Nancy Boyda

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Madam Speaker, I yield as much time as she may consume to my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. McCarthy).

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Madam Speaker, we are very, very fortunate today to have one of these courageous glider pilots with us in the gallery, and I would like to take this opportunity to ask him to stand and to have us give him our recognition, please. Michael Samek is in the gallery, and we thank you so much for your courageous contributions to our country. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Madam Speaker, my father, again, and it's so good to hear us talk about the generation that has come before us, my father was actually in a submarine in the South Pacific during World War II. Like many of our fathers, mine only recently has begun to really tell us what went on and those experiences as he was fighting for our country back during World War II. I am so appreciative of my colleague and friend, Mrs. McCarthy, for bringing this to our attention. I hope that at some point we can take the same opportunity to honor those who have served in those submarines, not only during World War II, but today. It is a dangerous service and clearly these men love their country and are willing to do what it takes to defend the rights and to keep our country free. Again, I appreciate the gentlewoman from New York in bringing this bill forward and any support that we can bring to it. Madam Speaker, I yield back my time.

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the upcoming 2007 fiscal year supplemental appropriations bill. Much of the debate on this bill has focused, quite rightly, on the provisions that codify President Bush's benchmarks for Iraq into law. That is an important subject that I plan to discuss in depth tomorrow. But for now I wish to spotlight another element of this legislation, a fulfillment of a promise to America's military installations. The supplemental bill will fully fund Base Realignment and Closure projects through 2007, and in so doing, it will close the books on one of the 109th Congress's most shameful failures. As you may know, the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Commission was charged with restructuring the American military to better prosecute the war on terror. In the course of their work, the Commission discovered that certain American bases have outstanding strengths that are uniquely valuable in modern-day wars. The Commission asked these installations to scale up their operations, and Congress, in turn, promised to fully fund these expansions. Among the targeted bases were three in my district: Fort Leavenworth, Fort Riley, and Forbes Field. The base commanders promptly enacted plans to build new facilities and house new personnel--all in the name of protecting America, trusting Congress to fulfill its promise. But a promise made is not always a promise kept, and the 109th Congress was well known for breaking its word. In their 2 years in office, they cast aside promises to veterans, to schools, to farmers and ranchers, to children and seniors--and, sadly, to America's military bases as well. For the 2007 fiscal year, when BRAC projects needed $5.6 billion to move forward as planned, the last Congress appropriated only $1.5 billion. Worse, they attached strings to what little funding they provided, which essentially blocked all new construction on BRAC projects for 6 months. As of October I, 2006, all new construction came to an immediate halt. Worse yet, the bases most impacted by underfunding were those that stood to gain the most from BRAC--that is, the very bases at the frontline of the war on terror. I cannot find words to express the scale of this catastrophe. The last Congress left our Nation less secure and our troop less supported. They closed their wallets and their hearts to the soldiers who so courageously fight the war on terror. When Democrats took over Congress in January, we acted immediately to right this grave wrong. We passed a further $1 billion in BRAC funding by the end of January, and we promised to move promptly to fully fund BRAC through supplemental funding. More importantly, these funds allowed new construction to start. And unlike the last Congress, when this Congress makes a promise to our soldiers, we deliver. The bill now under consideration will fully fund BRAC for the current fiscal year. It will help the United States military better fight the war on terror, and it will strengthen and secure our great nation. I urge all of my colleagues, Republicans and Democrats alike, to keep their word to our troops and support this critical legislation.

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the upcoming 2007 fiscal year supplemental appropriations bill. Much of the debate on this bill has focused, quite rightly, on the provisions that codify President Bush's benchmarks for Iraq into law. That is an important subject that I plan to discuss in depth later this week. But today I wish to focus on another element of this bill, one that is of vital importance to the farmers and ranchers of the Second District of Kansas. America's agricultural industry is in the midst of a calamity. Fully 70 percent of U.S. counties were declared disaster areas by the Department of Agriculture in 2006. Believe it or not, this was an improvement from 2005, when 80 percent of all counties were declared disasters. In my home state of Kansas, every single county is suffering from disaster conditions. It is hard to express the frustration of the farmers I speak to in my district. Many have worked the same acreage for decades, and they feel a profound connection to their land: They trust that, if they treat their land right, if they plow its soil and plant it carefully and tend it for the many months before harvest, it will reward them with enough crops to earn a living. But lately, as disaster conditions have stretched out into every corner of Kansas, the land has betrayed our farmers and ranchers. William Norman, Jr., a farmer from Leavenworth County, is fighting to make ends meet now that his corn production has plummeted by two- thirds. Frances Ford, a rancher in Coffey County, is struggling to feed her cattle off of only half of her ordinary hay yield. These are good, hardworking people who put food on America's plates every single day. But their land has betrayed them--and sadly, Congress has betrayed them, too. Despite the magnitude of the current agricultural catastrophe, Congress has failed to provide sufficient agricultural assistance. We have abandoned our farmers and ranchers to a massive and ongoing natural disaster. The 2007 supplemental bill rights this wrong. It provides $3.7 billion in agriculture disaster relief, which will help Kansans continue to farm and ranch in spite of the ever-present threats of drought, fire, and other catastrophes. Our farming and ranching communities needs a government that supports them during their most difficult hours. Now Congress has an opportunity to meet their needs, to serve as a steward of the agricultural industry. A vote for the supplemental bill is a vote for our farmers and ranchers.

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the upcoming 2007 fiscal year supplemental appropriations bill. Much of the debate on this bill has focused, quite rightly, on the provisions that codify President Bush's benchmarks for Iraq into law. This is an important subject that I plan to discuss in depth later this week. But today I wish to spotlight another element of this legislation, one that offers renewed hope and opportunity to millions of children in Kansas and throughout the United States: the extension of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP. If you are fortunate enough to have health coverage, you might not realize what peace of mind insurance brings. You don't worry that your child will wake up with an ear infection that will cost a month's rent. You need not fear that the price of a broken leg will force you to default on your auto loan, or that the injuries from a car crash will obliterate a year's salary. But for many Americans, these fears are a fact of daily life. Forty- seven million of our fellow citizens--47 million of our brothers and sisters and our sons and daughters, 47 million of our coworkers and colleagues and our friends and neighbors--47 million of us lack health insurance. Worst of all, among those 47 million uninsured Americans are nine million children. This is not just an economic or an institutional challenge. It is the moral crisis of our age. The Federal Government has addressed this simmering emergency through two primary means. The first is decades-old and well-known: Medicaid. Medicaid is a good and vital program, but its scope is very limited. In some states, if your family earns one dollar less than the poverty line, you will receive full Medicaid coverage--but if you earn just a few dollars more, you're ineligible for any assistance whatsoever. A sane health care policy must recognize that families. earning 125% or 150% or even 200% of the poverty line need a helping hand. And that's where the State Children's Health Insurance Program, or SCHIP, enters the scene. SCHIP introduces badly needed flexibility into the Federal health care system. In short, it tells the states, ``If you want to expand the eligibility of low-income children and families for government-sponsored health insurance, we'll offer matching funds to help you do it.'' In the decade since its inception, SCHIP has proven itself an outstanding success. It has enrolled six million beneficiaries, dramatically reducing the number of uninsured children in our nation. Later in this legislative session, Congress will consider extending SCHIP beyond 2007, and you'd better believe I'll fight every step of the way for its renewal. But for now our task is simpler. Due to poor planning and inadequate funding from the do-nothing 109th Congress, 14 states are running out of money to finance SCHIP through the current fiscal year. They need Congress to act immediately to ensure funding. I urge my colleagues to show our compassion for America's children, to demonstrate that we will not tolerate the scourge of uninsurance. I urge you to vote to extend funding for SCHIP.

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss the most critical issue this Congress, indeed our Nation, is facing. The U.S. military is the best fighting force in the world, and it is vitally important that we keep it that way. I am concerned that the President's planned escalation is too little, too late, and it will further deplete our military's readiness. My life changed in the late spring of 2002 when my husband Steve casually said he thought we would be at war with Iraq by Christmas. And I said certainly that wouldn't be the case; the terrorists were from Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. Certainly we will continue to hunt down Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. We wouldn't take resources away from fighting the terrorists in Afghanistan. But that isn't what happened. That fall, every time I heard that we were going to be greeted as liberators in Iraq, I cringed. We were going into the most unstable part of the world, a region that has been at war for centuries, and we were going in with dangerously naive plans. We were going after a hornet's nest with a baseball bat. As the mother of two and stepmother of five, I felt my family's very safety was being threatened by this diversion of resources. Like a mother bear who senses, no, who knows that her cubs are being threatened, I could not remain silent. Diverting resources from Afghanistan and invading Iraq may be one of the most dangerous decisions this country has ever made. Our Nation's civilian leadership took their eye off the ball. Instead of securing more resources to hunt down Osama bin Laden, instead of engaging in diplomacy, they put resources into what has become a civil war and have depleted our Nation's strategic readiness. Please, please understand me. Our military has not failed. What has failed is our civilian leadership. Our military and their families have repeatedly stepped up and done what our Nation has asked of them. And now, Mr. Speaker, President Bush proposes to send more than 20,000 more troops to this civil war. He asks us to trust him with our soldiers' lives, even after trust has been broken time and time again. Not only is the goal of this escalation unclear, but its effect would be to redirect precious military resources instead of preparing for potential future conflicts. In a recent hearing of the House Armed Services Committee, I asked General Peter Pace whether he was satisfied with the readiness levels of our troops. His response? ``No, ma'am, I'm not.'' General Peter Schoomaker and General Steven Blum have echoed his concerns. America lives in an unstable world; we face threats from a nuclear- armed North Korea, from a belligerent Iran, and from the al Qaeda terrorists who considered September 11 as only the first act in their sinister play. In these dangerous times we are not safer if we devote so many of our resources to a civil war in Iraq. And I as a mother, I cannot support this escalation. It is withdrawing precious resources from a fighting force that is already stretched too thin. America's strategic readiness is not a political question; it is a question of national security, and it is a critical question about the safety of all our families. The U.S. military is the best fighting force in the world, and it is vitally important that we keep it that way. Mr. Speaker, as a mother, stepmother, wife, citizen, and, yes, as a U.S. Congresswoman, I cannot support further escalation of the war in Iraq.

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce a bill that will help rebuild the American people's faith in our Congress. Last year a Member of this House, Congressman Bob Ney, praised legislation that would have stripped the pensions of Members of Congress who are convicted of trading votes for bribes. Congressman Ney claimed that the bill would hold, and I quote, ``Members of Congress and those they work with to the highest standards in order to ensure that those who abuse the public trust will be dealt with accordingly.'' But that bill never passed, for which Congressman Ney is probably grateful. On Friday he was sentenced to serve 30 months in Federal prison. His crime: Accepting tens of thousands of dollars in luxury vacations, sporting tickets, and meals from Big Money lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Despite his conviction, Congressman Ney remains eligible to draw a congressional pension. And he isn't alone. Over the last 25 years, as many as 20 politicians convicted of serious offenses have received their congressional pensions. The exact amount of their payments vary, but the typical payment is about $47,000 a year. That is greater than the average American's total household income, and four times the annual earnings of the minimum-wage worker. Why should taxpayers fund a comfortable retirement for a crooked Congressman? The answer, of course, is that we shouldn't. Corrupt politicians deserve prison sentences, not taxpayer-funded pensions. Mr. Speaker, this House has already taken an important first step toward ending congressional corruption. On our very first day of Congress in session, we passed an aggressive ethics package that banned Members from accepting meals and gifts from lobbyists, and we enacted real earmark reform. But our work isn't done. During my campaign I promised my constituents that I would help end Big Money's control of Congress, and that promise won't be fulfilled until Members who accept Big Money bribes cannot still retire at taxpayer expense. Today I am proud to introduce H.R. 476, the Pensions Forfeiture Act, which would strip the pensions of Members of Congress convicted of bribery, conspiracy, espionage, or perjury. I am honored that my three fellow Representatives from Kansas, Representative Todd Tiahrt, Jerry Moran, and Dennis Moore, are cosponsoring this legislation with me. All of us, Republicans and Democrats alike, are answering Kansas's demands to sever the link between money and politicians. My father told me when I told him about this legislation, he said, ``Sweetheart, it's about time. Let's get on with it.'' Unfortunately, we cannot now revoke Congressman Ney's pension. Believe me, I wish we could, but the Constitution prohibits us from passing such laws after the fact. But we can and we must prevent this from happening again. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the Pensions Forfeiture Act. I hope that this bill will further deter corruption. Perhaps when Congressmen know that their retirement benefits are on the line, they will think long and hard before committing a Federal crime. But if some future Representative does follow in the footsteps of Congressman Ney, at least Kansas taxpayers and the rest of American taxpayers won't have to foot the bill for his retirement home.

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. I don't believe that it has been amended in the last half hour, but we did add subornation of perjury.

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. I believe that the bill is intended as the voters have said we need to get something done. The crimes that are included in this bill will go right at the heart of the corruption that is affecting the Congress.

Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas. Let me just say that I have offered a bill that I think is historic. I think it is going to make a difference. And I would suggest that you can vote for it, or you can vote against it. It is a good first step.