legal contracts.

Sure, we want them to negotiate. We want them to renegotiate. We would like them to pay the royalties. But the Clinton/Gore administration at that time put these contracts in place. They were signed by the companies. They were signed by the government. And now we are going to go in and say if you don't renegotiate, then you are not going to be eligible for any of these contracts. If you don't pay royalties on these contracts, wherein you are doing exactly what you are required to do by law, if you don't pay royalties voluntarily, then you are not going to be eligible for any of the new leases that are out there.

To me, that is discrimination against those companies. Sure, we would like them to pay the royalties. We think they should. We think they should renegotiate, but I don't think you can go in and break the contract that the government signed with these companies by pressuring them with the threat of not being eligible for future leases.

Mr. Chairman, this is a bad amendment and we should reject it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate what the gentleman from California was saying, but he was wrong. Just dead wrong.

These leases were signed by the government. They were legal leases. They were valid leases. All we are saying is that the government ought to keep its word. When they sign a contract, they ought to honor the contract. The gentleman is absolutely wrong. Congress and the government should keep their word when they sign a contract. That is all we are saying.

Do we want them to pay royalty on this? Certainly we should, and I do not know why in the world the Clinton/Gore administration, the Clinton/ Gore administration, let these leases go without any royalty. I do not know why they did that, but the reality is that they were signed contracts. And all we are suggesting is that you should not penalize those companies that actually signed these contracts in good faith. You should not penalize them for future leases. Why should we penalize them? There is absolutely no reason why we should penalize them. We should honor our word and our contracts, and then we should go forward.

We hope, we hope that they will renegotiate for leases, but this is not giving a break to those companies. That is not what we are intending. We hope they renegotiate. That is the reality.

I am sorry the gentleman from California left the floor. We do renegotiate all the time, but it is up to me to decide whether I want to renegotiate or not.

What we are doing is imposing a penalty on these companies if they choose not to renegotiate. And I really don't care what CRS says. I don't think they are a bunch of attorneys down there. All I know is that in Idaho, we believe that when you write a contract you abide by the contract. We have written a contract. We ought to abide by it.

We are the Government of the United States. If you can't trust us to abide by the contracts we sign, why should we trust anybody else to?

Mr. Speaker, article III of the Constitution states that ``the judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.'' At times in our Nation's history, Congress has found it necessary to realign the United States Courts of Appeals into more efficient and manageable circuits. Once again, it's time for Congress to exercise its article III powers by realigning the Ninth Circuit and creating a new Twelfth Circuit.

I am pleased to be an original co-sponsor of Judiciary Chairman Sensenbrenner's H.R. 4093, the Federal Judgeship and Administrative Efficiency Act of 2005. In addition to creating additional federal judgeships, this legislation would divide the Ninth into two circuits. These would consist of a new Ninth made up of California, Hawaii, Guam and the Northern Marianas, and a new Twelfth with Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Montana, Idaho, Nevada, and Arizona.

Mr. Speaker, this division makes sense. Putting aside any political, historical or emotional arguments, the numbers speak for themselves. A split of the Ninth Circuit is necessary because it has become disproportionately large and unwieldy in relation to the other eleven regional circuits.

The Honorable John M. Roll, U.S. District Judge for Arizona, has recently provided me with updated statistics regarding the Ninth Circuit. This is where the Ninth Circuit stands today:

The population of the Ninth Circuit is 58 million people. This is one-fifth of the population of the United States. It is also 27 million more people than reside in the next largest circuit.

The Ninth Circuit consists of 9 states (including the most populous state), a territory, and a commonwealth. The other circuits average less than four states. No other circuit decides the law for 9 states.

As of December 31, 2005, the Ninth Circuit had nearly 17,000 pending cases, which represents 28 percent of all pending federal appeals.

According to recent statistics from the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, the Ninth Circuit is now the slowest circuit in the country, by more than 2 months, for each of its nearly 17,000 cases, from filing of notice of appeal to disposition.

The Ninth Circuit has 28 authorized active circuit judgeships. The other 11 geographical circuits average less than 13.

It is clear from these facts that the extraordinary growth of the nine western states comprising the Ninth has resulted in an overpopulated circuit that has become a giant among the twelve circuits.

Ninth Circuit Judges O'Scannlain and Tallman hit it on the head when they wrote in the Wall Street Journal that ``. . . size adversely affects not only the speed with which justice is administered, but also the quality of judicial decision making. Consistent interpretation of the law by an appellate court requires a reasonably small body of judges who have the opportunity to sit and to confer together frequently, and who can read, critique and, when necessary, correct each others' decisions. That kind of collegiality is no longer possible in a circuit of this size.'' This statement describes precisely why we need to split the Ninth Circuit.

With a fifth of the U.S. population living in the Ninth Circuit today, I would expect that this could easily become a fourth of the population. Today's 28 active Ninth Circuit judges will eventually become 35, then 40, 50 and so on.

The Ninth Circuit has a history to be proud of, but how long will it be before those who seek to hold onto the past glory of the Ninth come to realize that it should not be recognized for its unique solutions for coping with staggering caseloads and an inability to readily sit all judges? Under this legislation, the new Ninth and Twelfth Circuits will be recognized as individual circuits that have been given a fresh start, fresh life, and fresh collegiality with efficiencies that allow judges in the new circuits to focus on case law and not case management.

Opponents of a split have ascribed political motivations to my efforts--that I, being the author and proponent of realignment legislation, don't like the decisions of the Ninth Circuit. Well, the Ninth does make bad decisions that I don't agree with. For that matter judges appointed by Nixon, Reagan and both presidents Bush make bad decisions that I don't always agree with. Every circuit in the United States makes bad decisions that I don't always agree with. The practical effect of a court ruling is that one party will be pleased and the other disappointed.

Should a circuit be realigned, or manipulated in a manner such as ``court packing'' solely for political reasons? Absolutely not. However, the fact that my colleagues and I may disagree with certain rulings of the Ninth Circuit should not automatically disqualify us from seeking to realign the circuit. Ascribing political motivations to my colleagues and me is nothing more than a disingenuous smokescreen. If judges, scholars, politicians and others have spoken to me they know that my motivations are not political. My motivation is a desire for my constituents to have an efficient, expedient and manageable court that is able to apply a consistent interpretation of the law. In the meantime, my faith in the Supreme Court and its demonstrated readiness to overturn rulings of the Ninth Circuit, alleviates any fears that I have that an egregious ruling of the Ninth will not be corrected.

Of course split opponents must throw up the smokescreen that my fellow colleagues and I are politically motivated. What else can they do? It's impossible to argue against the facts. Having one-fifth of our nation's citizens in one circuit while the remaining four-fifths are in eleven circuits does not make sense. I have yet to hear split opponents or scholars state why it is good for a single circuit to have one-fifth of the nation's citizens in one circuit when the remaining four-fifths are in eleven other circuits. I do not know why having 28 percent of all pending appeals in one circuit is a sign of an effectively working court. I have not heard why it is good for a circuit to have 28 active judgeships, which is eleven more judges than the next largest circuit and more than double the circuit average of 13. I don't know why it is good for Idahoans to have their appeals heard en banc by a partial number of our court of appeals' judges when citizens in the other eleven circuits will get a hearing before all the judges of their circuit. Is this fair to citizens of the Ninth? I don't believe it is.

I look forward to reading the first article, or speech from a federal judge, politician or scholar that sets aside any reference to politics or the political motivations of others and explains why it is a good thing to have a single circuit with one-fifth of the nation's population, 28 active judgeships and a procedure for a partial number of judges to hear cases. I would also take the liberty of asking a theoretical question to that judge, politician or scholar and it goes like this--if you were to start from scratch and create 12 new circuits for our nation, would you place one-fifth of the population in just one of the twelve circuits? Please send a copy of that to my office here in Washington.

Something else I have heard is that our efforts to split the Ninth Circuit are ``a threat to judicial independence''. I would like to hear from any federal judge, appointed for life, whether their decisions are being influenced based on a threat that their circuit might be realigned? I find it hard to believe that judges, who at times must put their lives on the line for our country in the face of threats and intimidation by criminal defendants, are scared of politicians in Washington, D.C. Once again, please feel free to contact my office here in Washington if that is the case, I promise confidentiality.

Another thing I hear thrown about is an idea I like to call ``judicial veto authority''. What I'm hearing is that since a majority of the Ninth Circuit judges might not favor a split then it shouldn't go forward. I would ask the proponents of this idea, the proposition that sitting circuit judges need approve of a split before it goes forward, where this is found in Article III?

I do not believe that the composition of a circuit should be determined solely out of concern for its judges, lawyers, bar associations or even politicians. It should be determined by how best the people are served within the states it encompasses. Realigning the Ninth Circuit is about better serving the people who live and work in the nine states and two territories within its boundaries. It's about providing them with better efficiencies, a more consistent interpretation of the law based on rulings made by judges who spend more time conferring directly with one another and reading each other's decisions.

In addition, although the costs of dividing a circuit are important in these days of budgetary constraint, they should not be the reason for disregarding the benefits that would befall the citizens of nine states and two territories. Opponents of a Ninth Circuit split have made note that a new Twelfth Circuit would be costly, with some estimating as high as $21 million in additional court costs annually.

As a member of the Budget Committee it's a wonder that we are not today seeking the savings that would come from creating five larger circuits consisting of say: the Fourth and Sixth plus Georgia; the Fifth and Tenth plus Alabama and Florida; the First, Second and Third; the Eighth and Seventh; and the Ninth alone. Combining those circuits could save us upwards of $150 million a year in operating costs alone.

The reason we are not debating whether to create larger circuit courts of equal size to the Ninth is because it does not make sense to have large circuits. We already have one large court--the United States Supreme Court. I am told that there is a saying that goes ``there is the Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit, and the rest of the federal circuits.'' What we need now are 13 circuits of roughly equal proportion--not Snow Ninth and the 11 dwarfs.

Two other things I would mention. I have yet to hear calls for returning the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits into their original circuit. From what I know, the division that was undertaken in 1981 has settled out well. Finally, for those who are committed to the ``old'' Ninth-- they can rest easier knowing that even after shedding seven states, the ``new'' Ninth will remain the largest circuit in the United States.

As we move forward with our legislation to realign the Ninth Circuit, I look forward to split opponents coming out from behind their political smokescreens and discussing the facts at hand which are indisputable--the Ninth Circuit is too large and unwieldy. No amount of technology and innovation is going to provide my constituents with the efficiency and expediency that they deserve as well. The current judges of the Ninth deserve a collegial atmosphere where they can spend time on case law and not case management.

I appreciate the leadership Chairman Sensenbrenner has provided in our efforts and look forward to working with him in the coming year as H.R. 4093 and the Ninth Circuit realignment become a reality.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate and pay tribute to all school employees who serve as Education Support Professionals in our Nation's public schools. Custodial Services Education Support Professionals are essential school employees who interact daily with students, staff and parents.

Custodians enhance the school districts they serve in many ways. They provide a unique link between all of the different jobs accomplished in a school environment every day. A student's ability to learn and thrive is often directly influenced by the custodians at his or her school.

A Custodian's daily work load can include managing heating, ventilating and air-conditioning for the entire school building, maintaining responsibility for the safety and sanitation of the school and managing disruptive or violent student behavior until proper authorities arrive on the scene. In addition, many schools consider their custodian to be the ``Master at Arms'' of their school building. One need only imagine the condition a school would be in without a custodian to understand the enormous importance of custodians to our Nation's schools.

Today as we recognize all education support professionals, I would urge my colleagues to take a moment to express their appreciation for this fine group of Americans who are dedicated, loyal and committed to the educational enhancement of all students.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this conference report.

Once again this year, the bill before us is the result of a bi- partisan atmosphere in the Energy and Water Subcommittee that is fostered by Chairman Hobson and his ranking member--Mr. Visclosky. I want to thank both of them for the manner in which they approach the many issues before the committee and for producing a bill that will pass today with little or no opposition.

First, the Energy and Water bill begins a new chapter in the history of the Army Corps of Engineers which will lead to better budgeting, more accountability, and the completion of high-priority projects in a quicker timeframe.

I want to commend Chairman Hobson for his insistence on reforms to the Corps budgeting process and for demanding greater accountability from the Corps to Congress and the American people.

Second, the bill makes tremendous investments in our nation's science and energy-related programs. Our National Laboratories, under this bill, will continue and expand their cutting edge work on the many pressing scientific challenges facing our Nation. Perhaps even more important in a time of high energy prices, this bill will expand our Nation's efforts to become less dependent on foreign sources of energy.

For my home state of Idaho, this bill will provide a boost to the Idaho National Laboratory's ongoing work to design and build a new generation of nuclear reactors, close the nuclear fuel cycle, protect our Nation's critical infrastructure from cyber-based attacks, and secure radioactive nuclear materials from those who would do us harm.

Finally, this bill continues our Nation's efforts to establish a long-term repository for spent nuclear fuel and high-level nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. While the Yucca Mountain funding in the bill represents an overall decrease from last year, it still provides $500 million to move the project forward toward a license application and construction.

I'm committed to seeing Yucca Mountain finalized and I know Chairman Hobson is as well. I remain hopeful that the current challenges facing the program will soon be overcome and that an aggressive schedule for completion of the project can be adopted in the very near future.

In closing, I want to again recognize the bi-partisan manner in which this bill was written and acknowledge the tremendous work of all of the staff on the Subcommittee.

I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Madam Speaker, I want to thank Chairman Boozman and Ranking Member Herseth for their work on this piece of legislation.

Earlier this year, I introduced H.R. 419, which would authorize the President's National Hire Veterans Committee through 2008. The bill before us today, H.R. 3665, not only extends the life of this important committee, but also provides for its continued operation long into the future under a new Advisory Committee on Veterans Employment Training and Employer Outreach.

It is important that we continue to support and fund the work of this committee which strives to make employers and businesses more aware of the valuable role that veterans play in the public workforce.

Today's employers do not often realize the wealth of skills possessed by the men and woman returning from duty in the Armed Forces. Through the creation of the One Stop Career Centers for veterans and the development of hirevetsfirst.gov Web site for potential employers, the President's National Hire Veterans Committee has fostered a vital link between military and civilian employment.

As Veterans Day approaches many of us take for granted the sacrifices made by those who defend our Nation. Voting for this bill is a way to truly show our veterans that we appreciate them and are willing to support them not only when they are serving our country abroad, but when they return home as well.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3665 and thank them for their work on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a unique individual in Idaho of high moral character and immense talent, J. Kirk Sullivan.

J. Kirk Sullivan is widely known in Idaho as the current chairman of the Idaho Republican Party, but Dr. Sullivan is much more than that. He is a husband, father, grandfather, friend, engineer, entrepreneur, businessman, and most recently, he is the recipient of the highest award granted by the National Eagle Scout Association--the Distinguished Eagle Scout Award.

As several of my colleagues know, the Distinguished Eagle Scout Award is a rare honor indeed, given only to those who have held the rank of Eagle Scout for 25 years or longer, have gained status of fame or eminence in their life work, and have shared their many talents with their communities on a voluntary basis. In each of these categories, Kirk not only meets the requirements, he far surpasses them.

Kirk has participated in many organizations and boards, currently serving as the Ore-Ida Council Boy Scouts of America President, as a member of the Board of Trustees for the Public Employees Retirement System of Idaho, Board of Trustees for Saint Alphonsus Regional Medical Center, and as a member of the Idaho Governor's State Science and Technology Advisory Council.

As mentioned earlier, Kirk is married to Elizabeth M. Sullivan, they have two children and three grandchildren. Originally from South Carolina, Kirk attended Clemson University where he earned a Ph.D. and M.S. in chemistry. He also attended the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Program for senior executives. During college he was a member of U.S. Army Reserve.

In his professional life, Kirk is a partner in Veritas Advisors, a philanthropic fundraising and political consulting firm. Kirk retired from the Boise Cascade Corporation in 1998 after 27 years with the company. He retired as vice president of Governmental and Environmental affairs. He also worked for the FMC Corporation for 13 years as an engineer, technical superintendent, and marketing manager.

In reviewing the criteria for the Distinguished Eagle Scout Award, I learned that only nominations of truly distinguished individuals, those receiving extraordinary recognition, fame, or eminence, are accepted. Previous award recipients include President Gerald Ford, Astronaut Neil Armstrong, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, retired General William Westmoreland, Senators Richard Lugar and Lamar Alexander, film director Steven Spielberg, and one of our former colleagues J. J. Pickle of Texas.

This is a pretty impressive cast of characters with which Kirk's name will now be associated. He is deeply deserving of this honor and I want to take this opportunity to thank Kirk for his service to his community, the State of Idaho, and the United States of America. Kirk is a good citizen, a good friend, and a great model for us all.