Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this supplemental appropriation.

This is one of the most important votes we will cast this year. For the future of peace in the Middle East and the promise of a better future for the children of Iraq--this vote should be one vote you will remember for the rest of your life.

Without question, we will have concerns about the amount of money the reconstruction of Iraq will cost the American public. Eighty-six billion dollars . . . it's a lot of money.

Like you, I have received many letters from my constituents asking ``why?'' I have been

peppered during town hall meetings. ``Why is it that Americans are always the ones who have to pay?''

Why? Because we are Americans.

Because, when ruthless dictators take innocent lives, when people-- like Saddam Hussein--terrorize their own people, when evil people conduct unspeakably evil acts against their own--we must ask ourselves, ``Who else will act?''

``Who else will?''

Time and again, America has given its blood, its strength and its money to promote and protect freedom overseas.

As the world's standard bearer for democracy and freedom we have inherited this duty. We are America--This is what we do.

Some will say that we cannot afford to support Iraq. I say we can't afford not to.

We are committed--like it or not--to the rebuilding efforts in Iraq. It is incumbent upon us to lay the foundation of a free economy for a country now free from oppression.

The Iraqi people are looking to us to uphold our responsibility for security and reconstruction. We must follow through on our commitments to the Iraqi people and the local population must understand that we have their true interests at heart.

We should never again come to the floor of this House and make speeches about mass graves, malnutrition, environmental devastation and WMD. Neither should we again detail to our constituents the horrors of state-sponsored rape, murder and torture in Iraq.

Can it happen again? You bet.

Saddam's minions want us to leave, they want Americans dead--because they will use the same forces of terror they are using today, to kill innocent Iraqis and American soldiers, as a path to power tomorrow.

If we abandon Iraq, we are back to square one. We dishonor the men and women who have given their lives for us and the Iraqi people during this necessary mission. Our Nation's fight for freedom in Iraq.

Our job will have been left undone and for what?

This Congress should be committed to assisting Iraq in becoming an independent, self-governing and economically viable nation. We must finish the work and honor the sacrifice of so many dedicated soldiers.

To abandon our efforts would be inhumane to the people of Iraq and dangerous to our national security.

The world has changed. Many of us--especially those of us on the Appropriations Committee--sensed a new insecurity after the 1998 embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya and the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen.

The United Stated did not act appropriately then.

The events in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania forced us into this new role because we must protect ourselves and the free world.

Why? Once again. Because who else will?

So here we are today, setting the course for a free Iraq.

We have all been sent to Washington by our constituents to make difficult and honest choices. You will make a choice today.

This package reflects a vision and a hope that America can be a catalyst for freedom and peace in the Middle East--freedom that generations of Iraqis have not yet experienced and the kind of freedom we take for granted every day.

Be a catalyst for freedom and security. Vote in favor of this appropriations bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference agreement and urge my colleagues to do the same. I want to commend the gentleman from Kentucky (Chairman Rogers) who has done such an outstanding job in putting together this first ever Homeland Security appropriations bill, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), and all the subcommittee staff for the tremendous work on this bill.

The process of structuring a new appropriations bill to address the operational needs of the 22 agencies and departments under the new Homeland Security Department has not been easy this year. It will not be easy next year either because we have to make changes to accommodate the lessons that we are going to learn.

Having watched and participated in this process, I have come to the conclusion that our approach to funding Homeland Security has been measured and judicious. We have not thrown good money after bad, but have made difficult choices in funding the different functions of this new department.

All along, I felt that the worst mistake we could make in funding this new department would be to get into a bidding war in the Congress over what faction could spend the most money on individual activities and facilities before we have a full picture of needs and capabilities.

There are some in this House who want to put more money in that bureau or that agency. Some of those Members are well-intentioned, while others simply want to create a political issue by forcing Members to make a choice between spending more money on one hand or appearing to be less than responsible on homeland security issues on the other. This political game is played by throwing arbitrary numbers into the public arena and then questioning the commitment to homeland security on the part of some in this body.

The time for games is over. It is time to get serious. At the end of the day, there is much room remaining for an honest debate, but not one of our constituents is served well by gaming the debate.

As we go forward in this new area of homeland security, we will make progress in sorting out priorities. In the process, we will have the benefit of the ideas and knowledge of the State and local officials from our districts around the country. That collective wisdom will serve us well.

Knowing that we have the opportunity to improve this bill over time is a good reason to be measured in the way we appropriate these funds, and again, I want to commend the chairman and ranking member and urge the Members to support this conference report.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill, and urge my colleagues to support it. Given our allocation, the Majority and Minority have worked well together to fashion a workable measure. I also want to compliment the Chairman on a job well-done.

I am particularly interested in this bill because of the funding it provides to the Corps of Engineers for activities on our navigable waterways. In our agriculture communities, the transportation provided by these waterways is extremely important to cost-efficient and timely grain shipments. That said, it is important for my constituents-- farmers and consumers alike--to have well-operated and well-maintained waterway systems on the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers.

As part of our efforts to keep our waterways in good working order, we have funded the Upper Mississippi River Navigation Study. This study is a comprehensive review of the needs of the Mississippi transportation system and will provide us reliable data about the efficiencies of this critical waterway.

We have also funded the Mississippi River Comprehensive Plan, an initiative aimed at improving flood protection, mitigating flood damage, and enhancing habitat management and erosion control.

Other Corps funding with respect to navigation that is important to Iowa's farmers and grain shippers pertains to the operation and maintenance of the dams and locks along the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers. These activities are important because without proper operation of these locks and dams, much of our food production system suffers economically because of costly delays in the movement of grains and other agricultural products.

Overall, though the Corps funding is less than I would like to see it, I do believe that we have done a good job in dividing up the monies so the Corps can do the things that it does best. For this reason and others important to my State, I am going to support passage and I urge my colleagues to do likewise.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

First of all, I would just like to commend the chairman and the ranking member for just an unbelievable job and to thank the terrific staff that we have in this subcommittee. I am very proud to be a member of this subcommittee and to have the opportunity to work with such great people. It is really an honor.

There is no one in the House who is more concerned about renewable energy than I am, and there are just a couple of points I think that we should make here.

I am going to oppose the amendment for various reasons. I would remind the House, last Monday afternoon when we were doing the Agriculture appropriations bill on the floor here, we accepted an amendment which put an additional $20 million into renewable energy research. So combined with what the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development has done, we are not starving renewable energy at all; and, in fact, we will work in a bipartisan way to increase funding when we get to conference for that.

Also, as a Member who serves on the Subcommittee on Homeland Security on the Committee on Appropriations, I cannot emphasize enough to the House how important the funding is that is in this bill that the chairman has put in as far as nuclear energy, as far as the storage issue for our national security. It is extraordinarily important that we do not take money away from what the chairman has placed in this account. It is a matter of national security. It is a matter of our home security; and I would just implore all Members to encourage renewable energy research, but do not take it out of this account. It is absolutely critical that we maintain the level of funding we have, and hopefully increase, because it is a critical issue.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this Fiscal Year 2004 Agriculture Funding measure because it represents a good product under difficult circumstances. As we all know, this bill is not perfect--in large part because the allocation for Fiscal Year 2004 is considerably less than last year--some $800 million, in fact.

Because of the drop-off between the FY-03 allocation and the one for 04, the committee has to make difficult choices in order to accommodate the various sectors that are funded in the bill. While we are going to hear today that this bill short changes many areas, we should consider that the bill has many positives because it does.

Even with reduced resources, many important programs are well-funded. For example, funding for the FDA's generic drug program is increased, as is FDA funding for food safety. The bill includes monies to implement the ``Better Pharmaceuticals for Children Act''.

This bill also includes funding for valuable agriculture research that is currently carried out at major research centers. That research includes exploring better ways to make our agricultural production lands more efficient, and our ways of production more environmentally sound. For example, there is funding for animal feeding operations pilot projects that bring innovative technology to bear as we seek to reduce wastewater nutrients discharged from animal feeding operations.

Other research funding goes to helping us to better understand the origins of food crop diseases through high-level initiatives aimed at making our food production more economical and more healthy. Countless projects around the country will make significant strides in the research arena in the coming year because of this bill.

Many of those projects are in the states of some of the members who will speak ill of this measure today. But we should remember that those important research initiatives would not have been possible were it for the measured approach taken in reporting this bill of committee.

Not only did the committee have to make difficult program funding choices, but it also had to make choices to accomodate members of this body. At a point in the process, decisions had to be made, and I believe that the chairman did an excellent job in balancing the various needs and interests of the agriculture community and the members.

As a member of the subcommittee from an agriculture state, I can tell you that there are several things that I would like to have seen come out differently, particularly as to funding levels.

As a member of the agriculture subcommittee on appropriations, I can also tell you that all of us can point to things that we would like to have seen come out differently. In the end however, a good product has been fashioned, and I urge you to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the subcommittee chairman for the yielding me this time, and I rise in reluctant opposition to this amendment.

First of all, I want to say, no one through the whole process on this issue has ever contended that this is a food safety issue. As the ranking member of the authorizing committee said three or four times, it is very true, this is not an issue of food safety in any way, shape or form. The reason I oppose this amendment today is in support of our independent producers.

I would just like to give a little scenario about what is going to happen if this is enacted. All we are asking for here is a time-out to study the issue more closely before a mandatory system is enacted. But what we are going

to see is a system where independent producers are going to bear the cost of implementation of this law, and anyone who thinks that the packers really care about the cost on this are totally mistaken. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, any kind of cost that they would incur is going to result in reduced bids to the independent producers out there who do not control the price that they get for their products.

The situation in my State is that we have Canadian pigs coming into Iowa to be grown out primarily by independent producers. If this is enacted, we are going to see the large conglomerates start from raising, farrowing their own hogs, growing those hogs out, killing those hogs, putting them in their own labeling package, marketing themselves. Those are going to all say ``USA.'' The independent producers' animals are going to have to say that they were bred in Canada or wherever they came from and are going to be discriminated against.

The issue here is, do we preserve our independent producers? We talk about vertical integration in the livestock industry. Nothing is going to bring it on faster than provisions like this that will hold the independent producer accountable but not the major, multinational companies.

So I just stand here in support of the independent producers and look at the mandate that is going to be put on them and what it is going to cost them.

The one question I have asked producers, in what way, shape or form is this ever going to put one more cent in your pocket, in your bottom line? No one has been able to answer that question. So I think we have to step back, take a look at this, and understand all of the ramifications of this issue.

Also, Mr. Chairman, I have to look at the cost to the consumer out there when we talk about the additional costs that are going to be borne by the retailers. Who is going to pay the bill? The consumers who walk in and buy that at the counter are going to absorb the cost. So, in support of independent producers and consumers, I reluctantly say that we should oppose this amendment and support our independent producers.

Mr. Chairman, we would accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we would accept the amendment of the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we would accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, we would be more than happy to accept the amendment, and we would like to expedite the process if we could.

If we could expedite the process.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding to me.

Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to commend the gentleman for the great job that he has done on this bill. It is the first Homeland Security appropriation bill in history. We are charting new waters here, and I also want to strongly compliment the great staff that we have on the subcommittee. They have done just an outstanding job to bring this very difficult bill together with all the ramifications that we have.

All Members here should be keenly aware of how difficult this task is and how broad the jurisdiction is, trying to combine 22 different Federal agencies into one Department, have them communicate with each other, have them function together, have them understand their role is to cooperate with States and local governments to ensure our homeland security.

This is a bill unlike any other that we have; and as the Chairman has said so many times, we are successful when nothing happens. As we are spending all this money, if the final outcome is that everything remains quiet, we have been successful, and it is very difficult to judge exactly how many dollars need to go exactly where to complete our role, but I think the chairman and the subcommittee have done an outstanding job.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill, and commend Chairman Rogers for his attention to the many difficult issues we have discussed in our hearings on homeland security.

He has been given the tough job of putting together a spending bill for this new Department and this bill is a testament to his good work and the good work of the Subcommittee staff--they have done an excellent job under difficult circumstances.

Mr. Chairman, the approach the Subcommittee has taken with this bill has been one of strong support for the mission of this new Department and a scrutiny of the many requests and ideas put forth by Members and others.

I believe this has been the best approach because we are moving through uncharted territory. One of my concerns has been that--going forward with this new bill--we would put forth too much money in a way that would paint us into a corner before all of the most pressing homeland security needs became clear.

I believed early on--and still believe--the members of this Committee deserve to know the most efficient methods in which to deploy our Homeland Security resources.

We cannot appropriately fund programs that do not have understandable goals or clear justifications. Every State and Member of Congress should be aware of the pitfalls of adding monies to specific accounts because they feel they have the best answer to our Homeland Security problems.

Let me remind you. We are witnessing the infancy of a Department. There are few of us in this body who have been faced with the enormous and important task of funding a new Department of this size.

I am certain nearly every one of you has been asked to request funding for a specific appropriation for a specific homeland security project. I'm betting that most of you have been overwhelmed by the number of ``potential targets'' in your district.

Those of us on the Subcommittee share your concern. But, this bill is not about Congress making local security decisions--it is about making sure our local responders have a functional Federal agency to work with to solve those problems.

That said--as we move deeper into the process of providing for our Homeland Security, we are going to get a clearer picture of what our needs are. We will be in a better position to prioritize those needs.

Congress is not in a position to mess around with local funding matters. Until the Congress, the administration and our local providers have confidence in the long-term needs, I think the approach we are taking today--in this first year of funding for this new Department--is the correct one.

Again, I want to commend the Chairman for his work on this bill and I urge all of the Members of this body to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, it has come to my attention that today marks the third anniversary of the FCC's now-infamous press release announcing its decision on the local competition issue. In spite of the FCC's announcement, we still have not seen the text of the FCC's decision. This is a thorny issue, Mr. Speaker, one involving heartfelt disagreement. The only thing that both the incumbent local exchange carriers and competitive local exchange carriers agree on is the need for regulatory certainty.

This uncertainty is precisely the wrong prescription for the ailing telecom sector of our economy. The telecommunications sector has been extremely hard-hit over the course of the last few years, laying off thousands of employees and shrinking construction budgets. The FCC's decision has the promise for bringing some regulatory certainty to the sector upon which it can base investment and hiring decisions.

Instead of promptly releasing the text of the order, thereby hastening new investment and additional hiring, the FCC has delayed for 90 days. This delay has the effect of preventing any economic benefits that could result from the Commission's decision. Having worked so hard to pass jobs and growth packages that will get our economy back on track, this delay is simply unacceptable.

I hope the FCC will not delay the release of its order any longer. We need those jobs and investments in the telecom sector, and we need them soon.

Mr. Chairman, if I could engage the chairman in a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, the Senate version of the supplemental contains funding for further construction activity for the National Animal Disease Center facilities in Ames, Iowa. This initiative is one that the Agriculture Department has been planning for some time. After 9/11 and with the potential threats to our food supply, the urgency of this modernization initiative has become more pronounced. In fact, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service was put into the Department of Homeland Security because of such threats.

We are working closely with the USDA budget office to ensure a timely and cost-effective construction schedule, enabling a usable first phase that includes the biocontainment level 3 lab. This national animal disease facility is important for the prevention and diagnostic research for animal-related disease threats, when we talk about the potential for contamination of our food supply.

The longer we delay this project, the more expensive it becomes, and the further out the full project completion date. Without appropriate funding, we risk our construction costs by tens of millions of dollars. Will the Chairman agree to work with me on this National Animal Disease Center lab modernization initiative so as to complete the full project as soon as practical and with minimum cost increase?

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to share with my colleagues an essay written by Jefferson Brown, a constituent of mine from Mason City, IA. Jefferson is a 12-year-old 6th grader at Roosevelt Middle School in Mason City. He recently won an award from the Elks Lodge in Mason City and will soon be traveling to the State Capital in Des Moines to compete in a state-wide competition. I submit his award-winning essay for the Record.

The American flag means many things to me. It symbolizes

pride, joy, strength, and ability. These all come from the

flag of the great country we live in.

The flag symbolizes pride, the pride of our country,

ourselves, and pride for our flag of America. It gives hope,

it gives us pride, the flag is a symbol of our pride in our

country.

The flag represents joy for the heroes who stood tall

defending our country. Joy when the warriors came home to us

all. The joy of one, the joy of all is in the flag that flies

high above us, the flag stands for joy in America.

Strength is in the flag, and the strength is in the hearts

of all the American people. The strength is in our army,

strength in those who lost a loved one on those days when we

stood tall. The strength is in one; the strength is in all,

it is in America; that stands tall.

Last but not least, ability. The flag stands for ability.

Ability is in all of us, it is what we do. We are better at

some things than others. Some of us can run or jump better

then others, or we can draw or write better; but the point is

that we all must bring our abilities together just as if we

were colors on the American flag, the colors come together to

make the flag. Just as we must, all united as one.