Floor Statements

Offered By: Mr. Neugebauer

Amendment No. 4: At the end of the bill, insert after the

last section (preceding the short title) the following

section:

Sec. 5__. None of the funds made available in this Act may

be used by the National Institute of Mental Health for any of

the following grants:

(1) Grant number MH060105 (Perceived Regard and

Relationship Resilience in Newlyweds).

(2) Grant number MH047313 (Perceptual Bases of Visual

Concepts in Pigeons).

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support for H.R. 2745, the United Nations (U.N.) Reform Act. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), Chairman of the International Relations Committee, for his leadership on this critically important issue.

For years, Americans have watched with disbelief as the United Nations has put brutal dictatorships like Syria and Sudan on its Human Rights Commission, while at the same time it lectures free democracies on what it means to respect human rights. Now, we are seeing not only misplaced condescension, but also widespread corruption.

The U.N. was established in order to promote international cooperation and peace between nations. However, the good intentions that led to the U.N.'s founding have been followed by a long list of mismanagement, scandal and corruption. Clearly, the U.N. is in desperate need of reform. Most recently, for example, there were problems of kickbacks, bribes and nepotism within the Oil for Food program. There are also serious concerns with the behavior of the U.N. peacekeepers in Africa, including accusations of sexual abuse of the very people they are there to protect. These are just two areas of concern; there are countless other examples.

This important legislation requires the U.N. to make 39 critical reforms to decrease bureaucracy, increase oversight and most significantly provide accountability. In order to ensure that the U.N. takes action, the bill requires the U.S. to withhold 50 percent of our contribution if the U.N. does not enact these much-needed reforms.

The United States is by far the largest contributor to the U.N. This year, the U.S. is expected to provide 22 percent of the U.N.'s budget, an estimated $362 million. It is a travesty that our tax dollars are being misused by the U.N. with no accountability. This is why we need this legislation.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. It was a remarkable trip. My second trip, also. As I was going over there, I was wondering what was going to be different or if things were going to be different from the first time I was there and kind of two historic events took place.

As the gentleman from Nebraska will remember, we were on our way to Iraq the first time and Afghanistan. We were eating in Ramstein Air Force Base in Germany and it was the day that they caught Saddam Hussein. Then, of course, the second time we were sitting in Baghdad and got to have, I guess, one of the first delegations to meet with the new Prime Minister Jafari. What a historic event that was. I, too, was struck, as the gentleman from Colorado was, by his enthusiasm and his passion for his new responsibility. I thought about the weight that is on his shoulders as he begins to lead the Iraqi people into uncharted territory for them.

Someone said the other day, and one of the things I wanted to talk about was General Patraeus was briefing us. I think the first thing he started off with was a little video or slide show that he had prepared for us to kick off the meeting. It was about the election. He talked about the great impact that that election had not only on our young men and women that are over there providing this opportunity for a free Iraq and a democracy but the impact that it had on the Iraqi people.

They were a little bit skeptical as to how many of the people would brave to come out with all of the threats that the terrorists, the insurgents, were going to be out on the streets and there would be a lot of people killed. As we were watching that video, I remembered seeing the thousands and thousands of Iraqi people that were standing in lines for what they said were hours and hours for that first opportunity to experience what our young men and women had gone over and provided for them. Of course, the famous holding up their index finger to signify that they had voted, that they had gotten to exercise that wonderful freedom.

I also was thinking about what General Patraeus was saying about how they are now teaching the Iraqi people how to defend their own country and how that is an integral part of bringing our young men and women home and how now, though, in many areas, Iraqi soldiers are primarily providing security forces in parts of that country and we in some cases take a secondary role but in many cases we are working alongside the Iraqi people and how important that is.

One of the things that I tell the people back home about understanding what is going on in Iraq, I use the analogy that if you can imagine if you were blind and deaf at birth, you had never been able to hear, you had never been able to see, but on your 30th birthday, you woke up and you could hear and you could see. Imagine all of the adjustments that you would have to go through in your life. You would have to really learn how to live your life in a new way. That is very much similar to what the Iraqi people are learning how to do. They have been oppressed for most all of their lives and all of a sudden one day they are a free people, beginning a journey of becoming a democracy, much like this country did over 200 years ago.

I think also, as the gentleman mentioned, about that historic meeting of these Iraqi women that had come from all over Iraq and many of them, we sat at various tables and had lunch. They wanted to interface with us, we wanted to hear from them, but them telling their stories of the peril, the risks that they took coming to that meeting, that meeting to learn how to begin to be a part of this process. I think about a third of the people in the parliament are women. They wanted to come and learn how do we participate. And watching them go through those exercises of how to go to a city council or how to deal with the media or how to introduce legislation, how to run for office, all of the things that make this democracy great.

I think one of the things that I did go back home and say to the people in my district as I was sitting at lunch on that day, I had probably nine, 10 women at that table with me. And so the big question I finally got around to, and I think it is a question that probably some of your constituents back home ask, So do the Iraqi people really appreciate what the Americans are doing for them? A smile came on the faces of many, but I looked over and I will never forget this one lady, I believe she was a Kurdish lady, and tears were rolling down her eyes. She said, Oh, yes, Congressman, we appreciate that very much. Because, you see, we are mothers, we are sisters, we are wives, we are aunts, and we know there are mothers and wives and sisters and aunts in America that have paid the ultimate price for freeing our people. She looked me right square in the eye and said, And we will never forget. That made a huge impression on me, because I needed to hear that and I wanted to convey that to the American people. When I told that story back home, they said, You know, we didn't get to hear that on the evening news.

One of the things I think is so important as we have Military Appreciation Month, I think the thing that as I come back and I look at the big picture and I think the gentlemen that are in the Chamber with us tonight that traveled, is that we understand a couple of concepts about our military today. Number one, it is an all-volunteer force. Everyone that we ran into in that theater was there because they chose to be. I am overwhelmed at the dedication, the commitment, the quality of young men and women that we have defending our country, our Nation and helping liberate Iraq and Afghanistan.

I think one of the real treats for many of us was that we tried to eat about every meal with the troops that we could while we were there. Sometimes we were eating meals on the go, but many times we had an opportunity to meet with the troops and we tried to eat with people from our State or from our area. Of course, you know for sure that the people from Nebraska certainly recognize the former head coach of the Nebraska Cornhuskers. It was like traveling around with a rock star actually, because everybody wanted his autograph and wanted his picture. The rest of us kind of felt like we were part of the groupies that were following him along.

One of the things that I thought was so significant, we let those young men and women talk nonattribution, tell us kind of what is going on, how do you feel about what you are doing, your job. I never heard one soldier say, Congressman, we shouldn't be here. Congressman, get me home as quick as you can. What they wanted to talk about is how they are helping the Iraqi people and how they were proud that those Iraqi people got to exercise that right to vote and when they saw them with those index fingers stained, that they say, hey, you know, I was a part of that. I helped make that happen for the Iraqi people.

One of the things, it was an idea I think I got from the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Beauprez), was that many of us, I think, got names of loved ones back home. I know that I got about 30 or 40 names of young men and women that gave me their loved ones back home, and so they gave me those numbers. It was so fun to call back and say, I was with your son, I was with your husband and talked and tell them how proud that we are of them.

But what it did remind me, and I think it reminds everyone, is that when these young men and women are serving our Nation, their families are serving right alongside them. I had been over to thank their husband or their wife or their brother or their sister or their son or their daughter, but it also gave us an opportunity to thank the parents and the wives and the husbands of those young men and women serving. It was a great trip. I enjoyed it so much. I thank the gentleman from Nebraska for including me. I look forward to going back with him soon.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 810, but in strong support of adult stem cell research as it respects life.

An embryo is a human at its earliest stage of life and deserves the same respect that we give infants, adolescents and adults.

During this debate, some would attempt to justify embryonic stem cell

research on the basis that we are dealing with something other than real human beings. We use the words stem cell, but we could also use the words Nathan and Noah. These are justifications based on definitions of life that are purely arbitrary.

Indeed, a human at the embryonic stage may look a little different than a human at the adult stage, but that does not make the embryo any less a human. The embryo possesses the genetic identity as it will as an adult. It is merely at an earlier stage in life.

Just as we find it unconscionable and unethical to exploit human life in the name of science during the latter stages of life, neither should we accept the exploitation of human life at its earliest stages.

Instead, we should focus our resources on supporting medical research such as cord blood and adult stem cell research that respect human lives and have an actual track record of creating cures.

Vote against H.R. 810.

Mr. Speaker, due to official congressional business, I missed Rollcall vote No. 150 on H. Res. 210, a resolution supporting the goals of WorId Intellectual Property Day. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act of 2005, and the rule. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen) for leading the charge on this important piece of legislation.

Let us talk about what this piece of legislation does. It does three things: one, it upholds the democratic process that has taken place in 44 States; it respects the rights of parents to be involved in the medical decisions for their children; and, most importantly, it protects the health of young daughters.

When someone takes their child to get their teeth cleaned, if they are underage today, they have to have a parent's permission. We should have parents involved in this very important decision in a young woman's life and protect them from those who do not have their best interests at heart.

I encourage the Members of this body to do the right thing today. Let us protect these young women and make sure that this important decision is with a parent's involvement and not with someone who does not have their best interests.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a cosponsor of H.R. 8 to express my strong support for this important legislation to permanently repeal the estate or ``Death'' tax.

The estate tax is one of the most unpopular, destructive taxes collected by the Federal Government. It forces many small businesses and farms to dissolve, undermines incentives for work, savings, and investment, and leads to unnecessary development of environmentally sensitive land. By permanently repealing the estate tax, we would be eliminating a cruel tax that devalues the hard work and confiscates the savings of some of our most productive citizens.

As we all know, the estate tax is scheduled to be totally repealed on January 1, 2010; unfortunately, this repeal will sunset on December 31, 2010. At that point, unless the Congress acts, the estate tax will revert to the 2001 level. As no one I know can accurately guess which year they might pass on to the hereafter, only one year of complete relief of the estate tax is not only cynical--it's bad policy. The uncertainty of not knowing whether or not the death tax will really be repealed, makes it difficult for American taxpayers to make plans for their futures, their spouses' futures, and the futures of their children. Additionally, the tax increase that would result if Congress fails to act would be entirely unfair to many of our constituents.

On the one hand, I am pleased that the House is once again taking action today to rid our Tax Code of this punitive measure. But we've done this several times in the past and each time it has gotten bogged down in the other body. Let's hope we don't have to meet again to do what should have been done years ago. Let's do the right thing today. Let's finally and irrevocably repeal the death tax.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 482 provides for a small land exchange between Lincoln National Forest in New Mexico and Lubbock Christian University in my district. This land exchange is a fair exchange and provides benefits for both parties.

One of the good things about this exchange is that we are exchanging 80 acres of pristine land that LCU currently controls that has National Forest all of the way around it, giving that 80 acres back so we do not have a doughnut in the middle of a National Forest, in consideration for 80 acres adjacent to a camp that is already up and going and has many facilities already on it and is serving many young people in the summertime. And in the fall and the winter, adult groups are able to utilize this facility.

I thank the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce). This land is in his district. The gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) has been very cooperative, and we appreciate that. I also thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and the Committee on Resources for their work and thank them for getting this to the floor for a vote so that LCU can begin putting improvements on this land, and hopefully some of those improvements may be available for this summer.

This is a like-kind exchange between two pieces of property. This bill provides for if there is perceived to be some difference in compensation. This bill gets this off center. This request has been pending for a couple of years, and we are able to expedite this issue and get it in place. I think that is good public policy. I urge my colleagues to support and pass H.R. 482.

Mr. Speaker, I was unable to return to Washington from my congressional district due to illness on April 5, 2005, and missed Rollcall vote numbers 91-93. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye'' on all three votes:

Rollcall Vote Number 91: H. Res. 108--Commemorating the life of the late Zurab Zhvania;

Rollcall Vote Number 92: H. Res. 120--Commending the efforts of the Armed Forces and civilian employees in response to the earthquake and tsunami of December 26, 2004; and

Rollcall Vote Number 93: H. Con. Res. 34--Honoring the life and contributions of Yogi Bhajan.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S. 686.

As many before me and many still to come have indicated, this is not an easy situation. If it were, we would not be here at this late hour, on this day. What makes this situation difficult is that there are so many unresolved questions.

What are Terri's wishes? Terri Schiavo never prepared a living will to express definitively what her wishes would be. So we are left with conflicting accounts of what course of action Terri would want her doctors to take.

What has the family decided? Opponents of this legislation say this should be a family issue. I agree. However, we have a family that disagrees on the fate of Terri's life. While her husband wants to end her life, we have a set of parents who are willing to do everything it takes medically, emotionally, and financially to save the life of their child.

We have some doctors saying that Terri will not recover. Yet we also have other neurologists saying that with the proper medical care, there is a chance that she could improve considerably. And let us be clear: Terri is not on life support she is not brain-dead, and no heroic measures are needed to keep her alive, she simply needs the assistance of a feeding tube for food and water.

If we knew beyond a shadow of a doubt the answers to these questions, we would likely not need to be here tonight. However, because these questions remain disputed, the responsible course of action is to err on the side of life.

Some may ask why Congress is getting involved. The answer to that is simple. One of the primary duties of the Federal Government and Members of Congress is to uphold and defend the Constitution and the individual rights it sets forth. So we are acting to allow that every possible legal process has been exhausted to ensure that Terri's federal rights have been properly defended.

One of those federal rights is the right to life. The Fourteenth Amendment establishes that no ``State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, and property, without due process of law.'' Everyday, in cases where the action of the state will result in the death of an individual, that individual is provided the opportunity to have their case heard in both the state and federal court systems. That is all we are asking to be done today.

My thoughts and prayers, as well of those of my constituents in 19th district of Texas, are with Terri and her family during these difficult times.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the House of Representatives' budget plan and thank Chairman Nussle and his committee for their dedicated work on this legislation.

I think many of us agree that a federal budget of more than $2.5 trillion dollars provides enough resources for the government. As I tell my constituents, we don't have an income problem herein Washington; we have a spending problem. Even as our economy has grown and revenues have increased in the past year, we continue to spend more than we take in. Our House budget takes important steps to address this spending problem while ensuing that our nation's most pressing needs are being met.

We are at war, so defense and security funding remain a priority. Much of the increased spending in the past few years has gone toward national defense and security, including $258 billion in extra funding since September 11, 2001. Our House budget matches President Bush's commitment to our national defense needs with a 4.8 percent increase.

Beyond national security, this budget provides sufficient funds to meet our priorities, but it also take important steps to begin addressing Congress' spending problem.

First, our budget does not raise taxes in order to pay for more spending, as some are proposing in their alternatives. Second, our budget actually reduces non-defense and non-homeland security discretionary spending by .8 percent. Third, this budget will set us on course to reduce the growth in mandatory spending, which is growing far faster than our economy and comprises nearly two-thirds of all federal spending.

By maintaining the tax relief and not allowing for tax increases, our House budget ensures that the economy will continue to grow and create jobs. Sustained economic growth resulting from sustained lower taxes also narrows the budget deficit.

While non-defense discretionary spending is only about 20 percent of federal spending, it is the area in which Congress exercises the most direct annual control. We know there are programs that are wasteful, duplicative or unnecessary. By reducing spending in this area by .8 percent, we force ourselves to do better at finding the waste and consolidating or eliminating the programs we don't need in order to make the best use of the resources available.

For the first time in eight years, Congress is finally dealing with the unchecked growth of mandatory spending in this budget. Let's be clear--despite what we are hearing from some on the other side, this budget does not ``cut'' any programs that help those in need. More will still be spent this year than was spent last year, and by my West Texas definition, that is not a cut. What this budget does is set on the track to slow the rate of growth on the mandatory side, which is currently unsustainable. In the last ten years, federal Medicaid spending has nearly doubled, growing at an average of 8 percent each year. Even with the savings called for in this budget, Medicaid will still grow by 7.3 percent over the next 10 years, as opposed to increasing by 7.6 percent.

With regard to the mandatory spending reduction set for agriculture. I am concerned that the target in this bill is more than agriculture's total share of mandatory spending. As we conference with the Senate, I ask that the Budget Committee work toward a number that is more in line with agriculture's 4.7 percent share of mandatory spending.

What we are doing here with respect to agriculture is allowing the Agriculture Committee to look at all mandatory spending at USDA and have full discretion on how we reach our savings total. We can do this without ``reopening'' the Farm Bill. All USDA mandatory spending, including nutrition programs, must be considered.

During the first three years of the 2002 Farm Bill, farm programs have cost $14 billion less than the Congressional Budget Office predicted when the legislation passed. The 2002 Farm Bill has proven to be a very effective safety net for our producers, providing support in times of lower prices, and reducing support when it is not needed. And even though spending will increase somewhat this year due to lower prices, total spending over the life of this Farm Bill is still projected to be less than was predicted.

Changing the rules of the game now, and then again in two years, is not sound policy. Budget decisions we make in agriculture today will not only affect the 2007 Farm Bill, but they will also affect our negotiating position in the World Trade Organization. If we take all of our chips off the table now, we will not have anything left to negotiate with as our trade representatives continue efforts to open new markets and reduce other barriers to U.S. products.

During meetings with constituents throughout my district, farmers understood the importance of balancing the budget, and they are willing to do their part to reduce the deficit. However, they do not support agriculture bearing a disproportionate share of the burden. Neither do I, and I am committed to working in conference to ensure our final budget outline for the year treats agriculture fairly.

Our constituents are looking to us to make responsible decisions about the use of their hard-earned tax dollars. They are counting on us to set the right priorities and follow through on past commitments. I believe our House budget sets us on the right path toward reducing spending, keeping our economy growing and protecting our nation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1268, the Emergency Supplemental and Wartime Appropriations Act of 2005. This supplemental provides necessary funding for a variety of military operations and for equipment that will keep our troops safe while they fight the War on Terror. We are asking the brave men and women of our Armed Forces to put their lives on the line in defense of our freedom. In return, we should not hesitate to give them the best protective gear that we can provide.

However, I have serious concerns about providing additional non- defense and nonemergency items, such as money for facility construction and international peacekeeping efforts that are included in this supplemental. I believe that while these items may be vital to our Nation's interests, they are not true emergencies.

I commend the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, the distinguished gentleman from California, Mr. Lewis, for his efforts to limit the amount of non-defense and nonemergency funding in this bill. But, far too often the Federal Government deems additional spending an ``emergency'' because it was not included in the original budget request. Any non-defense and non-emergency funding should be considered in the regular budget process.

As Members of Congress, we owe it to the American taxpayer to ensure any new request for emergency spending is thoroughly reviewed and considered in a fair manner on the House floor, especially when essential funding for our Nation's Armed Forces is at stake.

Despite my displeasure in allowing some of these additional items to be included in the supplemental, I support this legislation because Congress has a moral obligation to provide our troops with the safest equipment and most up to date training available.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, which will help small transit systems maintain flexibility in the use of their Federal money. I would like to thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania for his leadership on this issue, which is particularly important to my constituents in Lubbock, Texas.

I want to repeat, this amendment does not increase funding for transit systems. Rather, it gives them some flexibility to manage those transit systems in the most efficient and effective ways.

Under the current law, once an urbanized area exceeds 200,000 people in population, it loses that flexibility. What impact that is going to have on my constituents in Lubbock, Texas, is my transit system has had to try to scale back the hours of operation, particularly some on Saturday. Saturday is when a lot of families need to get to the doctor and need to go buy groceries. But quite honestly, also for people who live in my district who are employed, that have to get to work on Saturdays.

So what we need to do is have these communities work with their transit systems and look for alternative ways to fund transit in the future. We need to give them some time and the flexibility they need to do that.

Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for H.R. 310, the Broadcasting Decency Enforcement Act. While the House passed this bill last year by an overwhelming majority, unfortunately it did not become law. As a result, the House must reconsider this issue.

During my service in Congress, this is one of the top two issues my constituents have mentioned in their e-mails, phone calls and letters. My constituents are telling me that enough is enough. When broadcasters violate indecency rules and a complaint is filed, my constituents want it to be taken seriously by the Federal Communications Commission, FCC. They want meaningful penalties that will make broadcasters think twice before airing objectionable programs. They want broadcasters to be held accountable.

Above all, they want to be able to watch an entertainment program with their families without having them exposed to content unsuitable for children. When supposedly family-friendly programming such as the Super Bowl becomes a program many families don't want their children to see, we have a problem. As a grandfather, I worry about being able to turn on the TV and watch a program or sports event with my 3- and 5- year-old grandsons.

The bill before us today increases penalties for broadcasters and performers who violate decency standards over the airwaves. Raising the cap on fines to $500,000 for broadcasts that violate the rules helps show that Congress and the FCC are serious about punishing offenses. The current cap is only $27,000 per violation, a drop in the bucket for most broadcasters. When broadcasters know that indecency violations will be taken into consideration when they ask the FCC to renew their broadcast licenses, they are going to take additional precautions to prevent instances of indecency. If a broadcaster accumulates three violations, a hearing will be triggered to review revoking that station's license.

This legislation sends a strong signal that Congress is serious about enforcement of broadcast indecency regulations. If all Members, constituents care about this issue as much as mine do, then this should be an easy bill for us to support.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I was unavoidably detained when traveling from my district on February 8, 2005, and missed rollcall vote Nos. 20-22. Had I been present I would have voted ``aye'' on all three votes: Rollcall vote No. 20: H. Res. 46, Supporting the goals and ideals of National Mentoring Month; rollcall vote No. 21: H.R. 315, The John Milton Bryan Simpson United States Courthouse Designation Act; and rollcall vote No. 22: H.R. 548, The Tony Hall Federal Building and United States Courthouse Designation Act.