Steve Chabot

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers for their leadership in getting us to where we are today. Mr. Chairman, the right to vote is one of the most fundamental and essential rights that we have as citizens. Free, prosperous nations like ours can't exist without ensuring the right of every citizen to vote. It is the cornerstone of democracy and the centerpiece of the Constitution. Clearly, the right to vote is important to all of us, regardless of our race, religion, or ethnicity. This is reflected in the protection afforded by the 15th amendment which states: ``The rights of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.'' To protect these rights, our government must ensure that elections in the country reflect the will of the people. The Voting Rights Act is an important part of that guarantee. The Voting Rights Act is now 40 years old. It is viewed as one of the most significant pieces of legislation to address voting rights. It was enacted after the march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama, erupted in violence, and that march is now referred to as Bloody Sunday. President Johnson then pledged to address the issue, and 5 months later the Voting Rights Act was adopted by the Congress of the United States. In his address to Congress, President Johnson stated: ``The Constitution says that no person shall be kept from voting because of his race or color. We have all sworn an oath before God to support and defend the Constitution. We must now act in obedience to that oath.'' As elected officials of this body, we must now act again to continue to uphold that duty and ensure that the protections guaranteed in the Constitution are afforded to all citizens regardless of skin color. For that reason, we have given this issue more time and more attention than any single issue since I became chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Judiciary Committee 6 years ago. Starting in October last year, the Subcommittee on the Constitution held 12 hearings and heard testimony from 47 witnesses to examine the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act, and we generated more than 12,000 pages of testimony. Our goal was to be flexible, fair, inclusive, and perhaps most importantly, bipartisan, because as Mr. Conyers eloquently stated near the end of our hearings, civil rights need not be a partisan issue. Mr. Chairman, it is important to note that we examined in great deal each of the temporary provisions of the Voting Rights Act currently set to expire. The extensive testimony from a large number of diverse organizations demonstrated a clear need to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act. With regard to section 5 and section 203, we held multiple hearings to ensure that all of the relevant issues were examined and that they were also addressed. This past March, we held another hearing to incorporate into the record a series of State and national reports that provided additional documentation about the continuing need for the Voting Rights Act's temporary provisions. Today, we have before us H.R. 9, the Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006, the product of the Committee on the Judiciary's work over the last 8 months. I would like to thank my colleagues and those organizations who have worked with us from the start for their dedication to get us where we are today. Without a commitment by all interested parties to openness and cooperation, we would not be in a position to reauthorize this historic legislation. As has been stated, H.R. 9 extends the temporary provisions of the Voting Rights Act for an additional 25 years. In addition, the legislation makes changes to certain provisions, including restoring the original purpose of section 5. In reauthorizing the temporary provisions, the committee heard from several witnesses who testified about voter discrimination in covered jurisdictions. It is also important to take a minute to touch on the constitutional questions regarding the reauthorizations of the temporary provisions. The Supreme Court in South Carolina v. Katzenbach and later in the City of Rome v. United States upheld Congress's broad authority under section 2 of the 15th amendment to use the temporary provisions to address the problem of racial discrimination in voting in certain jurisdictions. With H.R. 9, Congress is simply using its authority under section 2 to ensure that every citizen in this country has the right to vote. In addition to reauthorizing, the committee found it necessary to make certain changes to ensure that the provisions of the Voting Rights Act remain effective. For example, testimony received by the committee indicates that Federal examiners have not been used in the last 20 years, but Federal observers continue to provide vital oversight. H.R. 9 strikes the Federal examiner provision while retaining the authority of the Attorney General to assign Federal observers to cover jurisdictions over the next 25 years. In addition, H.R. 9 provides for the recovery of expert costs as part of the attorneys' fees. This change brings the Voting Rights Act in line with current civil rights laws, which already allow for the recovery of such costs. H.R. 9 also seeks to restore the original purpose to section 5. Beginning in 2000, the Supreme Court in Reno v. Bossier Parish, and later in 2003, in the case of Georgia v. Ashcroft, issued decisions that significantly altered section 5. H.R. 9 clarifies Congress's original intent with regard to section 5. Mr. Chairman, as we continue to face threats from terrorists bent on destroying democracy in the free world, every Member of Congress and every freedom-loving person in the world recognizes the power of the right to vote. Again and again, we have seen how people are forced to live in countries without democracy and without freedom. That is why our commitment to self-government, freedom, and liberty continues to set an example for the rest of the world. That is why our efforts to continue to protect every citizen's right to vote are so important, and that is why we must support the legislation which is before us today.

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the chairman for yielding. I, first of all, want to indicate that I rise in opposition to this amendment. First, what are the existing provisions of the Voting Rights Act that this particular amendment applies to? Well, the temporary provisions of the Voting Rights Act require jurisdictions with documented histories of unconstitutional practices to preclear voting changes with the Department of Justice or the U.S. District Court here in Washington, DC, District of Columbia. These provisions also authorize the Department of Justice to assign Federal observers to monitor elections in covered jurisdictions to protect the rights of minority voters. Together, these provisions have been crucial to the success of the Voting Rights Act and the progress made by minority voters over the last 40 years. The current provisions of the Voting Rights Act strike the right balance expanding and contracting coverage as necessary. In fact, 11 jurisdictions have successfully bailed out from coverage while other jurisdictions have been brought under the watch of the Federal courts. Now, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Georgia would alter the balance contemplated by the Voting Rights Act and that is maintained by H.R. 9, the bill that we have before us. Under the gentleman's amendment, the Department of Justice would be affirmatively required to conduct investigations into the bailout status of the approximately 900 covered jurisdictions and to announce the results of its investigation annually, thus diverting precious resources away from its administration and enforcement responsibilities under sections 5 and 203. Not only would this amendment shift the burden of bailout from the covered jurisdiction to the Attorney General, but the amendment would render the Department of Justice ineffective in performing any of its responsibilities under the Voting Rights Act, to the detriment of minority voters in this country. Under this amendment, minority voters would no longer be able to rely on the protections and enforcement actions undertaken by the Department to enforce voting rights laws. Rather, the Department would be visiting each and every covered jurisdiction to review voluminous records to determine which voting law changes the jurisdiction has complied with and which ones they have not, 900 jurisdictions. In addition, this amendment has the effect of creating an unprecedented and what could be considered unconstitutional amount of authority to the Department of Justice to determine which jurisdictions should be removed from coverage. This is unprecedented voting rights policy that has the potential to undermine the most important civil rights law in our history. H.R. 9 is bipartisan legislation, and I would urge my colleagues to maintain the bipartisanship and oppose this amendment.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I rise in opposition to this amendment. The Voting Rights Act should be reauthorized for another 25 years and not a 10-year renewal that is recommended in this amendment. That is just too short a period of time. The reauthorization process for the Voting Rights Act is not a quick one. In fact, for the last 9 months, the subcommittee that I have the privilege to chair, the Subcommittee on the Constitution, has spent 8 to 9 months and been really immersed in these hearings to establish a significant record so the renewal will pass constitutional muster. As I said before, we have spent more time on this particular issue than any other issue that we have been involved in in the 6 years that I have had the privilege to chair that particular subcommittee. And I fear that a shorter reauthorization period could jeopardize the act by not allowing both Congress and the civil rights community to study the impact and need for the act. In addition, traditionally, redistricting has occurred on the State level every 10 years, and if the Voting Rights Act is also reauthorized every 10 years, it makes this process even more burdensome and gives States less of an incentive to comply with the requirements of the Voting Rights Act. The Subcommittee on the Constitution has established the need for renewing the Voting Rights Act for another 25 years, evidence like the more than 700 voting changes that have been determined to be discriminatory since 1982 as further proof of this need. This amendment not only jeopardizes the carefully crafted bipartisan bill that has been offered, but could diminish its impact and, most importantly, its ability to withstand constitutional scrutiny. That is one of the chief challenges that we face, why we went into such detail, why we had so many witnesses, why we had 12,000 pages of testimony; because we know that it is likely that there will be a constitutional challenge. So I would urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Tancredo-Andrews- Chabot-Brown amendment. As my colleagues know, Taiwan is one of our strongest and most loyal allies. It is also a democracy that has a multi-party political system that recognizes individual liberty and respects human rights. Just across the Taiwan Strait is the People's Republic of China. It is not a democracy. It has an abysmal human rights record. It does not recognize the rule of law. It practices religious persecution. It warehouses political prisoners. It carries out a coercive abortion policy. And it has more than 800 missiles pointed at Taiwan. Our government treats the PRC and Taiwan differently. Now, in a logical world, we would work closely with our democratic ally. We would treat our friend with the respect it deserves. We would welcome the leaders of Taiwan with open arms and conduct frequent high-level exchanges. But we don't do that. What we do, under the umbrella of our so-called One China policy, is just the opposite. We invite high level military officials from the People's Liberation Army to visit the Pentagon. We welcome the communist dictator to the White House with a twenty-one gun salute. We treat our democratic friends from Taiwan quite a bit differently. In fact, the democratically elected President of Taiwan is not permitted to come to Washington, D.C. Nor is the Vice-President, the Defense Minister, or the Foreign Minister. Just a few weeks ago, only two weeks after Communist China's dictator, Hu Jintao, was welcomed to the White House, Taiwan's democratically-elected leader, President Chen Shui-bian was told he could not make transit stops in the United States on his way to Paraguay and Costa Rica. Instead, he was told that he could refuel his aircraft in Alaska and be on his way. Some way to treat a friend. What kind of message are we sending here? The Tancredo-Andrews-Chabot-Brown amendment would not change our ``One China'' policy . . . although I would not be averse to that. It simply lifts a number of tired, old guidelines that deter or prevent high level U.S. officials from communicating with their counterparts from Taiwan. We should treat Taiwan like we treat our other allies. It is dangerous to do otherwise. Mr. Chairman, let's do the right thing. Let's scrap these counterproductive guidelines. Adopt the Tancredo-Andrews-Chabot-Brown amendment.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 4890, the Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006. On April 27, the Subcommittee on the Constitution, which I chair, held a hearing on the issue and concluded that the bill Mr. Ryan has introduced will not only reduce frivolous spending, but will pass constitutional muster. The notion of a line item veto has intrigued those concerned with wasteful Federal spending for a long time. Presidents at least since Thomas Jefferson have asserted that the Executive has some discretion in the expenditure of monies appropriated by Congress. Forty-three Governors have some form of a line item veto to reduce spending, yet until 1996 no such mechanism existed at the Federal level. And that year, Congress enacted the Line Item Veto Act that was part of the Contract with America, and it had overwhelming bipartisan support. However, the United States Supreme Court ultimately held that the Line Item Veto Act was unconstitutional because it gave the President the power to rescind a portion of the bill as opposed to an entire bill as he is authorized to do by article I, section 7 of the Constitution. Despite the Supreme Court's actions, the notion of a line item veto has remained very popular. During its brief life, President Clinton used the line item veto to cut 82 projects totaling over $2 billion. Most recently, line item veto proposals have been warmly received by such disparate editorial boards as The Washington Post on one hand and the Wall Street Journal on the other. In addition, Mr. Ryan's legislation addresses the constitutional concerns that were raised by the 1996 line item veto bill, and gives the President only the authority to recommend to Congress that it rescind money, and it provides for an expedited procedure for doing so. I would urge my colleagues not only to vote for this rule but also to support the underlying legislation. It is time that we get Federal spending under control, and this is a part of allowing us to do that.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. No one can honestly say that everything has gone just as planned in the war on terror. As with any war, we continue to face many challenges, some predictable, others unforeseen. But I have no doubt that we will ultimately prevail and we will prevail because of the bravery and sacrifice and commitment to excellence of so many of our courageous men and women in uniform who have selflessly answered the call to duty. Because of these patriots, Saddam Hussein is on trial for his life, for his crimes against humanity. His evil sons, Uday and Qusay, are no doubt roasting in hell. There are no more mass graves in Iraq being filled with the bodies of the innocent. And 25 million Iraqis, instead of fearing torture and execution for such crimes as insulting the President, can now, instead, actually vote for their leaders. And Iraq now has an elected government under a new constitution. And because of the skill and professionalism of our troops and our allies in the war on terror, terrorist kingpin, Abu Musab al Zarqawi is dead, and al Qaeda is left without its mastermind in Iraq. And in Afghanistan, in the face of extremely difficult conditions, our courageous men and women have overcome al Qaeda and the Taliban, allowing for free elections and the first democratically elected President, President Karzai, in that nation's history. The job done by our soldiers and our sailors, our airmen and marines has been nothing short of superb. It is because of them that we will ultimately prevail in the war on terror. Of that I have no doubt. Like many of my colleagues, I have had the opportunity to visit with our troops in Afghanistan and in Iraq, and I have returned home with even more respect and admiration for the great work our servicemembers do each and every day. And like many of my colleagues, I have attended funeral services for too many of our heroes who have given their lives on the battlefield in the service of their Nation. May God bless them and the families that they have left behind. Mr. Speaker, these sacrifices remind us that ultimately the people of Iraq must control their own destiny. Many of us have supported the important mission of training Iraqi troops to take responsibility for the security of Iraq. Ultimately, the Iraqi people, the troops, the police officers there have to be responsible for the security of Iraq. There is only so much that our troops can do. This must continue to be a primary focus so that our brave men and women can return home as soon as possible.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Sodrel).

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished chair of the Middle East Subcommittee, Ms. Ros-Lehtinen, for putting together a Special Order this evening for one of the finest persons ever to serve in the United States Congress, our hero, Henry Hyde. I have been blessed during my service in Congress every day for the last 12 years because I have been able to call Henry Hyde ``Mr. Chairman'' first on the Judiciary Committee, and then for the last 6 years on the International Relations Committee, because he has been the chairman of both those committees. He is a leader who has won the undying respect of colleagues on both sides of the aisle. He is known to be fair and respectful. He is a man of the utmost integrity, and he wields the gavel with grace and humor. The Almanac of American Politics has called him ``one of the most respected and intellectually honest members of the House.'' Politics in America notes that ``few can match him in the sheer power of his oratory or the agility of his intellect.'' You know, if central casting in Hollywood were looking for someone to play the role of the wise and honorable committee chairman, it would need to look no further than Henry Hyde. It would be impossible to talk about Henry Hyde and not talk about the one issue that I think he has cared more about than all of the other issues that he has dealt with here as a Member of this House, and that is the pro-life issue. He has been Congress' conscious. He has been the Nation's conscious on this important issue. Henry Hyde has been a leader who has never wavered on behalf of unborn babies. We have had many distinguished Members of Congress who have engaged in this discussion, this issue, this battle, but nobody has been more committed or more effective or more eloquent than Henry Hyde. When he leaves this Congress, he will be greatly missed, but he will leave behind a committed band of followers who have learned under his tutelage and will keep the pro-life flame burning. We owe it to those unborn babies, and we owe it to our leader, Henry Hyde. For the last 6 years, Chairman Hyde has headed up the International Relations Committee. And as members of the committee, we know that Henry commands the respect of leaders throughout the world. When presidents and prime ministers and kings and sultans and emirs and chancellors and other leaders come here to Washington, they make it a point to pay a visit to Chairman Henry Hyde because they respect him greatly and they seek his guidance and his counsel. Henry has also been a great friend to me personally. I cannot thank Henry enough for all of the things that he has done for me since I first came to this institution. It has been wonderful to be his friend. But more importantly, I want to thank him on behalf of those defenseless little babies that he so tirelessly has defended during his years in Congress. His eloquence and good sense has changed the way that Americans feel about abortion. He tells it like it is, and he has paved the way for another generation of leaders to fight this noble battle. It is a battle that I have no doubt that one day we will win. Mr. Speaker, when the 110th Congress convenes next January, the Capitol of the United States will be a different place. For the first time in 32 years, Henry Hyde won't be taking the oath of office to represent the 6th District of Illinois in the United States House of Representatives. For those of us that have had the honor to serve in this Chamber, there will be a sense of loss. But I know that our friend, Henry Hyde, will have plenty to contribute to his beloved country. A couple of years ago, Henry told a Chicago newspaper ``maybe I lost a step or two, but I don't think God is through with me yet.'' Let's hope not. God bless you, Henry Hyde, and God bless the country that you have loved so much.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, our national debt is now $8.3 trillion. Each day we add another $1.7 billion to it. Each American's share is about $28,000. Think about that. In order for the United States to be debt free, every American, all 299 million of us, would have to write a check for about $28,000. Each year the Department of Agriculture writes checks underwritten by the American taxpayer to foot the bill for the Market Access Program, MAP, a program that pays industry associations, cooperatives and State and regional trade groups to market their wares overseas. Now, should these groups market these wares overseas? Absolutely. We want them to be successful. We want them to create jobs. But they ought to do it on their dime, not on the dime of the American taxpayer. Mr. Chairman, we have spent more than a billion tax dollars on a program with dubious economic benefits. We cannot even be sure that these tax dollars are not simply saving those groups money that they would have spent on overseas marketing anyway. So who is receiving those tax dollars? The National Potato Research and Promotion Board has received well over $1 million. The Raisin Administrative Committee has received nearly $3 million, and a group called Asparagus USA has received hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of funding. That is a lot of asparagus. It is also the type of wasteful spending that leads to big deficits and higher taxes. Mr. Chairman, in these difficult budget times, if we cannot cut a program like MAP, I think we are in serious trouble. While MAP at a cost of a couple hundred million dollars annually might by some be just considered a blip in a $2.7 trillion budget, the cost of these programs add up, and the cumulative effect of programs like MAP is the reason that we have this $8.3 trillion debt. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is straightforward. It would simply prohibit the Agriculture Department from funding the MAP Program. It is supported by groups like the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, and Taxpayers for Common Sense, to name a few. It is a commonsense amendment, Mr. Chairman. We are spending too much money, and it is time to start cutting wasteful spending program by program and restore some fiscal sanity to this House. I urge my colleagues to cast a vote for taxpayers and support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of our time. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to read another portion of the National Taxpayers Union letter. They say that the National Taxpayers Union and its members strongly favor free trade and the private efforts of American businesses that engage in both export and import operations. However, it is absurd to force overburdened taxpayers to subsidize commodity producers as diverse as the Cherry Marketing Institute and the Mohair Council of America in their strategies to market their products overseas. In fact, taxpayer subsidized trade is not really free trade at all. The more U.S. taxpayers are forced to support economically dubious programs, such as the MAP, the less credibility our Nation has in adhering to free trade principles. One would think that with the Federal deficits looming far into the future, and government spending out of control, Congress would take swift action to abolish some of the most wasteful and unnecessary Federal programs. Although MAP is indeed relatively small when compared with other massive bureaucracies found in Washington, the elimination of smaller programs will hopefully present Congress with an opportunity to begin trimming corporate welfare and pork barrel spending from the Federal budget. Mr. Chairman, again, I just want to emphasize in concluding, we want these organizations to advertise overseas. We want them to be successful. We want them to create jobs, but they need to do it on their money and not on the taxpayer's money. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. CHABOT. I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, since 1982 the Forest Service has lost $850 million subsidizing private timber in the Tongass National Forest. That is a $40 million annual loss. If anyone wonders why our national debt is as large as it is, and it is currently $8.3 trillion, by the way, one needs to look no farther than taxpayer boondoggles like this one. They really add up. The Tongass National Forest was established in 1907 by President Theodore Roosevelt. It is America's largest forest, about the size of West Virginia. Located along Alaska's southeastern coast, it is often referred to as ``America's Rainforest'' and is home to abundant wildlife: bald eagles, grizzly bears, wolves, and salmon; as well as old growth trees such as the giant Sitka spruce, western hemlock, and yellow cedar. There are thousands of miles of roads in the Tongass right now. The Forest Service acknowledges that existing roads are ``sufficient to satisfy local demand for roaded recreation, subsistence, community connectivity needs and demands in most districts.'' Yet year after year the Forest Service spends millions of tax dollars building roads for private timber companies that by the agency's own admission are not really necessary. To make matters worse, the Forest Service has a nationwide road maintenance backlog of about $10 billion, tens of millions of which are in the Tongass. Incredibly, the Forest Service is not maintaining existing roads; yet they want to build more, even though they admit there are enough already. The timber program is not a profitable business in the Tongass the way the Forest Service is currently running it. Nobody argues this. The Forest Service concedes that 90 to 95 percent of all existing timber sale contracts in the Tongass are unprofitable. Nearly half of Tongass timber contracts go unsold. Of those that are sold, the majority have only a single bidder, resulting in a bargain basement, discounted sale. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple, straightforward amendment. It would simply prohibit the Forest Service from building logging roads for timber companies subsidized by the American taxpayer in the Tongass. It does not prevent the Forest Service from building roads to connect communities, to provide recreation, or to otherwise manage the forest. It does not stop timber companies from building their own roads. I know that there are some who want you to believe differently, but this amendment has nothing to do with the roadless rule. It has everything to do with good government. Opponents of this amendment will argue that the massive losses in the Tongass are due to litigation, that taxpayer dollars are ending up in the pockets of trial lawyers. Mr. Chairman, I am not often accused of being a darling of the trial lawyers. As some may know, the Freedom of Information Act request was filed with the Forest Service in 2002. Although the request was to be for the years ranging from 1991 to 2001, the Forest Service could only provide numbers from 1998 to 2001. During that time the Forest Service spent $121 million on its timber program. Litigation costs amounted to $1.6 million. That means only 2 percent of the total cost were spent on appeals and litigation. Just 2 percent. Opponents of this amendment will say that the National Environmental Policy Act requirements also increase costs, and they are right. The NEPA process needs reform, and I supported legislation to do this, as many of us have. But whether we like it or not, NEPA is on the books. To gouge taxpayers year after year and justify it by pointing to burdensome environmental requirements is just wrong. Some say this amendment is an attempt to take away jobs in Alaska. It is not. In fact, as timber subsidies have increased, timber-related jobs have decreased. Taxpayer subsidies per Tongass timber job have risen from $12,000 in 1996 to over $150,000 per job now. Think of that. Every job, $150,000 in taxpayer subsidy for that one job. Finally, according to a 2003 National Forest Service publication, there is enough timber available off the current road system of the Tongass to meet demand for several years. Mr. Chairman, let us restore some fiscal sanity to the Tongass timber program. I urge my colleagues to stand up for the American taxpayers and support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he might consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Chairman, just a couple of points I would make. First of all, it certainly is not an attack on any Member of this body nor an attack on any State. I would just note that those jobs that are being paid for and the $48 million paid out last year alone, those tax dollars come from New Jersey and they come from Ohio and they come from Pennsylvania.

Mr. CHABOT. I will be happy to yield to the gentleman from Alaska.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, since 1982, there has been almost $1 billion, $850 million in all, spent for this. And relative to jobs, back in 1996 there were 1,500 jobs. It is down to below 300 right now. So every one of those jobs is basically being subsidized by the American taxpayer to the tune of $150,000 per job. So what we are trying to do here is be responsible to the taxpayers of my State, Ohio, and New Jersey and Pennsylvania and Texas and New York and Vermont and all the other States who right now are donor States who are sending these dollars up to Alaska to sustain those few jobs. Now, I am all for timbering, I am all for allowing roads to be built; just not at taxpayer expense, not when the taxpayer is getting ripped off.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I would just note there are very diverse groups on all sides of the political spectrum that strongly support this amendment, group likes Citizens Against Government Waste, National Taxpayers Union, Taxpayers For Common Sense, on the one hand; the National Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club and many others; and I would strongly urge my colleagues to take a vote here which is in the best interests of the taxpayers of this country.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. CHABOT

Mr. CHABOT. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Chairman, I thank Chairman Hunter for his hard work, not just this year but over the years working on behalf of our men and women in uniform who serve us so well all around the globe. He, of course, is a Vietnam veteran himself and has seen action and knows exactly what he is talking about. I commend him for his work in this area. In November of 2003, President Bush signed into law the National Defense Authorization Act of 2004. This legislation allowed spouses of active duty personnel killed after November 23, 2003, the option of signing their military survivor benefit plan, the SBP payments, over to their child or children so they could receive the payment without being subject to SBP dependency indemnity compensation, or DIC, the offset. Unfortunately, this option is not currently available to spouses of soldiers killed from the time period beginning October 7, 2001, which was the start of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, until November 23, 2003, when the legislation was actually passed. There are approximately 400 families who are adversely affected by this glaring omission. One such family who lives in my district is Shauna Moore and her 3- year-old daughter, Hannah. Their loving husband and father, Army Sergeant Benjamin Moore, was fatally shot during a rifle-training exercise at Fort Hood, Texas, in February, 2003, while preparing for deployment to Iraq. It is through these unfortunate circumstances that I have had the chance to meet and talk with Shauna Moore and hear her story. So today I am offering an amendment that expresses the sense of Congress that the widows and widowers of these 400 brave American soldiers who gave their lives in defense of our freedoms do not remain the forgotten few. If accepted, I am hopeful that this amendment is the start of a process by which we may allow these 400 spouses and their families to obtain the option of assigning their SBP payments to their children, just as those whose spouses died after November 23, 2003, have been given the opportunity to do. I believe this is the least we can do for families and people like Shauna and Hannah Moore who have already had to deal with the tragedy of losing a loved one. They should not be penalized solely because their loved one made the ultimate sacrifice protecting our country after the start of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars but before November 23, 2003, when that particular legislation passed. These are 400 families that should not be forgotten. I believe my colleagues will support this.