Joel Hefley

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. I may have one speaker who has just arrived.

Mr. HEFLEY. I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Mr. Buyer.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Let me just point out something here today. I think we have seen something we rarely see on this floor with Mr. Edwards and Mr. Buyer; we have seen an actual discussion of the issue where we actually debate the issue, and on both sides, you have intelligent comments being made rather than people getting up and reading a statement and talking past each other. I just want to commend both of these gentlemen for the quality of debate that we have just heard on the floor of the House. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. I want to commend Mr. Buyer and Mr. Edwards on their sincere concern for the welfare of our veterans. They see things differently on this particular issue, but that doesn't take away from the concern that both have. They are good friends, and I know where their heart is on this, and it is in the right place. As I said earlier, we have had the kind of debate I wish we could have more often here in the House of Representatives.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, there is enough blame to go around. The minority leadership of the House has politicized the ethics process for partisan political gain. Likewise, the majority party has tried to take control of the ethics process again for partisan reasons. I have been encouraged recently that the House Ethics Committee is again taking action in investigative matters. I am disappointed, however, that Representative Alan Mollohan (D-WV), the former ranking minority member, is being given blame by some for inactivity of the committee over the last 16 months. If I put myself in Representative Mollohan's position, I am not sure I would have acted any differently. The House Ethics Committee is the only House committee that has an even number of Republicans and Democrats. Due to the nature of the committee and the important work it conducts, all committee activity should be conducted on a bipartisan basis. As I review the events at the start of the 109th Congress, it leads me to the conclusion that several important actions were conducted by the majority without consulting the minority. These partisan actions were contrary to the nature and spirit of the way business has been, and should be, conducted by the Ethics Committee. If I had been the ranking member of the Ethics Committee and the majority party had arbitrarily and unilaterally changed the rules I would have had an obligation to react, just as Representative Mollohan did. If I had been the ranking member and the majority party unilaterally fired the senior committee staff in contradiction to rules which say both the majority and minority must agree, I would have had to react, just as Representative Mollohan did. If I had been the ranking member and the majority party tried to put a partisan chief of staff in as the staff director for the Ethics Committee in contradiction to the standards of a nonpartisan staff I would have had to react, just as Representative Mollohan did. In other words, I feel Representative Mollohan did exactly what was expected of him as the ranking minority member when the bipartisan nature of the ethics process was unilaterally challenged by the majority. He had the courage to stand up to partisan actions when he should have. My experience with Representative Mollohan when we served together on the Ethics Committee during the 108th Congress is that he was completely nonpartisan and that he would absolutely take no instructions from his leadership on the conduct of the Ethics Committee. That was my philosophy as well, and should be the stance of all who serve on this important committee. Representative Mollohan has recently been dealing with some other issues that I know nothing about and won't speak to, but as the committee chairman I couldn't have asked for a more thoughtful and considerate ranking member to work with. His successor as ranking minority member on the Ethics Committee, Representative Howard Berman (D-CA), is an excellent choice. I have also worked with Representative Berman on the committee and I have the highest respect for him. In conclusion, it is apparent to me that the leadership of both parties have forgotten the importance of a bipartisan ethics process in the House. The Ethics Committee proved during the 108th Congress that, working in a bipartisan manner, it could handle politically sensitive and difficult cases. Both parties need to return to a bipartisan Ethics Committee and bipartisan ethics process or the House as a whole will continue to suffer.

Mr. HEFLEY

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

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise again today to offer an amendment to cut the level of funding in this appropriations bill by 1 percent. This amount equals more than $598 million, which is one penny off of every dollar appropriated in this bill. As you know, I have offered these kinds of amendments for most of the appropriation bills that we have considered so far this year, and if they had all been accepted, one penny off a dollar, we would have saved $2.2 billion. The appropriations made in this particular bill represent an increase of approximately $140 million more than the administration's request for 2007. In addition, this bill also reflects an increase of more than $2.6 billion over last year's appropriations bill, an increase that I think is just unacceptable in light of our deficit. Mr. Chairman, I would encourage support of the amendment. I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out to the gentlewoman from Texas that these amendments are couched in such a way that they are not 1 percent across the board in every program in any of these bills. It is 1 percent total out of the bottom line or the top line, whichever way you want to say it, in the bill. And that means that the administration, the Department, can look at it and decide what is really needed and what is not. And if you will notice from some of the amendments we have had in the last day or two, this bill is riddled with earmarks for special little projects across the country in various districts. And, frankly, I don't know why the people of Colorado should have to pay for things in other districts that are strictly for those other districts like we had in some of the Flake amendments yesterday. So we are not talking about a 1 percent. You can always mention, in every bill there is lot of good stuff. I have great respect for the chairman and the ranking member here. They have worked hard on this. There is much that is very, very good that I too would not want cut in this bill. But if we can't find one cent out of every dollar, then I think there is something very wrong. I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, we have been at this for about 6 hours, I guess, and I think everything that has been said on the subject has been said. Not everybody has said it, and so we will continue for another 6 hours on it. But I have seen many people today who seem to have used this as an opportunity to insist that the mission in Iraq has been a failure, and that our presence in Iraq has not been properly run, and that we are not winning the peace. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I think this is absolutely a wrong assertion and only serves to lower the morale of the men and women fighting in Iraq, while encouraging the terrorists who aim to harm both America and Iraq. The other day I was rushing to Chair a meeting in the Armed Services Committee. I was running a little late so I was kind of frustrated and in a hurry. Someone stopped me out in the hall and said, Congressman Hefley, Congressman Hefley, would you like to meet a marine from your district? And, of course, I would like to meet a marine from my district, but I was in a hurry. I did stop, and I went over to this young marine. They introduced him to me, and there he stood in his starched shirt and red and blue striped pants, straight as a string, and strong as could be. I introduced myself and he introduced himself, and then someone said, Sergeant So and So lost both legs in Iraq. I would never know it from looking at him, but he lost both legs in Iraq. I said, oh, I am sorry to hear that, but thank you. He said oh, no, no, no, since then I have gone to jump school. I would not go to jump school with two good legs. Since then, I have gone to jump school and I am going back to Iraq. The job's not done. I have been to Germany, as many of you have, to see where we bring the wounded into Germany. There was one young man laying on his bed, and I said, well, when were you wounded? He said about 4:30 this morning. About 4:30 this morning, we had gotten him off the battlefield. We had stabilized him and had him in an airplane and had him to Germany where he had already had successful surgery before the end of the day. The main desire of his heart was to get back with his unit in Iraq. That is good morale. I talked to another young man that was just coming out of the operating room, and he had his arm up in a cast. I asked him, well, soldier, do you plan to stay in the service? He said, oh, I plan to stay in if they will let me. He said the job is not done. And the point I make with these stories is that they see that they are doing something important. They see that they are doing something meaningful. They see they are doing something that helps America and they want to continue to do it. We are fighting the war on terror on our terms, and we are winning.

Mr. HEFLEY

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

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise again today to offer an amendment to cut the level of funding in this appropriations bill by approximately 1 percent. The amount equals approximately $678 million. While the total spending in this bill is significantly less than last year's bill, and I want to commend the chairman on that, this bill is still over $250 million more than the President requested. Let me just give you an example. I mean, Amtrak for instance, we are going to put $1 billion, more or less, into Amtrak again in this bill. I do not know when we are going to come to the realization that Amtrak just is not going to work. It is not going to survive with the present way we handle it. We have to draw the line somewhere, and I feel strongly that the projected deficit for next year is too large. We can do something about the deficit right now. It will not solve it, but at least symbolically it says we are interested in trying to get to that goal. By voting for my amendment, you are stating for the record that the budget deficit is too large and the American taxpayers should not be burdened in the future because we cannot control our spending today. I have no doubt that some of the good programs in this bill will take a cut. While that is unfortunate, our budget should be no different from the taxpayers' budget at home. When you have less money, you simply spend less money. It is really that simple. Mr. Chairman, I retain the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HEFLEY

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

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to echo the comments of Mr. Hinchey on the prior amendment concerning the chairman, and I have enormous respect for the work that you have done and wish you well in whatever you do after this, but you are a conscientious legislator, and we are to be proud of you for that. Mr. Chairman, I rise again today to offer an amendment to cut the level of funding in this appropriation bill by 1 percent. This amount equals $213 million. It is only one penny off of every dollar spent. I have several pages here of brilliant explanation of why. I am not going to go through all of that because I do not think I am going to change any minds, and yes, I know this will not balance the budget. It is symbolic, but at least it shows that we are thinking about it and that we are serious about it. In my budget at home and your budget at home or any department's budget, if they cannot find one penny out of a dollar, then I think something is very, very wrong. Mr. Chairman, I would move the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I had intended to rise again today to offer an amendment to cut the level of funding in this appropriations bill by 1 percent but the committee rose before I could get here. This amount equals $30.3 million. I have offered many amendments like this over the past several years. I understand the difficulty appropriators must have in narrowing down the requests from members and the administration for money, and I applaud them for bringing us a bill that reflects an amount that is less than that which the administration has requested for FY07. However, this appropriations bill still reflects a budget increase of nearly $110 million over last year's Legislative Branch budget. I strongly believe that this appropriations bill, as well as the projected deficit for next year, is still much too large. The Capitol Visitor's Center, which receives funding in this bill, is long past its deadline and has been grossly over budget. This is a prime example of our inability to effectively control spending, even on projects in our own backyard. It is projects such as this that have greatly contributed to our Nation's lack of trust in their government's ability to manage spending responsibly. Fiscal responsibility should start in this chamber, and by voting for this amendment, you are stating for the record your belief that the budget deficit is much too large and that the American taxpayers should not be burdened in the future because we can not control our spending today.

Mr. HEFLEY

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

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment is similar to others that I have offered over the past 4 years. It would cut total spending in the bill by 1 percent, one penny on the dollar, or $300,170,000. Now, I do not need to go into great explanation about this because everybody knows exactly what it is, and we also know pretty much the result. I would also like to say Mr. Hobson's argument would be that he has already done a good deal of cutting in here, and indeed, he has, and I commend him for it. He is extremely conscientious when it comes to the spending of government money, but I would point out that we just started the appropriations process, but if we had passed the Hefley amendments that I have offered on the few bills that we have had so far we would have saved $747,350,000. Three-quarters of $1 billion we would have saved already. We have just started the appropriations process. So it is not insignificant, even though it is only a penny on the dollar, and for these reasons, I offer this amendment and urge its support. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I understand those arguments, but if you don't have the money, we need to stop spending or at least cut down the spending. This is 1 percent. I would encourage support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I will take the admonition of Mr. Bonilla and Mr. Obey that we are going to be here way into the night if everybody takes all their time, and so I will not do that. I want the chairman to know I have 8 pages of scintillating argument here; but since I do not think it is going to change your mind anyway, let me just say that this is the amendment that you are familiar with that would cut 1 percent of the discretionary funding in the bill. It amounts to $178 million, which represents one penny off every dollar. Mr. Chairman, I rise again today to offer an amendment to cut the level of discretionary funding in this appropriations bill by 1 percent. This amount equals $178.12 million dollars which represents only one penny off of every dollar. As most members are aware, I have offered a series of similar amendments to several appropriations bills. I think it is important to state the affect these amendments would have on the deficit if they would be accepted on all spending bills. We have to draw a line somewhere. The budget we have for next year is simply too large. We can do something about the deficit right now. By voting for my amendment you are stating that American tax payers should not have to pay higher taxes in the future because we couldn't control our spending today. Some of the projects in this FY 07 Agriculture Appropriations bill include over $4 million for Shrimp aquiculture research in 7 states. The USDA even testified in 2005 that this project's objectives of developing a sustainable domestic shrimp farming industry in the United States were met and completed in 1987. If the USDA concluded that the project's objectives were met 18 years before, why has Congress continued to fund this program at this level? We also fund over $6.4 million for wood utilization and we've paid nearly $86 million on this program since 1985, $2.5 million for cotton research in Texas designed for in part, to expand the demand for cotton research in West Texas, almost $2 million to research red imported fire ants in Mississippi, as well as $878,000 for catfish genome research in Alabama. These are just a few examples of the funding included in these appropriations bills. The 07 Agriculture appropriations bill still provides nearly $17.8 billion in official discretionary spending, which represents over a $1 billion increase from the previous year and almost $500 million over the President's request. The authorizing and appropriating committees successfully eliminated a considerable amount of mandatory spending with help from the Deficit Reduction Act, but appropriators still shifted another $650 million from mandatory to discretionary spending which distorts some of the numbers. Last year the discretionary funds in this bill were essentially flat funded, but mandatory spending rose exponentially. We seem to be playing hot potato with these funds by trading off every year. Our budget should be no different from the taxpayers' budgets at home. When we have less money, we should spend less money. It really is that simple. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.