Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to introduce the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Equitable Compensation Act of 2005.

The Act will help to right a historic wrong that occurred during the construction of the Oahe dam and reservoir, depriving the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of some of their best lands and failing to provide adequate compensation.

Recognizing these past wrongs, Congress moved to compensate the tribe in 2000 by establishing a trust fund. While these actions were commendable, they left one important group behind--tribal members that lost privately owned lands. This act would correct that omission and allow the tribe to distribute funds to individuals who are currently prohibited from receiving them.

The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Equitable Compensation Act would provide just compensation for the taking of lands over 50 years ago. I urge its swift consideration and passage.

Mr. Speaker, I am saddened to report the passing of Staff Sergeant Jason Montefering of Parkston, South Dakota. He was killed, while serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The lives of countless people were enormously enhanced by Jason's goodwill and service. He inspired all those who knew him. Our Nation is a far better place because of his life. All Americans owe Jason, and the other soldiers who have made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of freedom, a tremendous debt of gratitude for their service.

Every member of the House of Representatives has taken a solemn oath to defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. While we certainly understand the gravity of the issues facing this legislative body, Staff Sergeant Jason Montefering lived that commitment to our country. Today, we remember and honor his noble service to the United States and the ultimate sacrifice he has paid with his life to defend our freedoms and foster liberty for others.

Mr. Speaker, I express my sympathies to the family and friends of Staff Sergeant Jason Montefering. I believe the best way to honor him is to emulate his commitment to our country. I know he will always be missed, but his service to our Nation will never be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I also rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 5. As many of my colleagues have pointed out, there are various troublesome aspects of this bill, including the recent study that demonstrated clearly the rising cost of insurance premiums, while the claims have remained steady in terms of the ultimate litigation outcomes of those claims that have been filed. So we should not be passing any legislation that is not more comprehensive to hold insurance companies accountable as well.

But H.R. 5 is also troublesome because of its blatant disregard for States' rights. In South Dakota's 2004 legislative session, a bill modeled on H.R. 5 was defeated in committee on a unanimous bipartisan vote. I think this sends a strong signal that H.R. 5 does not provide the type of comprehensive solution to medical malpractice insurance premiums that States are looking for and will stifle innovation in the States that has been important to the health care industry.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to again set the record straight regarding one of the persistent urban myths about ethanol and other renewable fuels. Yet again in the past couple of weeks I read about another study that contains faulty and outdated assumptions, analysis and conclusions about the net energy balance of producing renewable fuels like ethanol and biodiesel.

Whether produced from corn or other grains or biomass, ethanol production has matured into an extremely energy-efficient process. As you would expect with any developing industry, technological advances have greatly improved these efficiencies over the years. Unfortunately, some academic studies choose to ignore these improvements.

Farmers are much more efficient today than they were in years past. They get more bushels of corn from an acre of land than we did 25 years ago. Some areas have seen yield improvements of 45 percent or more. Moreover, they do it using far less energy. Farmers today use precision and no-till farming to greatly reduce tillage trips and chemical applications. The efficiency of fertilizer and pesticide production also has greatly improved over the years.

What is more, the process of turning this corn into ethanol has greatly improved. Mechanical and biological advancements in the process mean that we get more ethanol from a bushel of corn than we used to. All of these developments have a significant and positive impact on the net energy balance of ethanol production.

This fact has been confirmed by countless analyses. A recent study by the Department of Energy's Argonne National Laboratory found that for every 100 BTUs of energy used to produce ethanol, 135 BTUs of ethanol are produced. That is because corn plants are extremely efficient solar panels. USDA analysis has found that corn farmers use about half the energy to produce a bushel of corn than they did just 25 years ago.

And the industry is not resting on its laurels. Research continues into ethanol production from feed stock such as rice straw, corn stover, and sugar cane waste. These should even further reduce fossil energy use and improve net energy balance. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, ethanol produced from these sources generates 13.2 BTUs of energy for every BTU of fossil energy consumed.

Finally, I will share with my colleagues an important point that was raised yesterday in an Agriculture Committee hearing on renewable fuels. Calculating and arguing over the net energy balance of ethanol, petroleum and any other energy source is not even the most relevant inquiry. From an economic standpoint, the pertinent question really should be, what does it cost to put a gallon of fuel in my gas tank when and where I want to?

Based on that inquiry, ethanol is clearly winning that contest today. Today in Sioux Falls, South Dakota you can go to any Get-n-Go gas station in the city and purchase a gallon of E85, a blend of 85 percent ethanol and 15 percent gasoline for $1.79, whereas a gallon of premium gasoline costs $2.39. If you know how frugal South Dakotans are, I do not have to tell you which pump they are lining up behind.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concern shared by many of my colleagues this morning regarding the veterans affairs health care budget shortfall.

I am afraid this shortfall is further evidence that the misgivings many Members of Congress, veterans, and veterans service organizations have had about the VA health care budget have been justified.

The bottom line, in recent years veterans health care has not been given sufficient consideration when it comes time to write the budget. Providing the benefits earned by veterans, yesterday's heroes and today's, is part of the Federal Government's responsibility to provide for the common defense, a responsibility that should direct our funding priorities.

The necessity to reprogram $1.27 billion to the medical services account for fiscal year 2005 and possibly up to $1.7 billion, not factoring in $600 million for enrollment fees and increased co-payments that will not be accepted by Congress, over the President's request for fiscal year 2006 is an obvious signal that VA health care is not suitably funded to meet the needs of our veterans.

However, this is not the first indication that the problem existed. It is not a problem that has crept into the system in the last few months. It is a problem that has existed for many years. I am pleased that we are now working to solve the shortfalls of fiscal year 2005 and 2006 and to ensure effective methodologies that can produce reliable projections regarding adequate levels of funding in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1220, the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act, which authorizes the annual cost-of-living adjustment for disabled veterans and their survivors.

I would like to thank the chairman, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), and the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), for their leadership on the full committee and for their good work in shepherding this bill to the floor today. I would like to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) of the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs, for their hard work and bipartisan leadership.

Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation and am a proud cosponsor of the bill because it is an important way we can keep our Nation's promise to the veterans who have served. This legislation is aimed at improving the quality of life for disabled veterans and their families whose sacrifices and contributions to our great country should not be forgotten. I believe the way we treat our veterans is a moral issue and we need to do the right, moral, honorable thing with respect to disabled veterans and their families.

There are more than 3,000 veterans in my home State of South Dakota who received disability compensation last year, and tens of thousands more nationwide who rely on this annual cost of living increase to help support a dignified quality of life. With wounded young servicemen and women returning home by the thousands from battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan, we know there is a new and growing generation that is equally deserving of this modest increase to reflect a rising cost of living. It is imperative we work to provide this newest generation of veterans and their families with the benefits they have earned and deserve.

This bill will provide continuing assistance for these brave men and women who will forever live with the scars of their sacrifice. We must honor their service by considering veterans' care to be an ongoing cost of war.

I would like to thank the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) for an amendment she offered in committee, which was passed and included in this bill to provide a cost of living adjustment in fiscal year 2006 for the additional payment of $250 per month for the first 2 years of dependency indemnity compensation eligibility to surviving spouses with minor children.

I also would like to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) for his work to include a provision to provide for the establishment of Parkinson's Disease Research Education Clinical Centers in the Veterans Health Administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Again, I am proud to support H.R. 1220, the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act, and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to honor the extraordinary commitment and hard work of Grace Siers, a charter member of Marshall Post No. 3507 Ladies Auxiliary, Veterans of Foreign Wars, in Britton, SD.

Grace joined the Ladies Auxiliary under the sponsorship of her husband, William Siers, who served during World War I, and three brothers, Vance, John and Clarence Hunscher, who served during World War II. Grace's five sons, Le Roy, Donald, Virgil, Gary and Robert, also proudly served the United States in the military.

Over the years Grace has been involved in everything from collecting and sending care packages of toys and toothbrushes to be given to children in Iraq, writing to troops, raising funds by selling poppies and poppy decorations, compiling a recipe book honoring past and present military members and working at the Thanksgiving Turkey Night sponsored by the Post. She has also been committed to the Ladies Auxiliary's efforts to fundraise for important organizations like Fargo VA Hospital, Redfield State Hospital, Children's Care Center of Sioux Falls, VFW National Home, American Lung Association, American Heart Association, Britton Food Pantry, Cancer Relay for Life, Special Olympics, and Operation Uplink. Other efforts include collecting cans for the Shriners, pop tabs for the Ronald McDonald House, labels and box tops for local schools.

Grace Siers' commitment to the Ladies Auxiliary and to her community is something to be admired by all citizens. The lives of countless people were enormously enhanced by Grace's compassion and service. She is an example to all of us, a woman devoted to her family, her community, her State and her Nation. It is my hope that we all may contribute as much to those' around us as Grace has. Her contributions will never be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to honor the extraordinary commitment and hard work of Hazel Hanon, a Charter Member of Marshall Post #3507 Ladies Auxiliary, Veterans of Foreign Wars, in Britton, South Dakota.

Hazel joined the Ladies Auxiliary under the sponsorship of her husband, Leon Hanon who served in the United States Navy. Her son-in- law, Dempsy Rein served his country in the Air Force.

Over the years, Hazel has been involved in everything from collecting and sending care packages of toys and toothbrushes to be given to children in Iraq, writing to troops, raising funds by selling poppies and poppy decorations, compiling a recipe book honoring past and present military members and working at the Thanksgiving Turkey Night sponsored by the Post. She has also been committed to the Ladies Auxiliary's efforts to fundraise for important organizations like Fargo VA Hospital, Redfield State Hospital, Children's Care Center of Sioux Falls, VFW National Home, American Lung Association, American Heart Association, Britton Food Pantry, Cancer Relay for Life, Special Olympics, and Operation Uplink. Other efforts include collecting cans for the Shriners, pop tabs for the Ronald McDonald House, labels and box tops for local schools.

Hazel Hanon's commitment to the Ladies Auxiliary and to her community is something to be admired by all citizens. The lives of countless people were enormously enhanced by Hazel's compassion and service. She is an example to all of us, a woman devoted to her family, her community, her state and her nation. It is my hope that we all may contribute as much to those around us as Hazel has. Her contributions will never be forgotten.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to honor the life of Sergeant First Class Christopher Phelps. SFC Phelps was killed June 23, 2005 while serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom. On July 1, 2005, friends and family in Pine Ridge will pay tribute to Christopher.

Christopher was from Colorado Springs, Colorado. He is survived by his wife Bobbi Red Cloud-Phelps; one son, Christian Phelps; three daughters, Taymarie Phelps, Raeseana Phelps and Jeyavani Phelps.

Every member of the House of Representatives has taken a solemn oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. While we certainly understand the gravity of the issues facing this legislative body, SFC Phelps lived that commitment to our country. Today, we remember and honor his noble service to the United States and the ultimate sacrifice he has paid with his life to defend our freedoms and foster liberty for others.

The lives of countless people were enormously enhanced by Christopher's compassion and service. Christopher, who represented the best of the United States continues to inspire all those who knew him. Our nation and South Dakota are far better places because of his life, and the best way to honor him is to emulate his commitment to our country.

I join with all South Dakotans in expressing my sympathies to the family of SFC Christopher Phelps. His commitment and sacrifice to our Nation will never be forgotten.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment, and I urge my colleagues to support it for several reasons.

This amendment would prevent the FAA from privatizing the critical flight safety functions that are currently performed by highly trained flight service professionals. Some government functions, like ensuring safe airspace for the flying public, play such a significant role in protecting public safety and enhancing homeland security, that we must insist that they remain government functions. Privatization, when used selectively, can deliver savings and efficiency, but not all functions are good candidates for privatization. Flight service falls into this category.

We have a flight service facility in Huron, South Dakota, that employs specialists who live in the community, and many of them are pilots themselves. The decision by the FAA to close Automated Flight Service Stations across the country would include the Huron station. Its functions are set to be delegated to facilities hundreds of miles away in other States. Taking this step would greatly strain the national capacity of the flight service and reduce pilots' access to the localized knowledge of weather and topography that the Huron station currently provides.

Of even more concern, this decision also could mean the elimination of virtually all of the flight service stations across the Northern Plains; an area of the country that relies on general aviation much more than the more densely populated regions of the country.

Finally, this step will not only weaken our Nation's air safety system, it will unfairly treat thousands of dedicated flight service employees that would be affected. While I agree that we cannot oppose privatization proposals solely because some Federal employees might lose their jobs, we also have an obligation to treat our dedicated public servants fairly. Most of the professionals that would be affected by this change, including many at the Huron flight service facility, have given many years of their professional lives to the Federal flight service. Many are within years or even months of qualifying for their Federal Government pensions. This policy would have the effect of unfairly slashing the retirement benefits that they have earned, and it is another reason why we should delay this action for a year and devise a more reasonable approach.

This amendment will give us time to devise a plan to ensure that vital aviation safety functions are provided by a well-trained and highly qualified workforce, and it would enable us to treat fairly those that have worked for many years to provide this important service. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my extreme disappointment that the fiscal year 2006 Housing and Urban Development Appropriations bill again reduces Federal support for Native American housing. The current bill shrinks the Native American Housing Block Grant, NAHBG, from $622 million in 2005 to only $555 million in 2006. Earlier this year, I requested that funding for NAHBG be increased to $1 billion for fiscal year 2006.

Many tribal areas face severe housing shortages, leading to overcrowding and homelessness. On South Dakota's Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, it is not uncommon to find 25 individuals or more living in one housing unit. This problem is not localized to any one area and similar hardship can be found on reservations across the United States.

The historic underfunding of Native American housing programs has created a desperate need for housing in Indian Country. This year's HUD appropriations bill marks the second consecutive year of NAHBG decrease compounding the problem many tribes face in providing for the most basic housing needs of their members. Even level funding would have perpetuated the problem; but another decrease in Federal support is egregious and irresponsible.

The Federal Government has a responsibility to meet its obligations to tribal governments. It is unfortunate that when we should be responding to the serious housing needs in Indian country, the House has again cut funding for this most fundamental program.

I sincerely hope our colleagues in the Senate will be more responsive to the housing situation facing tribal leaders and members across the United States.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I would like to begin by thanking the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) and the members of the subcommittee for their hard work on this appropriations legislation. I realize that we are working with limited resources, and I commend them for their bipartisan efforts to craft the best possible legislation within the constraints of the budget resolution. But I am compelled to offer this significant amendment to the Transportation, Treasury and Housing appropriations bill.

Within this bill that funds large Federal agencies like the Department of Transportation and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Federal Judiciary often is overlooked. Yet, this year, when the Congress has passed significant legislation that will increase the workload of the courts, we need to remember our responsibility to the Judiciary, our coequal branch of government.

I had the privilege of working not only with a Federal District Court judge but also a Federal Appellate Court judge. I recognize their workload, their commitment and their dedication to serving our country. And I think that this amendment is fairly straightforward in recognition of their continued hard work in light of the significant legislation that increases their workload. It would add $6.9 million to the salaries and expenditures account in the Court of Appeals, District courts and other judicial services subsection of title IV of this act. It would be fully offset from the Federal buildings fund of the General Services Administration.

This amendment will provide our Federal court system with the resources they need to manage the surge of complex litigation that they will receive as a result of the recently enacted Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. The administrative office of the U.S. courts has projected that as many as 300 complex class action lawsuits will be moved out of State courts and into Federal courts as a result of this new law, at an estimated cost of $23,000 per case for a total cost of $6.9 million.

Federal courts are already burdened with a huge docket of criminal and immigration cases. Failure to increase funding for Federal courts to account for the increase in complicated class actions that will flow from the Class Action Fairness Act will drastically delay the judicial process for thousands of plaintiffs and defendants seeking civil redress in our Federal courts.

The Senate has already recognized this need. In the 2005 emergency supplemental appropriations bill, it sought to provide increased funding to the Judiciary, but its language was stripped out in conference. It is time for the House to take responsibility for the anticipated impact of the Class Action Fairness Act when imposing significant new costs on the coequal branch of government. We have a duty to provide the necessary resources to meet those costs. My amendment will provide this funding, and I urge my colleagues to support it.

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

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

I appreciate the Chairman's concern about the GSA account. However, it is substantial. We know in our dealings with GSA that they can withstand certain cuts. I know other amendments throughout the day and this evening have been offered and have identified the GSA account for offsets. However, this is $6.9 million. I know that the chairman has acknowledged that the Judiciary has received an increase, but I would contend that it is nowhere near what is necessary for our coequal branch of government. Not only have we increased their jurisdiction from the Class Action Fairness Act, but other legislation passed by this body throughout this term. And I believe it is important especially when we are dealing with litigants who are trying to get civil relief.

I have seen for myself, in working at the District Court level, other civil actions that keep getting pushed back and pushed back and pushed back because of the need to handle the increased caseload in both criminal law and immigration cases. And so I contend that the $6.9 million can be withstood out of the GSA account, and that is necessary to increase this funding, particularly for the complex litigation that will make its way from the State courts into the Federal courts.

So while I acknowledge the chairman's concern, I would continue to urge my colleagues to take a close look; understand that this is not a significant amount coming out of a very sizable account for GSA to help our colleagues in the judicial branch.

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

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

Just a final point. It becomes difficult when we are trying to allocate these limited resources, I know; and I would commend GSA for the work that it has done. But I do believe that when we are looking at our colleagues in the judiciary, a co-equal branch of government, and in response to not only Supreme Court decisions that will increase the workload in the area of sentencing for many of our judges, but again, the continued increase that we have seen in the criminal case load, immigration cases and elsewhere, that our primary concern should be with civil litigants, and we should be able to find this offset from

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, on June 20-23, 2005, I attended the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Regional Field Hearing in Rapid City, South Dakota in an effort to convince BRAC commissioners to remove Ellsworth Air Force Base--South Dakota's second largest employer--from the Department of Defense's list of military bases recommended for closure. Therefore, I was unavoidably absent from the House of Representatives on these days and was unable to support important legislation brought before the full House.

I would like the record to show that had I been present I would have voted in support of H.R. 2863, the Fiscal Year 2006 Department of Defense Appropriations Act; H.R. 2475, the Fiscal 2006 Intelligence Authorization Act; and H.J. Res. 110, the Flag Desecration Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Fiscal Year 2006 Defense Appropriations bill funds the activities of the Department of Defense including the funds needed to outfit and train our servicemen and women and important benefits and services for members of our military and their families. The bill also includes funding for three partnership programs between the Department of Defense and the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology. These important programs will help bring together a unique array of capabilities offered by the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology to help our Nation's military meet the challenge of transformation and modernization.

I will continue to work with my colleagues in the House of Representatives to improve our Nation's commitment to the men and women who serve in the military. There is no question that all Americans owe their freedom to those brave enough to serve in our Nation's military.

I also would like to express my support for the Fiscal Year 2006 Intelligence Authorization Act. This bill provides funding for 15 U.S. intelligence agencies and intelligence-related activities of the U.S. government--including the CIA and the National Security Agency, as well as foreign intelligence activities of the Defense Department, FBI, State Department, Homeland Security Department, and other agencies. I will continue working to ensure our Federal intelligence and security agencies receive the resources and funding needed to protect the United States from external and internal threats.

Finally, I would like to express my support for the flag desecration amendment to the United States Constitution. This resolution authorizes Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. Our Nation's flag is a symbol of freedom and a source of pride for all of us fortunate enough to call ourselves Americans. Our Nation has always encouraged free discussion and reasonable disagreement, but the physical desecration of an American flag goes beyond the pale. Such actions are insulting to those who have fought, and died, under the American flag, and I am proud to support efforts to ban flag desecration.

In 1989, the Supreme Court held that no laws could prohibit political protesters from burning the American flag and declared unconstitutional the flag desecration laws of 48 states and of the United States. In that case, Texas v. Johnson, Justice Stevens wrote a powerful dissenting opinion that has guided my reasoning on the Amendment for some time.

Justice Stevens pointed out the importance of distinguishing between disagreeable ideas and disagreeable conduct. In a particularly apt analogy, Justice Stevens noted that if Johnson had spray painted his message on the Lincoln Memorial, the government could prohibit his ``expression.'' I have always found myself in agreement with the idea that there should be a legitimate interest in preserving the quality of an important national asset.

I look forward to continuing to work on these and other important issues in the 109th Congress.

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

Madam Speaker, I also rise today in strong support of S. 643, which is the companion legislation of H.R. 1930 introduced by my distinguished colleague on the Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas).

This legislation would extend the authorization for the State Mediation Grant Program carried out by USDA's Farm Service Agency to provide Federal matching grants to State mediation programs.

Currently 32 States, including my home State of South Dakota, are certified to receive matching funds under this program, and two more States are working on becoming certified. To receive Federal funding, a State program must meet certain criteria and have at least a 30 percent match in State funding.

This program was created in 1987 as a result of the credit crisis facing agriculture in the mid-1980s. Since its inception, an original intent of dealing with credit and loan disputes, Congress has expanded its scope to cover a number of other issues stemming from farm program participation, everything from wetland determinations to commodity program eligibility and pesticide drift.

Early on, leaders in South Dakota recognized the value that such a program could provide to the farmers, ranchers, and lenders in our State, and they created a program in 1988 to deal with agricultural credit disputes. It has been a resounding success. In the more than 16 years that the South Dakota Department of Agriculture has operated its mediation program, it has received more than 4,500 requests for mediation.

In South Dakota, mediation is available for agricultural credit disputes involving any amount of money. However, a creditor must submit to mediation in any credit dispute involving more than $50,000.

This popular program provides many benefits to both agricultural borrowers and lenders in many States across the country. We all know that lending disputes can become contentious, and this program enables participants to negotiate and create their own mutually agreeable solutions to such disputes.

Also, the cost of mediation is much less than the formal appeals process at USDA, averaging less than $700 per year, as opposed to the thousands of dollars it can cost to go through the National Appeals Division. The length of time to reach conclusions is also much shorter, normally several days, in contrast to appeals cases that can stretch for months.

Mediation works because it is a time-saving and affordable alternative to litigation and appeals. It also promotes communication between disputing parties rather than confrontation and animosity. And, in my communications with the South Dakota Department of Agriculture staff, mediation generally results in more successful and enduring resolution to most credit disputes.

This program has worked for farmers and agricultural lenders in South Dakota and across the country for almost 20 years, and I am pleased to support S. 643 to extend the authorization of this program through 2010.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.