Joel Hefley

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to reduce the budget for the U.S. Court of Federal Claims by one-half. Due to an unchecked law, a handful of Federal judges who decide claims against the government are collecting full-time wages for less than part-time work. The judges on the U.S. Court of Federal Claims are appointed for 15 years, but jurists turn their terms into lifetime appointments by remaining as senior judges and collecting their full six-figure salaries. Currently, the Federal claims court has 16 active judges, and it has 13 senior-status judges. The workload of the court is hardly burdensome, as it averages fewer than two trials a year. While a handful of senior judges work a full docket, others handle only a fraction of their former caseloads; and still others, Mr. Chairman, still others do no cases whatsoever. They keep an empty docket. Yet all of them are paid the full-time Federal judge salary of $158,000 a year. This is known in the legal profession by lawyers who know this court, it is called ``charmed existence,'' and it is an abuse of judicial authority and a waste of taxpayer money. I would hope we would support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the chairman agreeing to look into this; and I think that is important, whether this amendment passes or not. There is somewhat of a movement within the other body to shut that court down completely. The value of it, there is a real question about it. In a recent Associated Press story, let me just quote a few lines from it, it says, ``Judges on a little known Federal court that decides claims against the government are appointed for 15 years, but collect their full six-figure salaries for the lifetime of the workload average, and they average fewer than two trials each in one recent year.'' It goes on to say, ``Taxpayers are spending top dollar for full-time judges who do not even perform part-time work.'' Finally, the statement is made, ``They go from doing next to nothing to doing nothing and we are paying for it.'' We still leave over $7 million in the budget for this court. We are not doing away with the court entirely. That decision is not being made at this point. I do not think this would be the appropriate place to do that. But this is a way to get at the abuse that is going on with that particular court and the abuse of taxpayer dollars. Again, Mr. Chairman, I would ask for an ``aye'' vote. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This is an amendment I have offered on a great many appropriations bills over the last few years. In my desire to begin to get a grip on the deficit spending that we are doing now, and it is not a reflection on the chairman or the committee and the job they have done, there is a great deal of good in this bill; but I rise today to offer an amendment to cut by 1 percent the level of funding in this appropriations bill. For the CJS appropriations bill that amends amounts to $398 million, and that translates to one penny on every dollar we spend. One penny is all we are talking about on every dollar that we are spending. I recognize there are many important law enforcement provisions contained within this bill, which is why I have structured my amendment using the Holman rule so that the administration may choose the accounts in which they want to reduce the spending in this bill. The tendency always is when you want to cut something or a Department is to say that the most desirable things are the things it will cut. No, it is not. The FBI that will get cut here or some of those law enforcement things, it will be the things that are the least important, if we do it in this way and under this particular rule. As most Members are aware, as I said earlier, I have introduced similar amendments that would have cut spending in other appropriations bills and I have plans to continue doing so in other appropriations bills that are brought to the floor. My amendments are intended to draw a line. The budget for fiscal year 2005 is too large. We have the power to do something about the budget deficit right now. By voting for my amendment, Members are stating to the American taxpayers they should not have to pay higher taxes in the future because we could not control spending today. Our budgets would be no different than the taxpayers' budgets at home. When we have less money, we simply need to spend less money, and there are plenty of places within the Federal budget where we are spending money that clearly does not make any sense whatsoever. Mr. Chairman, I offer this 1 percent cut in the budget. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. There is not a member of this Congress that is more conscientious or more concerned about the deficit than the chairman of the committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf). I have the highest respect for him. I still say, Mr. Chairman, that we can find one penny on the dollar to cut in this particular appropriations bill. I would ask for an ``aye'' vote. 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 offer an amendment.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First of all, I would like to commend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), ranking member, for the very conscientious job they have done on this bill. They have had a difficult task. There is very much that is good in this bill, and I do not take away from that at all. Also, I have sat here for an hour listening to the virtues of the Census Bureau; and, indeed, that is a very important function of our government, and I do not want to attack that. But I do rise today to offer an amendment to reduce the budget for the Census Bureau by approximately $174 million. And the reason for that is that this is a particular thing, and let me read from the bill. $173,806,000 is for the reengineered design process for the short-form- only census. In a time of record or near-record deficits, and at any time, one wonders how in the world we can spend $173 million, almost $174 million, on redesigning a form, and a short form at that. And I think the short form probably does need to be redone, but at what cost? And I would suggest to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Wolf) that perhaps they could come back to us next year or the next as we get closer, and we are talking 5 years out, that they could come back to us with a little more reasonable effort about what it takes to redesign a short form. If we do not have people at the Census Bureau, and he talked about the thousand jobs lost and all of that, but if we do not have people at the Census Bureau that have the ability to redesign a form for a whole lot less than $174 million, then we need some new people. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I do not want to extend the debate on the virtues of the census. We have heard the same things over and over again, and all of us agree with that. And I have no desire whatsoever, as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano) said, to do away with the census. We are supposed to do the census, and we need to do it as accurately as we possibly can. And we are not with this amendment doing away with all the setup for the census. We are doing away with the engineering of one form at the expense of $174 million, the engineering of one form. And we have 5 additional years to look at this and determine what is reasonable. There is going to have to be some money to do this because the form ought to be redone. So we have 5 years for them to come back to us with a reasonable figure, and we will grant that figure so they can do it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, with recent dedication of the WWII Memorial and the 60th anniversary of D-Day, all Americans were reminded of the courage and sacrifices made by members of the Greatest Generation. In particular, we've gained a greater appreciation from our fellow citizens that served in the Armed Forces and their families alike. Today I choose to honor Lt Col (U.S. Army retired) Les and Mrs. Madlyn Curtiss, who began their military service to our Nation that extended 24 years and three wars. Colonel and Mrs. Curtiss are patriotic volunteers in the truest sense. Colonel Les Curtiss enlisted in the Army as a Private and rose through the ranks to Master Sergeant. He served in the 13th and 82d Airborne Divisions, and later in the 187th Airborne Regimental Combat Team during the Korean Conflict. He received his commission as a Second Lieutenant in 1952, and was the Distinguished and Honor Graduate of his Officer Candidate Class. In 1958, he transferred from the Infantry to the Signal Corps. As a Signal Corps Officer, Colonel Les Curtiss served as an Airborne Battle Group Signal Officer and Advisor to the 5th Military Region, Vietnam; Instructor at the Signal Officers Advance Course, Fort Monmouth, New Jersey; Deputy Commander, U.S. Army Element NATO, and Camp Commandant, Camp Voluceau, NATO, Paris, France; and attended the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. Both Colonel Les Curtiss and his life's partner Madlyn believed that no word was ever spoken that has held out greater hope than Freedom; and nothing demands greater sacrifice, needs to be nurtured, and comes closer to bring God's will on earth. They both believed that Freedom is worth fighting for; and while her husband served in a variety of Army command and staff positions, Mrs. Madlyn Curtiss faithfully performed her duty as well. The World War II Generation made their mark in American History as soldiers; and they were undoubtedly very successful as veterans as well. In every field, they quickly assumed positions of leadership, often transforming entire industries, research fields, and professions, or creating new ones. After his retirement from the U.S. Army, Colonel Les Curtiss and his wife Madlyn moved to Colorado Springs, Colorado, and pursued a life-long dream of teaching. He assumed a position on the faculty at Falcon School District #49. Mr. Les Curtiss taught Speech, Mathematics, World Geography, Government, and History. He also served as the Chairman of the Social Science Department and President of the Falcon Teachers Association. These two great American's were born in the immediate aftermath of WWI, they survived the Great Depression and answered their country's summons when totalitarianism and fascism threatened the world. As General George Marshall stated, ``they have made history, a great history for the good of mankind,'' and today I honor them for their service and commitment.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Madam Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment, which I am going to ask unanimous consent to withdraw, but I do want to make this point: this amendment would cut the line item for the Appalachian Regional Commission by $28.5 million. The amendment would leave $10 million for termination of the program. Three weeks ago, we buried Ronald Reagan. Some of us were moved to reminisce about those days and the ideas that brought many of us here. Looking back, a lot of those ideas that made sense then still make sense today. And one of those ideas was getting rid of the Appalachian Regional Commission, and it still makes sense today. Now, first of all, I want to applaud the efforts of our chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson), in looking at this program critically and cutting a good deal out of this program. He is going in the right direction. Last year, he stated that if he had his way he would do away with the ARC; and, true to his word, he is doing what he can to eliminate it. This year, the bill recommends a $38.5 million appropriation for the commission, $27.5 million, or about 45 percent, less than the President's request. This is much less than just 5 to 10 years ago, when we spent upwards of $200 million on this program. So I am saying, let us go the rest of the way and eliminate this redundant program altogether. The ARC purports to provide guidance and financial assistance to 13 Appalachian States to promote economic growth in the region. Let me read you those States and you see if by any reasonable definition this is Appalachia. Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. West Virginia was the cornerstone of the Appalachian Commission, and since the Appalachian Commission has been in existence, West Virginia has gone from 43rd in economic development to 49th. So it tells you the effectiveness of the Appalachian Commission. Until the past few years, the ARC was among our most expensive economic development programs, $282 million in 1995, just 10 years ago. Yet despite such spending, after 30 years of existence, there is no convincing evidence that the ARC has created new jobs or capital investment. Indeed, there is some evidence that this region is getting poorer relative to the rest of the country. It is time to try something different. There are other programs that do better what the ARC does less well: the Department of Transportation's highway program, a host of programs under the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Further, each of the 13 States and within them many of the counties and municipalities within those States have economic development agencies that are better suited and better qualified to judge the needs of these areas than the ARC. As I said, it is time to phase out this program. But in deference to the excellent job that I think the chairman is doing, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson) is headed in the right direction on this, I will ask unanimous consent that my amendment be withdrawn. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I object. Is it not the policy of the House to go from one side to the other side on these amendments?

Mr. HEFLEY. Well, that is a different policy than we have been following all afternoon, Mr. Chairman.

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

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I hope we do not take near that much time, but I rise to offer an amendment to cut the level of funding in this appropriations bill by $278,880,000, or approximately 1 percent of the total outlays of the bill. This amendment is in the form of a retrenchment under the Holman rule. If we cut these funds, it will be up to the administration to decide where the cuts should fall. The bill totals approximately $28 billion, $49.6 million above the President's request, and $734.5 million, or 2.7 percent, over last year. Now, last week, we debated the interior appropriations bill, which actually showed a decrease in funding from last year, and I voted for the bill because I thought that was a terrific step in the right direction towards getting a grip on our deficit. It focused on the core functions, I think, that needed to be done and eliminated some things which were nonessential. Now I understand that there are needs that need to be addressed in this bill, important needs, but given this year's budget deficit is still projected at around $400 billion, I think some of these needs should be postponed. Energy and water, I believe, should have to meet the same kinds of strictures as the other appropriations bills, namely either a freeze or cut. Naturally, we will hear about the impact of a 1 percent cut on certain specific popular programs, and it is possible a 1 percent cut could impact some of the smallest programs. That is why this amendment leaves those cuts to the administration. Mr. Chairman, let us look at what the 1 percent cut would mean to other programs. One percent of the $1.87 billion general construction budget for the Army Corps of Engineers would total $18.7 million. For one of the Corps' recommendations in my district, $273,000 for the flood control study along Fountain Creek, 1 percent would amount to $2,730. Mr. Chairman, $2,730, though no doubt the Corps would disagree, I cannot see how they would miss that particularly. It probably would not pay for the printing. Mr. Chairman, we have a terrible deficit. Our children are going to be paying for it. Given that context, I do not think asking the administration to find us a savings of one cent on the dollar is too much to ask. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and in closing we are talking about one penny on a dollar. And I think many businessmen will tell you if you cannot find one penny on a dollar of savings, you should not be in business. I think we should apply that to our governmental spending here in our budget. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker. I rise today to celebrate and commemorate the career of my good friend and Chief of Staff of 11 years, Constance Scott Solomon, who has recently retired from 20 years of selfless public service to the people of Colorado. Originally from Kansas, Ms. Solomon earned a Bachelor of Science in Education and a Master of Arts degree in Special Education from the University of Kansas where she was a proud member of the University of Kansas Chapter of Pi Beta Phi Sorority. After moving to Colorado Springs, Colorado, she began working for U.S. Senator William Armstrong. While serving as his Area Director, she so greatly endeared herself to Coloradans by her dedication, that 20 years later, Senator Armstrong is still thanked for and reminded of Ms. Solomon's help and assistance by those she aided in their time of need. Following Senator Armstrong's retirement, Ms. Solomon continued to stay active in Colorado politics and joined the staff of newly elected Senator Hank Brown. She rose in the ranks and assumed the position of Area Director for southern Colorado. Again her patience and hard work are remembered years later. In 1993, I was pleased to have Ms. Solomon join my staff and assume the duties of Chief of Staff. She has worked tirelessly for so many years to assist the people of Colorado's 5th Congressional District through both legislation and case work. Aside from public service, Ms. Solomon has served as Director of Pre- School for Downs Syndrome Children in Teller County, Colorado; Director and Coordinator for Homebound-Hospital Program in Wyandotte County, Kansas; Director of the University of Kansas Medical Center Hospital's Teenage Parents School; and taught first-grade in Kansas City, Missouri. Ms. Solomon has dedicated her life and professional careers to assisting and improving the lives of others. Her perseverance and commitment to her fellow man is certainly uncommon and I, as well as the people of southern Colorado will surely miss a truly unique and compassionate friend. I wish Ms. Solomon the best in her retirement and thank her for all her years of service.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, as so many others have, to pay tribute to one of our Nation's finest sons and political leaders. Former President Ronald Reagan is worthy of respect and admiration both as a man and world leader, and his passing this weekend leaves each of us with a sense of loss and sadness. His lasting mark on American politics is unquestionable. At a time when it was fashionable to declare one's political moderation, Reagan fearlessly changed the face of American politics by standing up and boldly declaring himself to be a conservative. He fought for principles and causes that, before his Presidency, were considered heresy. Balanced budgets, tax cuts, smaller government, and a robust national defense were the hallmarks of his ideology, and he never shied away from articulating and fighting for those views. He proudly became the father of political conservatism and made it possible for people like me to become a Member of Congress. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, those who espoused conservative political views had few outlets from which to share their philosophies, but Reagan ushered in an era of conservatism whose tide has yet to wane. The makeup of today's political world is due, in large part, to the legacy of Ronald Reagan.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the 2-year delay that is in the bill is in direct response to widespread concern that the Department of Defense is experiencing too many stresses and changes to make effective base closure decisions by May of 2005. Our Nation cannot afford to close a base in the 2005 BRAC round only to discover in 2010 that the assets at that base were both irreplaceable and now lost forever. We have had this happen in the past, at Cecil Field in Florida, and we also lost port space down in Charleston Harbor that we could very well use today. The press releases, what I have heard from the gentleman from Minnesota, seems to be that he is mostly concerned about the saving of money. I would like to share with the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) the BRAC math that we get by serving on the committee. The DOD's claim that BRAC will result in a savings of $3 billion are only half the story. It is like looking at a financial sheet and just seeing the assets and not the deficits. In truth, 3 years after the next BRAC round, we can expect DOD to have spent approximately $5 billion more than they have saved. In other words, DOD will have realized a cumulative savings of $4 billion, but they will have spent $9 billion in the process. Even 6 years after the BRAC rounds, we can expect DOD BRAC costs to exceed their cumulative savings by more than $100 million. These figures are real. These are not my figures. They are based on GAO's reports on costs and savings from the past two BRAC rounds. Let me repeat. DOD will actually need increased budgets to implement base closures, and by 2011, DOD will actually have spent more than it has saved from base closure actions. Let me share two additional reasons for why delaying the BRAC until 2007 is the responsible thing to do. First, we are undergoing the most significant realignment of overseas forces and bases since World War II. And these changes may result in tens of thousands of military personnel returning to the United States. We do not know what this is going to amount to. In addition, I am concerned about the Department's overseas proposals. According to CBO, all the proposals under consideration have substantial upfront cost, as much as $9 billion; and several of the approaches under consideration would actually result in decreased operational capability. DOD plans to roll these overseas realignment decisions into BRAC. This is too significant an issue for Congress to accept without time for consultation, oversight, and approval. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha).

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Jones).