Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to stop a program that has been a failure. Let the record be clear. After more than 10 years of failed attempts to reintroduce Mexican wolves, it is now time to call an end to this program.

I am speaking of the Mexican Wolf Recovery Program operated by the Fish and Wildlife Service in New Mexico and Arizona. Since the 1998 release of these captive bred wolves into the Blue Range Wolf Recovery area, this program has attempted to restore a population of wolves into the area, all while providing no compensation to ranchers for their livestock losses and all in the face of nearly unified local public opinion against the program.

Promises were made that the wolves would be restricted to the wilderness area of the Gila Mountains, but instead we have seen wolves as far away as Tularosa, New Mexico, almost 200 miles away.

To date this program has spent nearly $14 million and as of today has only 58 wolves in the wild; $14 million, 10 years, and 58 wolves in the wild.

Of these 58 wolves in the wild, we now are on a pace to remove 12 this year because they're problems.

Chart number 1 that I brought up today highlights the increasing rate of removal of the wolves from the wild because they're killing too much livestock and they're endangering people and pets in the district that I represent.

In 2005, the Service removed four problem wolves. In 2006, it removed eight. In 2007, we're on a pace to remove 12 wolves, 12 out of 58. If the Service has to remove 12 wolves this year, 20 percent of the wolves in the recovery area, how can anyone classify as a success a program where this many of the wolves are being a danger to ranchers and livestock?

I would add that the wolves that are released into New Mexico are the wolves that have killed too many animals over in Arizona. So New Mexico gets the benefit of having the most dangerous wolves released into the Second District.

Secondly, I would like to go to a chart that shows the horse, Six. In this shot, on the left side, Stacy Miller, 8 years old, is riding her horse, Six. This picture was taken 2 weeks before this picture. This picture on the right indicates her horse, Six, after the wolves finished with it. You see the ribs have been stripped completely clean. The hide is laying out here. That's 2 weeks after the picture was made. This is in the Second District of New Mexico.

And for those of you who want the feel-good feeling of releasing the wolves into the wild, let us release them into your daggone area instead of the area of southern New Mexico, where they represent a danger to the people of the Second District. If you aren't willing to take them into your district, then why are you going to spend money to put them in our district and endanger our people?

I would like to draw your attention to another tremendous concern, the Durango pack, particularly the female, AF924, which we speak about, is stalking the home of a young woman named Micha. Micha Miller, not the same, is pictured here. Micha Miller is about 100 yards from her front door pointing to a wolf print that is there in the dirt. What is startling about this picture is the gun which Micha is wearing while she goes about her chores. The Durango pack of wolves have been in and around Micha's house for so long that her parents insist that she carry this gun with her while she does her chores, works or plays in the yard.

I am submitting for the Record a letter from Micha asking Congress to end

this program that has put wolves in her front yard.

Dear Congressman Pearce: I am Micha Noel Miller the 13 year

old that has to carry a firearm when I go outside. My parents

and I have had the Durango Pack (AF924 & AM 973) in our yard

5 times in the last 6 weeks. I hate the wolves in our yard

because I feel that I am trapped in my house! I love to ride

my horse, bike and walk around outside. Since the

reintroduction of the Mexican Wolf I can no longer due any of

these things without being afraid.

When we get home after dark my mom has to go feed our dogs

and cats because I'm scared to go outside even though I know

the wolves are 6 miles down the road and it doesn't make a

difference, I'm still afraid they are coming up behind me.

I'm tired of looking over my shoulder and being scared all

the time. I have even resorted to carrying a firearm, I'm

still frightened of the wolves when they come in my yard.

I have gone hunting with my dad alot. We have called in

coyotes and even a bear and I wasn't as scared as I was every

time the wolves were in our yard. The coyotes and bears are

more scared of you and will run away, but the wolves will

just keep coming closer to you. They are not scared of

humans!! I have had a wolf within 40 yards of me and I was so

scared I couldn't move. My older sister, A.J., came out and

scared the wolf off finally.

I have nightmares about the wolves attacking my family &

our pets. The Wolf Program says you cannot shoot a wolf if it

is attacking your pet on private property. I don't understand

how the wolf program expects people to stand by and let the

wolves kill their pets and not do anything to stop them. They

think the wolves are more important than anything else,

including human life!

Congressman Pearce, I wish there was some way you could get

the wolf program to remove the wolves. I just want to have a

normal childhood where I can go outside and play anytime I

want without being armed and worrying about wolves being in

my yard.

Thank you for your help,

Micha Miller.

Mr. Chairman, we will hear folks that will follow me talk about how healthy wolves have never attacked humans; I would say that they're simply wrong. I will submit for the Record a list of recorded attacks by wolves on humans. These include healthy captive wolves, domestically bred wolves and wolf-dog hybrids.

Wolf Attacks on Humans

(By T. R. Mader, Research Division)

It has been widely discussed whether a healthy wild wolf

has ever attacked a human on this continent. In fact, many

say such attacks have never occurred in North America.

History states otherwise. Although attacks on humans are

uncommon, they have occurred on this continent, both in the

early years of settlement and more recently. Here is one

report:

New Rockford, DAK, March 7.--The news has just reached here

that a father and son, living several miles northeast of this

city, were destroyed by wolves yesterday. The two unfortunate

men started to a haystack some ten rods from the house to

shovel a path around the stack when they were surrounded by

wolves and literally eaten alive. The horror-stricken mother

was standing at the window with a babe in her arms, a

spectator to the terrible death of her husband and son, but

was unable to aid them. After they had devoured every flesh

from the bones of the men, the denizens of the forest

attacked the house, but retired to the hills in a short time.

Investigation found nothing but the bones of the husband and

son. The family name was Olson. Wolves are more numerous and

dangerous now than ever before known in North Dakota. (Saint

Paul Daily Globe, March 8, 1888)

Here an account is reported which included an eyewitness

and the family name. Some have reasoned the wolves were

rabid. That is unlikely as these animals were functioning as

a pack. A rabid wolf is a loner. Our research has never found

a single historical account of packs of rabid wolves on this

continent. Individual animals are the norm. Further, accounts

of rabid (hydrophobic) animals were common in that day and

were reported as such.

The winters of 1886-1888 were very harsh. Many western

ranchers went broke during these years. The harsh winter

could have been a factor in the attack.

Noted naturalists documented wolf attacks on humans. John

James Audubon, of whom the Audubon Society is named, reported

an attack involving 2 Negroes. He records that the men were

traveling through a part of Kentucky near the Ohio border in

winter. Due to the wild animals in the area the men carried

axes on their shoulders as a precaution. While traveling

through a heavily forested area, they were attacked by a pack

of wolves. Using their axes, they attempted to fight off the

wolves. Both men were knocked to the ground and severely

wounded. One man was killed. The other dropped his axe and

escaped up a tree. There he spent the night. The next morning

the man climbed down from the tree. The bones of his friend

lay scattered on the snow. Three wolves lay dead. He gathered

up the axes and returned home with the news of the event.

This incident occurred about 1830. (Audubon, J.J., and

Bachman, J.; The Quadrupeds of North America, 3 volumes. New

York, 1851-1854)

George Bird Grinnell investigated several reported wolf

attacks on humans. He dismissed many reports for lack of

evidence. Grinnell did verify one attack.

This occurrence was in northwestern Colorado. An eighteen-

year-old girl went out at dusk to bring in some milk cows.

She saw a gray wolf on a hill as she went out for the cows.

She shouted at the wolf to scare it away and it did not move.

She then threw a stone at it to frighten it away. The animal

snarled at her shouting and attacked her when she threw the

stone at it. The wolf grabbed the girl by the shoulder, threw

her to the ground and bit her severely on the arms and legs.

She screamed and her brother, who was nearby and armed with a

gun, responded to the scene of the attack and killed the

wolf. The wolf was a healthy young animal, barely full grown.

Grinnell met this girl and examined her. She carried several

scars from the attack. This attack occurred in summer about

1881. (Grinnell, G.B.; Trail and Campfire--Wolves and Wolf

Nature, New York, 1897)

In 1942, Michael Dusiak, section foreman for the Canadian

Pacific Railway, was attacked by a wolf while patrolling a

section of track on a speeder (small 4-wheeled open railroad

car). Dusiak relates, ``It happened so fast and as it was

still very dark, I thought an engine had hit me first. After

getting up from out of the snow very quickly, I saw the wolf

which was about fifty feet away from me and it was coming

towards me, I grabbed the two axes (tools on the speeder),

one in each hand and hit the wolf as he jumped at me right in

the belly and in doing so lost one axe. Then the wolf started

to circle me and got so close to me at times that I hit him

with the head of the axe and it was only the wielding of the

axe that kept him from me. All this time he was growling and

gnashing his teeth. Then he would stop circling me and jump

at me and I would hit him with the head of the axe. This

happened five times and he kept edging me closer to the woods

which was about 70 feet away. We fought this way for about

fifteen minutes and I fought to stay out in the open close to

the track. I hit him quite often as he came at me very fast

and quick and I was trying to hit him a solid blow in the

head for I knew if once he got me down it would be my finish.

Then in the course of the fight he got me over onto the north

side of the track and we fought there for about another ten

minutes. Then a west bound train came along travelling about

thirty miles an hour and stopped about half a train length

west of us and backed up to where we were fighting. The

engineer, fireman and brakeman came off the engine armed with

picks and other tools, and killed the wolf.''

It should be noted that this wolf was skinned and inspected

by an Investigator Crichton, a Conservation Officer. His

assessment was that the animal was a young healthy wolf in

good condition although it appeared lean. (``A Record of

Timber Wolf Attacking a Man,'' JOURNAL OF MAMMOLOGY, Vol. 28,

No. 3, August 1947)

Common Man Institute, in cooperation with Abundant Wildlife

Society of North America, has done extensive research on

wolves and their history for several years. We have gathered

evidence on wolf attacks which occurred in North America.

A forester employed by the Province of British Colombia was

checking some timber for possible harvest in the 1980s. He

was met by a small pack of three wolves. The forester yelled

at the wolves to frighten them away. Instead, the wolves came

towards him in a threatening manner and he was forced to

retreat and climb a nearby tree for safety. The wolves

remained at the base of the tree. The forester had a

portable radio, but was unable to contact his base, due to

distance, until evening. When the call for help came in,

two Conservation Officers with the Ministry of Environment

were flown to the area by floatplane to rescue the treed

forester.

When the Conservation Officers arrived, the forester was

still in the tree and one wolf, the apparent leader of the

pack, was still at the base of the tree. The officers, armed

with shotguns, shot at the wolf and missed. The wolf ran for

cover and then started circling and howling near the two

officers. After a couple missed shots, the wolf was finally

shot and killed.

The wolf tested negative for rabies. It appeared healthy in

every respect, but was very lean. The Conservation Officers

felt the attack was caused by hunger. (Taped Interviews and a

photo of the wolf on file at Abundant Wildlife Society of

North America.)

This is but one example from British Colombia. Wolves

overran Vancouver Island in the 1980s. Attacks became so

common that articles were published in Canadian magazines

documenting such attacks. (Copies available upon request.)

Wolf attacks on humans have occurred in national parks,

too. In August 1987, a sixteen-year-old girl was bitten by a

wild wolf in Algonquin Provincial Park in Ontario. The girl

was camping in the park with a youth group and shined a

flashlight at the wolf. The wolf reacted to the light by

biting the girl on the arm. That bite was not hard and due to

the thick sweater and sweatshirt the girl was wearing, she

sustained two scratch marks on her arm. The wolf was shot by

Natural Resources personnel and tested negative for rabies.

(Interview with Ron Tozer, Park Naturalist for Algonquin

Provincial Park, 7/25/88.)

Well-known wolf biologist Dr. David Mech took issue with

this attack stating it couldn't really be considered an

authentic attack since the girl wasn't injured more severely.

It was exactly nine years when such an attack would take

place.

Algonquin Provincial Park is one of several areas where

people are encouraged to ``howl'' at the wolves in hopes of a

response from the wild wolves in the area. In August, 1996,

the Delventhal family of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, were

spending a nine-day family vacation in Algonquin and joined a

group of Scouts in ``howling'' at the wolves. They were

answered by the howl of a solitary wolf.

That night the Delventhals decided to sleep out under the

stars. Young Zachariah was dreaming when he suddenly felt

excruciating pain in his face. A lone wolf had bit him in the

face and was dragging him from his sleeping bag. Zach

screamed and Tracy, Zach's Mother, raced to his side and

picked him up, saturating her thermal shirt with blood from

Zach's wounds.

The wolf stood menacingly less than a yard away. Tracy

yelled at her husband, Thom, who leapt from his sleeping bag

and charged the wolf. The wolf retreated and then charged at

Tracy and Zach. The charges were repeated. Finally the

wolfleft. Thom turned a flashlight on 11-year-old Zach and

gasped ``Oh, my God!'' ``The boy's face had been ripped open.

His nose was crushed. Parts of his mouth and right cheek were

torn and dangling. Blood gushed from puncture wounds below

his eyes, and the lower part of his right ear was missing.''

Zach was taken to a hospital in Toronto where a plastic

surgeon performed four hours of reconstructive surgery. Zach

received more than 80 stitches in his face.

Canadian officials baited the Delventhals' campsite and

captured and destroyed a 60-lb wild male wolf. No further

attacks have occurred since. (Cook, Kathy; ``Night of the

Wolf'' READER'S DIGEST, July 1997, pp. 114-119.)

Humans have been attacked by wolves in Alaska. The late

David Tobuk carried scars on his face from a wolf attack on

him as a small child. The incident occurred around the turn

of the century in interior Alaska. David was playing in his

village near a river. An old wolf came into the village and

bit David in the face and started to carry him off. Other

Eskimos saw the wolf dragging the child off and started

yelling and screaming. The wolf dropped the child and was

shot by an old Eskimo trapper who had a gun. (Interview with

Frank Tobuk, brother, Bettles, Alaska, December 1988.)

Paul Tritt, an Athabascan Indian, was attacked by a lone

wolf while working a trap line. Paul was setting a snare,

looked up and saw a wolf lunging at him. He threw his arm up

in front of his face and it was bitten severely by the wolf.

A struggle ensued. Tritt was able to get to his sled, grab a

gun and kill the wolf. Nathaniel Frank, a companion, helped

Tritt wash the wound with warm water. Frank took Tritt, via

dog sled, to Fort Yukon to see a doctor. The arm healed, but

Tritt never regained full use of it. Several years later, the

arm developed problems and had to be amputated. (Interview

with Paul Tritt, Venetie, Alaska, November, 1988)

Two wolf attacks on humans occurred in 2000.

Icy Bay, Alaska.--Six-year-old John Stenglein and a nine-

year-old friend were playing outside his family's trailer at

a logging camp when a wild wolf came out of the woods towards

the boys. The boys ran and the wolf attacked young Stenglein

from the back, biting him on the back and buttocks. Adults,

hearing the boy's screams, came and chased the wolf away. The

wolf returned a few moments later and was shot. According to

Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) officials, the

wolf was a healthy wild wolf that apparently attacked without

provocation. The boy was flown to Yakutat and recieved

stitches there for his wounds. Later, however, the bites

became infected and the boy had to be hospitalized. (Reports

and Interviews on file and available upon request.)

Vargas Island, British Colombia.--University student, Scott

Langevin, 23, was on a kayak trip with friends. They camped

out on a beach and, about 1 AM, Langevin awoke with something

pulling on his sleeping bag. He looked out and came face to

face with a wild wolf. Langevin yelled at the wolf and it

attacked, biting him on the hand. Langevin attempted to force

the wolf toward a nearby campfire, but as he turned, the wolf

jumped on his back and started biting him on the back of his

head. Friends, hearing his yells, came to his aid and scared

the wolf away. Fifty (50) stitches were required to close the

wound on Langevin's head. British Colombia Ministry of

Environment officials speculate the reason for the attack was

due to the wolves occasionally being fed by humans although

there was no evidence that Langevin or any of his party fed

these animals. (Reports and Interviews on file and available

upon request.)

This is but a brief summary of a few verifiable accounts of

attacks on humans by healthy wild wolves in North American

history.

Biologists tell us that the wolves of Asia and North

America are one and the same species. Wolf attacks are common

in many parts of Asia.

The government of India reported more than 100 deaths

attributable to wolves in one year during the eighties.

(Associated Press, 1985) This author recalls a news report in

1990 in which Iran reported deaths from attacks by wolves.

Rashid Jamsheed, a U.S. trained biologist, was the game

director for Iran. He wrote a book entitled ``Big Game

Animals of Iran (Persia).'' In it he made several references

to wolf attacks on humans. Jamsheed says that for a millennia

people have reported wolves attacking and killing humans. In

winter, when starving wolves grow bold, they have been known

to enter towns and kill people in daylight on the streets.

Apparently, in Iran, there are many cases of wolves running

off with small children. There is also a story of a mounted

and armed policeman (gendarme) being followed by 3 wolves. In

time he had to get off his horse to attend to nature's call,

leaving his rifle in the scabbard. A later reconstruction at

the scene of the gnawed bones and wolf tracks indicated that

the horse had bolted and left the man defenseless, whereupon

he was killed and eaten.

A Russian Linguist, Will Graves, provided our organization

with reports of wolves killing Russian people in many areas

of that country. Reports indicate some of the wolves were

diseased while others appeared healthy. (Reports on file and

available upon request.)

Reports have also come from rural China. The official

Zinhua News Agency reported that a peasant woman, Wu Jing,

snatched her two daughters from the jaws of a wolf and

wrestled with the animal until rescuers arrived. Wu slashed

at the wolf with a sickle and it dropped one daughter, but

grabbed her sister. It was then Wu wrestled with the animal

until herdsmen came and drove the beast away. This incident

occurred near Shenyang City, about 380 miles northeast of

Beijing. (Chronicle Features, 1992)

The question arises: ``Why so many attacks in Asia and so

few in North America?'' Two factors must be considered:

1. The Philosophy of Conservation--Our forefathers always

believed that they had the right and obligation to protect

their livelihoods. Considerable distance was necessary

between man and wolf for the wolf to survive.

2. Firearms--Inexpensive, efficient weapons gave man the

upper hand in the protection of his livelihood and for the

taking of wolves.

Milton P. Skinner in his book, ``The Yellowstone Nature

Book'' (published 1924) wrote, ``Most of the stories we hear

of the ferocity of these animals . . . come from Europe.

There, they are dangerous because they do not fear man, since

they are seldom hunted except by the lords of the manor. In

America, the wolves are the same kind, but they have found to

their bitter cost that practically every man and boy carries

a rifle . . .''

Skinner was correct. The areas of Asia where wolf attacks

occur on humans are the same areas where the people have no

firearms or other effective means of predator control.

But . . . ``Biologists claim there are no documented cases

of healthy wild wolves attacking humans.''

What they really mean is there are no ``documented'' cases

by their criteria which excludes historical accounts. Here's

an example.

Rabid wolves were a frightening experience in the early

years due to their size and the seriousness of being bit,

especially before a vaccine was developed. The bitten subject

usually died a slow, miserable death. There are numerous

accounts of rabid wolves and their activities. Early Army

forts have medical records of rabid wolves coming into the

posts and biting several people before being killed. Most of

the people bitten died slow, horrible deaths. Additionally,

early historical writings relate personal accounts. This

author recalls one historical account telling of a man being

tied to a tree and left to die because of his violent

behavior with rabies after being bitten by a wolf. Such

deaths left profound impressions on eyewitnesses of those

events.

Dr. David Mech, USFWS wolf biologist, states there are no

``documented'' cases of rabid wolves below the fifty seventh

latitude north (near Whitehorse, Yukon Territory). When asked

what ``documented'' meant, he stated, ``The head of the wolf

must be removed, sent to a lab for testing and found to be

rabid.''

Those requirements for documentation negate all historical

records!

As with rabid wolves, the biologist can say, ``There are no

`documented' cases of wild healthy wolves attacking humans.''

In order to be ``documented'' these unreasonable criteria

must be met:

1. The wolf has to be killed, examined and found to be

healthy.

2. It must be proven that the wolf was never kept in

captivity in its entire life.

3. There must be eyewitnesses to the attack.

4. The person must die from their wounds (bites are

generally not considered attacks according to the

biologists).

That is a ``documented'' attack.

Such criteria make it very difficult to document any

historical account of a wolf attack on a human!

Biologists assume when a wolf attacks a human, that there

must be something wrong with the wolf. It's either been in

captivity or it's sick or whatever. They don't examine the

evidence in an unbiased manner or use historical tests.

Historically, there are four reasons for wolf attacks on

humans:

1. Disease such as rabies.

2. Extreme hunger.

3. Familiarity/Disposition--This is an either/or situation.

Familiarity is the zoo setting, captive wolves, etc.

Disposition is a

particularly aggressive wolf which may not fear man as most

wolves do.

4. In the heat of the chase and kill--This is where a

hiker, trapper or whoever disturbs a fresh chase and kill by

wolves. The person walks into the scene only to be attacked

by the wolves.

It is our belief that a predator's fear of man is both

instinctive and learned behavior. For example, wolves raised

as pets or in zoos are well documented to attack and kill

humans.

Alyshia Berzyck, of Minnesota, was attacked and killed by a

wolf on a chain on June 3, 1989. The wolf tore up her kidney,

liver and bit a hole through her aorta. One month later, on

July 1, 1989, Peter Lemke, 5, lost 12 inches of his intestine

and colon and suffered bites to his stomach, neck, legs, arms

and back in another wolf attack in Kenyon, Minnesota.

(Reports on file and available upon request.)

Zoos carry abundant records of wolf attacks on people,

particularly children. The child climbs the enclosure fence

to pet the ``dog'' and is attacked.

Zoos and domestic settings are unnatural in that they place

man and wolf in close proximity and they become accustomed to

each other. Consequently attacks occur.

Today predator control is very restricted in scope, and as

a result, attacks on humans by predators are becoming more

common. In recent years, healthy coyotes in Yellowstone Park

have attacked humans. Similar attacks have occurred in the

National Parks of Canada.

On January 14, 1991, a healthy mountain lion attacked and

killed an eighteen-year-old high school senior, Scott

Lancaster, in Idaho Springs, Colorado. The boy was jogging on

a jogging path within the city limits of the town when the

lion attacked and killed him. (Report on file at Abundant

Wildlife Society of North America)

Madam Speaker, the following material are letters I have received from my constituents and other concerned citizens of southwestern New Mexico and southeastern Arizona regarding the reintroduction of the Mexican Wolf.

Since the reintroduction of the Mexican Wolf in 1998, the residents of my Congressional District have been plagued by problems associated with the release. Not only do ranchers suffer economic hardship due to wolves preying on their livestock, but countless family pets have been lost including dogs and horses. As the wolves become less afraid of man every year, I fear they will eventually prey upon humans.

To date, the program has yielded 58 wolves, 20 percent of which will be removed as problem animals, at a $14 million cost to the taxpayers. That is $242,000 spent per wolf.

These are some of our wolf experiences in the past 7.5

years. I don't think we have had a decent nights sleep since

this program began.

2003--Wolf notes Monday May 19 to Tuesday May 28.

Tuesday, May 20, 2003 12:42 p.m.

Subject: wolves are back

No sooner that I griped to the Game Commission's about the

release of our old friend from the Campbell Blue pack, F 592

into the wilderness again that she shows up here again. John

Oakleaf called last May 19 about 9 p.m. with the happy news

that they were with our cows and calves.

We were missing 2 calves since Friday and wolf tracks are

everywhere but everything was OK when I checked this morning

and this afternoon nothing but tracks. Life gets just a whole

lot more complicated with them around. How many times can you

say I told you so to the FWS, they can't stop believing that

releasing heavily pregnant wolves into the Wilderness will

keep them there, it doesn't and it hasn't and it never will.

Changing the name just buffalo's the public into thinking

there are new wolves out there. The new name for F 592 and

her new mate was the Sycamore pack. The only good news is she

should have had her puppies last week or maybe two weeks ago

and she probably killed them if she traveled this far.

Ivy, my 14 year old daughter rode her paint mare up to the

top of the hill by the house this morning like she always

does and met up with both wolves. She said they wouldn't

leave her alone and squared off with her at about 30 feet

away. She didn't want to turn her back on them so she shot

and reloaded and shot her single shot 22 off in the air a

couple times and they finally scuttled down the hill into

Turkey Run in front of her.

She was pretty excited and not a little scared when she

came in. I on the other hand am livid and a lot scared. My

kids shouldn't have to be held up by a pair of wolves on a

ride \1/4\ mile from the house.

Laura.

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 1:17 p.m.

Subject: wolf update Rafter Spear 5-20&21

We caught them on the cows and calves last evening May 20,

2003 around 7 p.m. and they had them bunched up trying to get

a calf out the calves were either crying or sucking, we were

just in time. We ran them off all of 50 feet and started

driving the cows down the canyon on foot.

I left Matt with the cows and the 30-30 and went up the

other canyon to check the other cows. On the way, I met Dan

the wolf guy and told him to hurry up, the wolves were

following Matt and he might just have to shoot one since they

are following him so close. I stopped at the house to get a

blanket for Miles since it was getting cold and he was asleep

in the jeep, thank goodness. I also told the girls to saddle

up and go help dad move those cows. Which they did.

Over the ridge I found a bagged up cow with wolf tracks

nearby and all the other cows were far enough up the other

canyon and still all right with no sign of wolf activity

around them. I went on to 74 and check the other cattle

thankfully the wolves hadn't been there yet.

By the time I got back to the turnoff to the house, where

Matt and the girls left the cows, Matt was way off ahead on

the road home and Dan was parked in the flat near the turnoff

to our house with our cows. I picked up Matt and he said to

go back and let him talk to Dan. He didn't apologize for

yelling at him earlier but let it be known he didn't totally

blame Dan for the situation. Dan said he was going to stay in

the cows all night and we told him to come to the house and

eat first. He said OK.

He called an hour later {satellite phone} and said the

wolves were in the calves again and he wasn't coming in to

eat. By then it was 10 p.m. so I made him supper and coffee

and we took it out to him. He said they were all over the

cows and calves and howling at him because they were

frustrated and he was firing rubber bullets at them. He only

had enough light to set one trap though. Since he was OK we

went home to sleep because after learning they were in the

cattle the night before we pretty much stayed awake all

night.

Woke up at 4 a.m. finally got up at 4:30 and Dan showed up

at 5:15 with some good news, he caught the male about 20

minutes before in the single trap he had managed to set the

evening before. Apparently Dan has been improving as a

trapper since our Dec. 99 experience with Campbell Blue pack

which included F 592.

Melissa, Ted Turners wolf biologist, was 3 hours away with

a cage so we called our neighbor Jack Diamond and he sent his

wife Kaye over with a kennel to put the trapped wolf in.

We went back out and the female was still there with the

male but not very close, it was breaking daylight by then.

Dan gave the wolf a light sedative type drug so he would

relax and not hurt himself in the trap. Matt went to check

the cows in 74 where I had gone that night and I waited with

Dan in case Kaye got there and Dan needed help loading the

wolf. She did and Matt and Dan loaded him into the kennel

right about the time Melissa showed up, so we sent that wolf

home to Sevilletta. I made Dan keep Melissa's kennel in case

592 was caught.

The female 592 ran off but I am sure she stayed somewhere

nearby, Dan looked around for her and then tried to sleep a

few hours during the day they aren't very active, thank

goodness. The wolves had run him from calf to calf and canyon

to canyon last night and he didn't get much rest I am just

grateful it wasn't me but I may get a turn tonight. These

livestock killers and problem wolves should not be turned out

at all. 592 is the major stock killer of the pair and they

were determined to get a calf. Dan didn't let them and they

actually howled at him about it. But they did manage to bite

at least two calves before he could hit them with rubber

bullets which seemed to have little effect.

We are missing two calves one since about last Friday and

one since Monday but haven't found any wolf poop yet to see

what is up with that. Probably won't be confirmed though. One

was about a week old and one was born Saturday to a cow that

has never lost a calf, Matt saw it Sunday evening and it was

fine then.

Mad as we are about all this at least we had competent help

and we are grateful for that. Why the hell they are re-

releasing stock killers is beyond me. It is plain dumb and

only makes the program look bad.

Laura.

Update: wolves at the rafter spear 5-21-5-23

The last few days the wolf story has slowed down a lot but

the aftermath is still ongoing. After trapping the male, the

female took off and is about 6 miles to the SW at last flight

on Thursday. There are traps everywhere in preparation for

her return. I understand they are trapping for her because of

the incident with Ivy not the calf killing. I don't care why

but glad to hear there is a limit to how badly they can

accost our kids. Nick Smith and Dan Stark also have a permit

to shoot her if they have to.

My problem is, this animal has a history here and has

absolutely no fear it has menaced my daughter and followed my

husband, who is not menaceable, or at least he thought he

wasn't until he was followed by wolves he was not allowed to

shoot. Together they killed and ate two calves before we knew

they were here and two bitten calves, they are swelled up and

crippled we have shaved measured and taken pictures.

One has more bites, on the flanks, side and head but they

are superficial, the calf is in quite a bit of distress from

bruising but hopefully will be fine. I imagine the times when

Dan heard the cows get up and shined the spotlight on them

and saw the wolf, he stopped the attacks. The next day there

was a calf with a swollen front knee in the same bunch, after

shaving we found wolf bites on the front and back legs. The

knee is hot and three times bigger than the other, the wound

on it is superficial but the trauma caused the swelling is

severe and this calf may be ruined. Both calves were in the

bunch Dan guarded Tuesday night. If he hadn't been there

would probably be 4 missing calves and four tight bagged

cows. I am glad he got to experience the mayhem one pair of

wolves can attempt to wreck in just 12 hours.

On a side note there is another injury from a calf caught

in a trap this morning, nobody is to blame for that, We are

grateful to have the traps out, but still, another injury.

There was a small bunch of 11 cows and calves that were

harassed by the pair, not including the two that lost the

calves.

It has been some week. I have a dramatic picture for every

day of the week. Yesterday the FS backburned from behind my

house and it was pretty scary kind of like a volcano going

off on your back door. The results

should be good though. We had good representation from our

government yesterday though. FWS, FS RITF and APHIS all on

the porch at once. If we can find a piece of the space

shuttle maybe NASA will come pay us a visit.

It is hard to know where to begin since our emotions have

run the gamut the past few days. Traps were set Tuesday after

the male was caught and the female left for several days, she

ended up on the Diamond Bar where Nick Smith tracked her for

several days. He found one bitten calf probably from the trip

over here a week prior. The calf was a month or two old so

that is probably why they were still shy about killing it and

staying there.

The weekend was pretty good though, I went to town, 74

miles away on Saturday and bought groceries so the guys could

be fed halfway decently while they worked and believe me they

worked. Matt took Miles, he is 5 and clipped cages below the

house and Dan checked his traps and made a 20 mile circle

hiking into diamond creek on foot trying to get a signal. He

was unsuccessful but Nick Smith found her signal later that

night west of the Links camp on the Diamond Bar. On Sunday,

Matt and Dan rode into Round Mountain and packed salt. That

afternoon everyone rested a bit between checking traps and

gardening, painting, watching Kristie and her boyfriend and

various other normal pursuits.

She was back here Monday morning. Dan woke up checked his

equipment, got a signal and took off. When I checked cows

that day I got a signal that seemed pretty strong right in

the cows up 74 draw and Dan's truck was nearby. She pretty

much stayed there all day with Dan tracking her along with

Nick Smith who came in to help him. Dan came in that evening

to make some phone calls and get something to eat. While he

was on the phone, Matt and I went out and looked after the

cows, one of us on either end of the bunch. She was there the

whole time but we didn't have a directional antenna and felt

our job was to look after the cows not the wolf.

Monday night and Tuesday, yesterday. Dan was up all night

with her, most of the cattle were west about a mile he felt

OK about leaving her alone until light, really there wasn't

much choice since she didn't seem to be doing anything but

hanging out in that area and it was pretty thick. Near

morning he could hear coyotes making a heck of a ruckus in

the draw she was up and thought that it was weird since he

has been taught all his life that such wolf/coyote

fraternizing behavior was abnormal.

He hadn't remembered or taken us seriously when we had told

him the coyotes saved her life in the winter of 1999/2000

when she was here last. She had nearly starved to death until

she started hanging around with the coyotes. Kristie who was

15 at the time had ridden up on her and the wolf followed her

part way back to the house. Kristie was really mad because

she could see the wolf was half dead from hunger and going

bald. It was so cold that winter she would cry on the

mountain behind the house and we would hear her at night. She

was there for 5 months until she moved to the neighbors on

Canyon Creek and killed her first calf. Later that summer she

moved to the Adobe which is north of us met with her old mate

and really went to killing cattle. Those coyotes saved her

life though and she was used to being around them.

Anyway, Dan hiked into the draw to see what was up as soon

as there was enough light and a cow with a full bag of milk

met him on his way in. The bad news is 592 was on a cow that

had calved a day or two before and she had killed the calf.

The coyotes had found her and were trying to steal the

carcass from her. He ran both the wolf and the coyotes, off

the calf, found two pieces and packed them to the truck and

brought them in to the house put them in the barn and called

Wildlife Services. As Dan has found out, sometimes there is

just nothing you can do about the killing even when you are

watching just as close as you can and not sleeping or eating

to do it. The wolf has every advantage even if you do have

the technology. We were very lucky he found any remains of

this calf.

The calf was killed by the wolf, Wildlife Services verified

it the hemorrhaging was way too bad to be coyote and the bite

marks measured out. At least the few that weren't eaten away.

The calf was in two pieces it was a new heifer and had walked

on it's feet quite a bit before it was killed. The cow was

one we were concerned about because she had taken off to have

the calf as they all do. Apparently she didn't hide well

enough to fool the wolf. But as Dan can attest to, she was

hidden from all human eyes pretty darned well.

I had to go to Winston and get gas, so I took Dan and Nick

some Orange juice that afternoon, Dan looked like crap and

they were still tracking her. Dan was waiting for Nick to

radio him and was trying to catch a catnap under the truck

when I pulled up, so much for that nap. Johnny Anglin with

Wildlife Services arrived the same time I did. We left them

to their business about 30 min later. On my way home I found

a brand new calf in the same bunch of cows that the wolf had

been living with the past couple days. I took pictures of it

in case the calf showed up on a milk carton in the next day

or two. The cow was eating her afterbirth in the pictures so

she was doing her best to keep baby safe instinct is an

amazing thing. It was a big old baby too.

The wolf was shot this evening, the poor little old thing

was laid out on the tailgate. She had big feet, a big head

and big teeth and an extremely full belly. She did have a

really ugly unhealthy looking coat in my opinion for

something that had only come out of captivity a few weeks

earlier. It had done nothing but follow her own survival

instinct as successfully as possible. This was a dumb mistake

and a bad situation that didn't have to happen.

We all spent a week living and breathing this tragedy that

resulted in three dead calves, 3 wolf injured calves a bunch

of stressed out people one trapped wolf and one pathetic shot

wolf. It cost us a full week away from earning any income

milling and we are way behind, broke and extremely tired. It

cost Dan his peace of mind and taught him the hard way what

we have to deal with. Thankfully he retained his integrity in

spite of the mess and stress going on all around him.

Thank goodness it is over for now. However I know the

Francisco Pack will be re-released soon and am sure the same

set of problems on a larger scale will be imminent as soon as

that release takes place. Rereleasing habitual stock killers

is poor management and is only asking for trouble.

Unfortunately so many of the employees agree with the

environmentalists that the wolves should be out on the ground

no matter how many of our cows they kill so they just keep

using problem and habituated wolves in the program. When the

wolf kills too many cattle they just re-write their policy to

allow them to leave it out longer and hurt us ranchers more.

Update: June 5, Sherry Laney found a calf with a big bite

in it's behind the bite is 1 and \1/2\ inches, wolf width. It

is healing but mildly infected. I guess she wasn't so shy

over there after all.

June 2004.

A single wolf has been moving around 74 draw all month.

Matt found a small calf with his hind end totally mauled. We

already had his mother here at the house, that cow never ever

loses a calf so Matt had been looking for the calf, the calf

found him actually ran to him bawling for help. We cut away

the dead and infected flesh and found bites in all the same

places as last years calves, WS came out but they didn't do a

thorough job examining it. I was gone so nobody insisted on a

thorough job like I would have. I did it myself later. This

is a wolf attack the bites measure out and the injuries are

in the same place and there were wolf tracks.

People don't realize wolves are not efficient killers and

they aren't at all humane about what they do. They simply get

something down and start eating and the prey dies of shock

and blood loss. It is very difficult for someone who raises

livestock to see their hard work tortured to death in this

manner, especially the pregnant cows and the baby calves.

This wolf was inexperienced and the calf got away. He nearly

died of the infection though and weighed about 150 pounds

less than the other calves. I guess when he finally went to

the market he was considered a wolf friendly beef.

Summer 2005 wolf tracks up and down 74 draw again. Watching

all the cattle all the time no time for school or anything

else. Kristie got married in July so we are glad the wolves

didn't show up until after the wedding anyway. No kills that

we know of except to a bear which we were allowed to take

care of so that ended that problem.

October 2006.

At least two separate wolves moving in and out of the area.

These wolves do not have tracking collars. FWS will not

investigate. WS showed up and documented tracks so we can do

something if there is a kill. Nothing so far that we were

able to find just a lot of lost time and a huge amount of

fuel again. Bought two Pyreneese pups in September, we can't

afford to feed them but we have to do something progressive.

We have also purchased water rights and are going to the

huge expense of putting an irrigation system into the old

fields on this place so we can bring cows into the deeded

land if necessary and wolves get into them again. We have to

be able to defend our cattle and the rules only allow us to

do so if they are on deeded land.

We have also built kennels at a 4000 dollar cost that we

also cannot afford but we can't allow wolves to come into the

deeded land and kill our valuable cow dogs. We can't operate

in this rough country without them.

December 26, 2006.

Pyraneese puppies who are 5 months old now gone. The other

one is hiding under the porch and there are wolf tracks

everywhere. We had them penned up in the yard but they found

a way out. The kids are devastated. We looked everywhere but

the puppy is gone. The wolf just carried him off. All that

dog food we have in him wasted all those kid hugs and effort

just eaten up like it was nothing.

We will have to replace him, his brother can't be alone

with these animals around. I guess we just have to get used

to living with death and destruction and still we are

supposed to be happy people and living under the requirements

of the law. It is sickening.

2007.

June 11 on our way home from town we saw three wolves, one

had a collar but two did not. They were in Brian Carters cows

on the side of the road just about two miles from the Poverty

creek subdivision. They were just laying in the tall grass

with the cattle waiting for it to get a little darker. Matt

and I ran them off the cows and called

our neighbors to tell them the wolves were in the cows. It

didn't help, the next day we went over with our monitor and

there was no signal for the collared animal so he is probably

has a non functioning collar. This is a whole other pack FWS

do not believe exist.

Found wolf poop two different piles of it. One had calf

teeth in it. FWS never even bothered to come out or do

anything at all and there is no telling where these animals

are now.

Our closest neighbor Jack Diamond has the horse killing

aspen pack on him in his roughest pasture they are having

pups there and are now feeding his yearlings to the pups. I

went over and gave moral support while they confirmed the

first kill that the Diamonds were able to find. They are out

there every day but like I said it is rough country and they

won't know how many they lost until it is time to ship the

yearlings.

Nearly 2 year old heifer eaten alive at water tank on

Diamond's place. All three wolves involved only the male has

a strike towards removal. The rule doesn't say only one wolf

gets the strike. FWS are cheating the people out here of

proper and fair management to leave killer wolves out on the

ground.

May/June 07.

I once again have two sets of wolf tracks and no signal in

our cow pasture. I am watching the cattle like a hawk.

The Boy Scout camp has moved in and that seemed to have

driven the animals out for now. Now I am just worried sick

about the kids so I warned, mentioned is a better word the

wolves to the scoutmasters. How do you tell them that wolves

that attacked a dog in front of an 8 year old girl are here

within a half days walk of your camp. I didn't tell them all

that, didn't want them to feel uncomfortable out here. I want

them out here while it is still possible, within a year or

two, nobody will be comfortable camping out here with kids.

So I told them to come and use my phone for anything they

needed and I am checking in on them every day or two. It is

nerve wracking but they are making quite a bit of noise so

things should be ok.

We are exhausted and financially strapped from all the re-

vamping of our operation and we are demoralized by all the

un-collared wolves we are seeing and finding tracks for.

Mostly it is so disheartening that nobody even cares about

our neighbors and ourselves. That we are all going broke

supporting this program and those kids running it are getting

huge salaries and don't end up losing anything, ever. Why us

why is it our responsibility to shoulder this program's

foolishness? Why are we being allowed to go bankrupt? Why

can't I finish my college education? Why can't my youngest

daughter go off to school too? She feels like she needs to be

here to help us keep our home and help us keep our family

ranch in business.

My son never got to be raised at the creek playing with

minnows and frogs like his sisters did before wolves. He

hasn't gotten to ride with his dad hardly at all either, he

just turned 9 and his whole life has been affected by wolves.

At least our girls were able to be raised out here the way we

intended. Our son is locked into a yard and has to be watched

constantly.

I have to attend every single meeting I can scrape together

gas money for, and we can't afford to any more. But if we

don't go, FWS and the groups that support this program and

who get paychecks to go to these meetings will come up with

another plan to harm us further.

I pray every night that this program will go away, before

it is too late for us before it is too late for the game and

the whole country is too dangerous to live in the way it used

to be.

Sincerely

Laura.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman, who has no wolves in his district.

I would thank the gentleman for yielding.

Recently, in Catron County, the local county commissioner started posting signs like this, ``Dangerous Wolf Area.'' It just is a continuation of the theme that we're trying to accomplish something in the Second District of New Mexico that you're not willing to accomplish in your own districts.

I will tell you that we heard testimony in the Resources Committee that described the most provocative sound to a wolf is a crying baby or a laughing baby. It's a matter of time until these wolves, which will stalk for weeks and weeks and weeks at a time around local homes, it's a matter of time until a wolf catches one of these children. Their blood will be on your hands, my friend, because we've had the testimony in committee.

I would say that this has nothing to do with endangered species but instead has to do with protecting the lives of the people and the livestock of the Second District.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to withdraw my words.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We again have the issue of depredation. There is no fund that pays ranchers when their livestock is killed. So we have the livestock, which in these days of ranching, ranching is a very hard business, and we have the livestock which is killed by these predators that continue to eliminate more and more livestock each year, with no payments being made from Fish and Wildlife Service.

I would simply point out, and I would thank the gentleman from Kansas for yielding, that this program is restricted to only two very rural parts of America. It is wrong; it is wrongheaded.

I would thank the gentleman from Washington for his suggestion to withdraw the amendment but would instead ask for a vote on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee for his work on this important bill; Senator Domenici, Senator Bingaman, Secretary Garcia, Governor Richardson, Congressman Udall, and Congresswoman Wilson for their lead in recognizing Jerry Murphy's life of service.

We have heard about his exploits. We have heard about the valor that he displayed under fire. Many of us too often believe that heroism can only be exhibited in those extreme circumstances. But I would say that it takes more courage to live a life of service that he chose to live after his heroic exploits where he was awarded the Nation's highest award for valor where he received the Silver Star, the Purple Heart, the Korean Service Medal, the Bronze Stars. This was a true hero. Yet, he wasn't faced with multi-million dollar book signing deals, no movie contracts; just a quiet life serving other veterans who are often overlooked.

The Korean War is often referred to in New Mexico by veterans of that conflict as ``the Forgotten War,'' because so many of the veterans of that time have simply been overlooked. Yet, Jerry Murphy chose to live a life where he remembered each and every one of them. So, it is entirely appropriate today that we would name a facility in New Mexico for the guy who worked at the facility, always remembering those forgotten veterans. That is the kind of life that takes real valor and real heroism to live day after day after day.

For his quiet life of service, we are simply saying, Thank you for a job well done, Mr. Murphy. God bless you and keep you.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support this amendment that will restore a portion of the fundmg which is critical to maintaining our commitment to safety and security of our nuclear stewardship responsibilities.

I deeply regret that the Majority has decided to cut these programs and irrevocably harm our nuclear weapon programs and fail to maintain our nuclear stockpile. Our responsibility is to protect the American people and ensure that our weapons programs operate in a responsible and secure manner.

These important programs are our national deterrent against rogue nations who would threaten us with weapons of mass destruction. In addition, these cuts will erode our non-proliferation efforts worldwide, as our allies would have to consider expanding their own nuclear arsenals to make up for our reductions.

The cuts proposed today will cut nearly 40 percent of the funding for our Nuclear weapons programs operated at Los Alamos National Laboratory. I would ask the sponsors of these cuts if they believe that the threats from rogue states and aggressive dictators have reduced by 40 percent? If not, why are we cutting our ability to defend ourselves by 40 percent? These cuts will damage our ability to retain good scientists, preserve the knowledge base of our laboratory, and our preparedness to respond to our future nuclear needs.

In addition, these cuts decimate the nation's Stockpile Stewardship Program. Since we have stopped testing nuclear weapons, our country relies on Los Alamos to ensure that our strategic weapon capabilities are safe, reliable and secure. Failure do so abdicates our responsibility to the protect the American people.

These programs are critical to the mission of Los Alamos and critical to America. We shouldn't just simply fold up our tent and allow these programs to be deeply cut or nearly eliminated and I urge all my colleagues to stand up and support this amendment and furthermore support restoring the full funding to these important programs.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we call our veterans from World War II America's greatest generation but our actions don't always hold water.

I rise today to offer an amendment to the Military Construction- Veterans Affairs appropriations bill which would ensure veterans are appropriately reimbursed for mileage travel to and from medical facilities in New Mexico or large rural States.

Many times people in my county, 305 miles away from Albuquerque one way, are directed to drive to Albuquerque. These people, many are like my father in their 80s, they cannot travel 5\1/2\ hours one way. It's unthinkable that we do that. It's unconscionable that we only pay them 11 cents a mile.

From Hobbs to Albuquerque, 305 miles one way, the reimbursement is $34. I would like to ask anyone in this chamber how they would expect to drive 305 miles for $34, but even worse, the Veterans' Administration takes a fee when they get there. Approximately $7.50 of the $34 is then sacrificed to the VA.

No allowance is made to sleep overnight. No allowance is made for hotel. No allowance is made for any circumstance except turning around and driving another 5\1/2\ hours to get back home. We are reimbursing all that driving at 11 cents a mile.

Meanwhile many of us in government jobs, all Federal officials are reimbursed at 48\1/2\ cents per mile because that's the going rate. That's the rate that we should be paying, and yet to America's Greatest Generation, we're paying 11 cents a mile.

Now, the director of the service, the Secretary, could change this by regulation, and all people on this House floor agree that it should be changed. Back in March of 2007, March of this year, we passed the Wounded Warrior Act, H.R. 1538, by a vote of 426-0, where we mandated that the Secretary actually do this.

But we also know in Washington that we play games with people, we play games with our veterans. So that bill now is trapped over in the Senate.

What my amendment simply does is say we would like for the Secretary not to pay anyone mileage from this bill, from H.R. 2642, until he remedies the situation with our veterans. Pay them what the mileage costs them to drive. We are mandating that they go that far to the facilities. That's unthinkable, but it's unconscionable that we are paying only 11 cents a mile.

So while we are claiming America's generation, America's World War II veterans, to be our Greatest Generation, let's begin to act with honor and reimburse them the way that we should. My amendment would ensure that.

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

Point of Order

Mr. Chairman, I would say to the chairman that I understand and accept that, but I would point out to the chairman that we have legislated this way through appropriations before, and we'll do it again.

I would simply make the point that the point of order today says we will not do what our seniors and what our veterans deserve for us to do one more time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time and graciously accept the gentleman's comments in his point of order and thank him for his work on this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to amend this bill in order to

make our borders more secure. I am one of the Members who lives on a border and on the southern border. In New Mexico we experience many of the problems of having a porous border. We find drugs, human trafficking, and other problems at the border because of our failure to secure the border, and many of our residents are affected daily.

With an overwhelming amount of funding and preexisting TSA full-time employees, I think it is proper for us to divert funding from TSA to border security. The TSA, and I have heard my constituents call it ``thousands standing around,'' seems to have plenty of people to do its work, and yet we do not have enough people to put on the border. We are simply requesting a move of less than 3 percent of the funds. Less than 3 percent of an agency, and every single American who travels on airlines understands the number of people they see standing around when they walk through the checkpoints.

We are asking that less than 3 percent of that money be sent over to where we can use it along the borders. Our calculation is that we can hire over 4,000 new people to help us secure the southern border of the United States.

CBO recognizes the value of this and scores this as a $43 million savings. We would like to draw that to the attention of the body.

Every year, between 500,000 and 1 million illegal immigrants come into the United States. We need more people to help on the southern border. Many problems are coming into this country and many problems are affecting each State, but especially the States that lie on the border.

Mr. Chairman, I respectfully ask Members to support this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman from North Carolina yield?

Mr. Chairman, we spent a lot of money on the puffer machines that are at the airports. We have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on those, and I would ask the gentleman about the quality of product that we are getting from those puffer machines.

Where you walk in and they puff.

I yield myself the balance of my time.

I appreciate the chairman and the ranking member bringing their observation. I would point out that $125 million is what we are requesting to be taken from TSA. TSA has a budget of over $4 billion, and $125 million represents less than 3 percent.

I would also point out that over 450 miles exist of border, and we have 13,000 Border Patrol agents, and yet we have 43,000 employees in TSA to do screening. I am telling the American people that we have underfunded consistently for the last decades, the last 30, 40, 50 years, the efforts that are needed on the southern border, and today is not the day to find 3 percent to be an onerous fee.

I sat on the Transportation Committee and watched some of the elements two terms ago. Last year I was on Homeland Security. I saw the waste, fraud and abuse, and I will tell the American people that tonight we must make the stand that our border must be secured.

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

Would the gentleman yield?

My simple point was that the same agency that approved the puffer machines is going to approve the explosion devices; and my feeling is that the agency has been ill-managed since the beginning.

We have a desperate need on the southern border today, right now. The TSA, in finding equipment and funding equipment, both now and in the past, has been shown to be very, very ineffective. I would just say, we have an emergency crisis on the southern border and all along the northern borders. We have 13,000 Border Patrol agents to work that entire range of 5,400 miles and we have 43,000 TSA officers and inspectors.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Before the gentlewoman from Michigan leaves, I wonder if she would yield to a question.

I was wondering, the gentlewoman mentioned, and I appreciate what she is saying about leadership getting together, she mentioned a $50 million cut to first responders. Can you tell me how much is unspent from previous appropriations?

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would just comment that there is $5 billion in the first responder grant program which has not been accepted by States, and each year about September they have to give back a portion of that. And the underlying bill appropriates $4 billion more, and that is the reason that the President cut $50 million out.

He said there is so much money unspent, let's begin to lower the level we are pouring into it, and it seems to me a reasonable suggestion.

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Michigan.

Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price). He mentioned last night that the underlying amendment is Mr. McHenry wanting to take money out of the appropriation for the lawyers, and he pointed out we have 77 staffers in order to watch for circumstances like the Dubai Ports.

I would comment that the gentleman's party has been in the majority now since January, and 80 percent of our ports are still controlled by foreign countries. Have you put a bill in? If that is true, and it is, 80 percent controlled by foreign countries, that is the exact circumstance you mentioned we would not want to cut this budget for. I am asking if the gentleman knows of any plans on his side to simply eliminate those contracts, to take the contracts away from the foreign countries. It seems like if the gentleman is concerned, 80 percent of our ports are controlled, that there would be something in the works to do that.

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

I am asking. The gentleman seemed concerned, and I am asking him if he has any intent to do that.

If I may reclaim my time.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate his answer, and I did hear him say that those are valid contracts, but I would point out and I'm reading now from a January 17 bill where the majority in their H.R. 6 bill, the Washington Post editorial says, ``The House would break this deadlock by imposing heavy penalties on firms that do not renegotiate on terms imposed by the government.''

And it says, ``The main problem with the House bill is that hitting up oil companies is a poor substitute for a real energy policy. The Nation needs to accelerate the development of less-carbon-intensive fuels,'' and it declares in this that the heavy-handed attack of H.R. 6 is something that would be welcome in Russia and Bolivia and other countries but not in the U.S.

And so my point is that the gentleman's party has already decided that contracts are not especially valid, but I would simply say that if contracts are valid contracts, then they should be valid throughout the spectrum of vision that the gentleman has.

Offered By: Mr. Pearce

Amendment No. 128: Page 6, line 5, after the first dollar

amount, insert ``(increased by $125,000,000)''.

Page 22, line 9, after the dollar amount, insert ``(reduced

by $125,000,000)''.

Page 22, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $125,000,000)''.

Page 22, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert

``(reduced by $125,000,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Pearce

Amendment No. 129: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following:

Sec. 544. None of the funds made available in this Act may

be used to used to fill FTE positions within the

Transportation Security Agency until the number of Customs

and Border Patrol agents has reached the congressionally

authorized level.''.

Offered By: Mr. Pearce

Amendment No. 130: At the end of the bill (before the short

title), insert the following new section:

Sec. 544. None of the funds made available in this Act may

be used, either directly or indirectly, for projects or

activities occurring on land obtained after June 23, 2005,

through eminent domain by a State, unit of local government,

or the Federal government, unless the owner of the land was

paid an amount as just compensation that was triple the value

of the land as appraised by an independent licensed appraiser

or real estate agent at either the time that the land was

condemned or the time that the land was obtained, whichever

is higher.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight to talk a little bit about what we as Members of the House owe the American public, what the people who elect this House deserve and expect.

The first thing they deserve and expect is honest conversation. They deserve fiscal responsibility. They deserve openness and transparency. They deserve fairness from us.

Now, the bill in front of us, the appropriation bill in front of us tonight, spends about $4.3 billion more than the same type of bill last year. That is almost a 14 percent increase. If you look at where the increase is, about $4 billion is in first responder grants. Now, that would seem on the surface of it to be adequate and fair. That is something that the American people might like. The first responders do expect and deserve good treatment.

But when we understand from the past appropriation processes that there is almost $5 billion left in this fund for first responders to draw from that they have not yet taken out from past appropriations and we go ahead and add $4 billion on top of it now, it causes the American public to say, Why? What is it that we are getting?

The American public will stand for things that seem right and seem justified, but in order to get the $4 billion to put into this fund, our friends on the other side of the aisle are increasing taxes, the second largest tax increase in American history.

Now, how is that important?

I will tell you that the Governor of New Mexico said it best: Lowering taxes creates jobs. The corollary of that is also true; raising taxes depresses jobs. Raising taxes stagnates the economy. It does away with the vitality that any country is looking for.

So, when Ireland wanted to improve its economic state, it began to lower taxes. When it lowered taxes on internal corporations, they had a surge of growth. But when they lowered taxes on external corporations, companies began to move to Ireland and create a grand, booming economy and new jobs in Ireland, and for the first time in the Irish history they have moved their economy tremendously forward because they cut taxes.

Now, what we are doing in order to create the $4 billion in just this one appropriations bill is to raise taxes. We are going to stagnate the American economy. We have created an about 7.7 million jobs in the past 2 or 3 years. It has been an excellent economy, one that started off in a recession, the recession that started at the end of the Clinton years, and that recession then moved forward. And 9/11 shocked us into the recession again; the Global Crossing scandal, the Enron scandal, the WorldCom scandal that shocked us into recession even further. But the Bush administration and this Congress passed two successive tax cuts which began to revitalize the economy, and that revitalization is now at risk because of the way that the Democrats in this Congress are willing to put $4 billion into this one fund that has a surplus of over $5 billion in it.

Now, the lady from North Carolina is taking a small attack on this whole increase. She's saying, quite simply, let's just don't pay the attorneys $1.2 million that they received. A $1.2 million increase is not needed for attorneys. The people in this country need good-paying jobs, they need a good economy, they need a sound economy and a good government, and that good government is being denied in the guise of providing another $4 billion into a fund that still has a surplus of over $5 billion to it.

So, tonight I would recommend that we all look carefully at the lady from North Carolina's amendment, and that we support it as the first increment of many in reducing the cost of this particular bill.

The deficit spending for the government doesn't occur one large lump at a time, it occurs one small piece at a time. And the lady from North Carolina has adequately stated, let's just not do it. Let's level fund. Let's fund at the same amount that we gave last year.

That is a reasonable thing for the American people to want to see. The American people deserve and expect this fiscal responsibility, for us to spend the money as if it were our own because they are trusting us with it. They put us in a position of stewardship over that money, and yet here we are throwing the money into a fund that is not being spent adequately yet. And in order to get more money to put in there, we are raising taxes.

Mr. Speaker, we must utilize every resource available while fighting the Global War on Terror. Currently, we are fighting two major combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan which are critical to implementing democracy and peace throughout the Middle East. In both these areas we have a common enemy that continues to increase its forces. Recent reports have shown that Iran is supplying arms to both the terrorists in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Every night on the news we see the price we pay in a two front war against a sinister and studious enemy. It is difficult enough to fight an insurgency inspired by hatred, let alone an enemy supported by a sovereign nation such as Iran.

Reports of Iranian weapons and funds surfacing both in Iraq and Afghanistan are indicators that Iran is willing to use other countries to attack American interests without having to sacrifice their own sons and daughters. We are fighting a cowardly enemy which uses others to do its dirty work for them. This is state sponsored terrorism and we must take steps to cut off the resources they use to fund our enemies.

In addition, under the guise of energy development, Iran continues a program that puts them closer and closer to developing weapons grade plutonium. I have severe reservations allowing this program continue until Iranian President Ahmadinejad can unequivocally prove that he does not have intentions of someday creating and using a nuclear warhead against the United States, Israel, Europe or other Allies.

This legislation is crucial in the Global War on Terror because it is a tangible indicator to Iran, and all other nations which harbor or sponsor terrorist tactics in any form, that we will not allow the violence to escalate any further. By preventing the sale of F-14s in whole or part to Iran we will be cutting off the supply of arms that may someday be used to kill American soldiers.

I congratulate my colleague and Congressional neighbor from Arizona for her hard work and dedication to this issue. It is important for our safety as a country, as well as the world's freedom from terrorism, that we cut off the supply of F-14 parts to Iran. I call to my friends on both sides of the aisle for overwhelming bipartisan support of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

In its present form.

Mr. Speaker, we are moving to recommit this bill in order to provide an amendment that would prohibit the Secretary of Interior from using eminent domain to acquire land, water, or interest in land or water under section 3 of the bill.

Now, most of you, like me, received probably the hardest phone calls from both Democrats and Republicans alike when our Supreme Court made the Kelo decision which said that local entities could, in fact, use eminent domain to acquire property from private individuals.

This motion to recommit is extremely simple. We do not want the Park Service to use eminent domain to take over property.

I sat as the chairman of the National Park Subcommittee in the Resources Committee for all of the last year and part of the year before that, and I will tell you that the most disturbing things that happened in committee were that we heard testimony from people around the Appalachian Trail where the willing seller that is referenced in the bill, the underlying bill today, the willing seller legislation was in fact used to threaten, to intimidate, to cause people to become ``willing sellers'' against their will.

Right now, I am working on the Continental Divide Trail, which goes north to south from the Mexico border to the Canadian border. Since 1978, it did not have one mile that had actually come from private landowners in New Mexico.

I believe in the park system and I believe in the trail system of the United States Government, but I do not believe that the government should or could be able to intimidate, to harass, to cause people to become willing sellers. And that is my fear in this legislation, that it does not go far enough and is not explicit enough.

I have expressly worked to get all of the landowners through the Second District of New Mexico, including 22 miles on the Acoma Indian Reservation, where they did not want any Federal presence, no people coming across their land, and now they are excited about the prospect.

So I support the concept of preservation, and I support the concept of our national parks, but I will fight to the last breath to protect the private property rights of the people in this country, because it is a constitutional right. The right to private property is the basis of our economic and, therefore, all other freedoms.

So, Mr. Speaker, we simply say that in this bill ``the willing seller'' is not hard enough; that we want assurance that eminent domain will not be used to acquire land, water, or interests in land or water under section 3 of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

I would just remind the Members of the Chamber that we are a part of the Republican Study Committee, that's the RSC here. We have the Web site, www.house.gov/hensarling/rsc. So take a look at the things that we are talking about, the things that we all believe in. It's the conservative arm of the Republican Party.

I think the first thing that we would want to talk about is basically what is happening in Iraq. If the gentleman doesn't mind, I would like to use one of the charts here. If we take a look at the charts, these are reconstruction projects, but also they mirror very closely the conflict, the different fights that are going on.

If you look at this whole part of the country, this entire section is actually pretty secure. This al-Anbar province out in the west has been the subject of a lot of discussion. Baghdad, of course, is very near the center part. You can see where we are spending more money on reconstruction there and up north. We can see, also, that if we have the reports of firefights, the reports of IEDs, we would see the same sort of clustering there.

People ask, well, why did the British leave? The British were serving in the southern section here. The British actually had secured their area that had been turned over to the Iraqis.

I think all of our troop commanders are telling us that when we have Iraq secure, that when the Iraqi forces are in charge of their own security, both police and then the army, then we are going to see troops start coming home. That's exactly what happened.

Now, the risk that we run, I would cover that just briefly, Iran touches on the eastern side of the country. If we pull out, Iran will take over these massive oil fields in the southern part of Iraq. That's going to destabilize even more the price of gasoline. Our colleagues were just talking about it. Really, the price of gasoline is quite simple. I majored in economics in college, and I did so because economics is very easy. It's just got two moving parts: supply and demand.

If you will consider the demand for our product, the demand for gasoline, we have 300 million people today. That is significantly more than what we had in the 1950s when the price of gas was low. So our demand is increasingly higher, but also our supply is becoming more restricted.

Then we look at the worldwide picture, and you understand that the Chinese, if you overlay the price of oil, the price of natural gas, the price of gasoline with the demand in China for the last 20 years, you would see that the demand of the Chinese is almost exactly mirroring, is exactly causing our high price of gasoline right now.

There is a compelling fact today; we heard the same statistics that just a couple years ago the price of gasoline was actually $2.47, today it is about $3.29. And, again, the law of supply and demand, the Middle East, that OPEC group is actually cutting their exports. They are trimming back their exports. They are cutting the supply. It is driving the price up. It is actually quite simple. Our friends on the other side of the aisle in charge of governing the Nation really should stop and consider these two moving parts, supply and demand. They have got two hands, maybe they could write one on one hand and write one on the other hand and try to keep them organized, because they make this far more complex than what it actually is.

So what we are doing in Iraq is trying to stabilize the Middle East, because I would guarantee everyone in the Chamber that if Iraq fails, if we leave Iraq, Iraq falls. We were just in Israel about 2 months ago, and the Israelis said that you are going to lose Saudi Arabia. That is, the terrorists are going to go in and topple that regime, they are going to go in and take over that government. Now, Saudi Arabia has about 60 percent of the world's known reserves; that is the reserves of normal petroleum. So that would destabilize between losing the production in Iraq, losing the production in Saudi Arabia. And, don't forget Kuwait, because the general assumption is that Kuwait and Jordan would fall. Then you see a picture where the worldwide oil market would destabilize.

At that point I think that we would really have to worry about the security of the entire world economy. And if you worry about the security of the world economy, you also have to worry about social stability, because the terrorists know they are not going to beat us militarily. That has never been their attempt. Their attempt is to destabilize us economically. That was the reason they hit the World Trade Center in 1993. They came back and hit it in 2001. And they knew that if they could strike at that vibrant nerve center of the U.S. economy, they would destabilize us economically. If they destabilize us economically, they destabilize us politically.

So right now we are finding that actually our surge of troops, those troops are mostly in the Baghdad area, because how goes Baghdad, that is how goes Iraq. The governing structure is in Baghdad. If we secure Baghdad, then we secure Iraq. If we do not secure Baghdad, we do not secure Iraq.

We put about 110,000, 120,000 troops into Baghdad. We are also joining those up with about 100,000 Iraqi troops that are there already. Both of those numbers are increasing, and I will tell you that we are hearing already that the violence in Baghdad itself is beginning to diminish significantly. Again, we can take some of the instability that is moving out to the outlying provinces if we first secure the capital, if we can have those essential government functions that cause the people to believe that their society is intact, and that even though there are difficulties that they can get their garbage service, they can get their water service or whatever. Those are the underlying factors that we are seeing playing right now in the troop surge.

I think that everyone believes by September or October, we are going to know the outcome of the surge. It doesn't mean we will know the outcome of the battle, it doesn't mean we will know the outcome of the war. But I think that it is essential that we fund our troops, that we quit playing games.

We have consistently asked our leaders, the majority leaders, if you do not like the war, that is a credible position. Just come to the floor, have the vote about withdrawing the troops. Do not play games with the funding. Do not play games with our troops in harm's way.

But they refuse to have that vote. Instead, what they do is they put the money here and they put conditions.

Now, I know that college football coaches and pro football coaches get fired every day. It is because they become too predictable. Their offense is too well known. When an offense is well known, the defense knows exactly where to play. Now, our friends on the other side of the aisle want us to give our playbook; they want us to put into legislation the benchmarks that will determine if we go or leave, if we come home from Iraq or if we stay in Iraq. And we will tell you, that simply tells our opponents where to go to defeat us. If the benchmarks are in writing, then that is going to give our playbook to the opposition.

We as the American Congress, we as the United States Congress, owe it to the men and women in uniform, who are in harm's way, to support our troops or to please bring them home.

I was in Vietnam at a period of time when the Nation began to turn its back on its troops. I was in Vietnam at a time when they began to play games with the funding. I was in Vietnam during the time that Jane Fonda went to the North and gave aid and comfort to the enemy. I will tell you that I have personal experience that this is not the way that we want to treat our young men and women who are in harm's way.

So we owe it to our troops to have the vote on the supplemental budget that we are discussing tonight, because the future of our country depends on it. But more than that, the lives of our young men and women rest today, today, on what we do.

So I yield back to the gentleman from Texas. I have other comments, but I see we have a lot of people here tonight. I thank him for the opportunity to speak and thank him for taking his leadership and giving leadership to this great subject, because it is the right thing for us to do. It is the right thing for America to do. It is the right and honorable thing for this Congress to do, to give the funding to our troops or bring them home. Those are the two choices we have in Congress. And I thank the gentleman.

I would. And I thank the gentleman. As he's talking about this new willingness of Iraqis to report suspicious behavior, I would remind my colleagues that it was our bill, my bill that was introduced, that simply said that you cannot be sued in American courts for reporting suspicious behavior, that you cannot be terrorized in our own courts of law for reporting the same sort of behavior that you're talking about being reported in Iraq creating stable responses, stability in the country.

And yet, we had 121 of our Democrat colleagues vote against that legislation. They voted with the terrorists to say, you can sue Americans in court for reporting suspicious behavior. I think that shows the difference between the Republicans in this Congress. All Republicans voted with the American citizens to limit those capabilities. But the difference between the Republicans and Democrats is that the Democrats are still soft on security. They're soft on terrorism, and they're soft on funding the troops who are fighting the battle.

And I just wanted to, your comments about the Iraqis now turning in evidence, bringing those actions to our attention, caused me to remember that bill on the floor of the House where we actually had a vote here, and the Democrats voted, 121 of them, to let terrorists sue us in our own courts.

I'd yield back to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding.

It's an interesting discussion that we have here about taxation policy. As you know, this budget is going to increase the taxes to the American consumer more than any single time in our history.

But why should that matter? Why is that important? I will tell you that the Governor of New Mexico, Governor Bill Richardson, a staunch Democrat said it best, when he is passing tax increases for New Mexico, tax cuts create jobs. He said Democrats should get over it. They should understand the economic principle. If tax cuts create jobs, then the reverse is true, that tax increases are going to outsource jobs.

So what we have here is one of the largest outsourcing of jobs in American history.

Now, if you would like an example of it, you could take a look at Irish miracle. We are all familiar with an Irish economy that was slugging along, so what they did is they cut taxes to their internal companies. If you are internal, you paid like an 8 percent or maybe a 10 percent tax. If you were an external company, maybe someone outside of Ireland, they still paid a 36 percent tax. Their economy began to boom.

At that point the European Union said, you know, you Irish people have got it wrong. You must change the tax structure. We are not going to listen to this. We are not going to allow for it.

The Irish, being the Irish, looked at it and said, yes, you are right. Our tax structure is wrong. So they lowered the taxes to all the external companies. They did increase to 12 percent their internal companies, lowered everyone to 12 percent, and that boom continued tremendously.

New Mexico had a boom after we began to cut taxes. The United States government, people would ask me, why did we cut taxes in a period of deficit spending? We cut taxes to grow the economy. It has worked, and over the last 3 or 4 years we have created over 7 million jobs in this economy, which has been spurred on by tax cuts.

So what our friends on the other side of the aisle are doing is it does not matter about the health of the economy. It does not matter about the jobs that we are going to outsource. We are going to tax people more in this country.

That's the fundamental difference between Republicans, Democrats, and I would bring that to the attention of our audience today and ask you to oppose the Democrat budget that increases taxes more than any other budget in American history.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I thank both gentlemen from Georgia for their work, either plus or against this amendment.

I offer to support the amendment tonight, have helped cosponsor it. I appreciate the work that the gentleman from Georgia has done.

Mr. Chairman, our amendment simply requires secure forms of identification. It can be any form. It can be a foreign passport, a U.S. passport. It can be a Citizenship and Immigration Services photo ID card, a Social Security card with some State or Federal ID.

These secure forms of identification are relatively easy for legal residents and citizens to accomplish and to acquire. They are relatively difficult for illegals to acquire. So I think that the gentleman's amendment is very appropriate.

We are finding that more and more services that should go to legal American citizens are being soaked up by those who come here illegally. In the Second District of New Mexico, we are on the southern border of the United States bordering Mexico, and I will tell you that our hospitals are overwhelmed. Good tax-paying citizens come to me and ask why is it that one's daughter whose husband and she make $30,000 or $40,000 a year just paid $5,000 to have a baby and the girl in the bed next to her got it for free?

We are finding that this is the case over and over. And so requiring this fund to establish some sort of legality, some sort of legal residency or citizenship is not an onerous burden, and in fact it is one that most Americans would expect that we would accomplish.

I will tell you that the underlying bill, in establishing one of the trust funds, is a very problematic situation. We heard the left declare when they came into power in this Congress that they would spend the profits of companies like Exxon, and now we are seeing them actually reach down and pluck those profits away, put them into a fund, and with no discretion, no declaration of how those funds are to be spent. I don't think that is what Americans want.

And just so we understand the real process, this same technique of establishing funds that simply appear in the authorization bills is also accomplished in H.R. 6 and the Hardrock Mining bill. Those attempts to reach out and take money from corporations to spend it because the left declared that to be their intent when they came to power in this House of Representatives.

So my friends, I would suggest that making a requirement for U.S. citizenship is not too much.

I would say also we have received a lecture tonight about hypocrisy, we on the Republican side. I would comment that just earlier today we have heard promises from the other side that they were not going to have secret votes to increase the debt limit, and yet even today almost $1 trillion in debt limit was increased without a vote, without the transparency that we were promised. We were promised under the new majority earmark reform, and within the last couple of weeks we have seen a little $23 million earmark slid into the bottom of a bill with no ability to even comment about it.

We were told that we are going to protect the American soldiers, and yet we see funding mechanisms that take money from the operational troops and placed only for training.

So my friends, when we are told to trust us, that we will create this fund and we will write the specifications later, I say in New Mexico we have a saying ``trust your neighbor but brand your cows.''

This bill with the Affordable Housing Fund is no cow. It is mostly bull. But we had still better brand it and watch for what we are doing.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would point out that the REAL ID Act is not the only source of documents, that people who are here illegally should have some sort of

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We are not trying to engage the REAL ID Act at all, what we are trying to engage is a situation that exists right here in Arlington County, Virginia, the immigration status of applicants for local housing subsidies is not checked. Illegal immigrants are allowed to receive taxpayer-funded rent assistance. That is the thing that we are trying to address.

Also, the chairman says that somehow these firms are not the same as other firms that get profits. The truth is that they were commissioned as government-sponsored enterprises, but then the government sponsorship was pulled away. They are simply for-profit businesses. The government does not anymore, and if the gentleman from Texas will yield, are you saying that the government still backs up, with full faith and credit of the United States Government, to the transactions of these----

I would point out that one similarity, that we are willing to treat them similar with for-profit businesses is reach down and extract profits away from them in the way that we're going to do under the Hard Rock Mining Act, and the way we are going to do under H.R. 6. And then these three assistances, and I suspect more instances than this, we are actually fulfilling a promise of the left to take the profits of large companies and spend it. And that to me is an abomination in this free enterprise society.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).