Joel Hefley

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment cuts $15 million from the account of the National Endowment for the Arts and applies $4.8 million to the payments in lieu of taxes account. What I wanted to do is make that equal; but it was subject to a point of order, so this is what we came up with. It would reduce the NEA account to about the level at which it had been funded for about a decade, while bringing PILT just a little bit closer to its $340 million authorization level. Now, I want my colleagues to know that this is not an NEA-bashing amendment. The NEA I think has considerably cleaned up its act since the days of Mappelthorpe and Serrano, and the Challenge America grants program has helped return the NEA to educational outreach, the thing that it did with some success at its founding. No, this amendment is an acknowledgment, and we have been hearing a lot about it this afternoon, but this is an acknowledgment of the need for the PILT program. People have often said to me, you are so lucky to live in the West with all of the open space and all the public land, and I do consider myself lucky because of that. But people who do not live in the public land States do not realize sometimes that these public lands and all that open space comes at a cost. My colleagues saw the gentleman from Utah's (Mr. Cannon) map up here with the red and so forth showing the public lands. East of the Mississippi, there are a few red spots scattered around. West of the Mississippi, it is almost solid red. The West is essentially owned by the government. For every acre under public ownership, western counties and municipalities lose part of their tax base. In Colorado, this amounts to almost 30 percent of the State's acreage. Of course, we heard earlier, this pales to the about 85 percent of the States' acreage in Nevada that is under Federal control. We have one county in Colorado, Hinsdale County, that is close to 98 percent public land. You have Lake City, the county seat, you have a mountain, and then you have the rest of Hinsdale County; and almost all of it is owned by the government. So services, as you can imagine, are limited. Services mean fire and police and schools and health care and all kinds of things. There are other more direct costs too. Due to Federal underfunding of its own land, local municipalities are often asked to bear the cost of road maintenance and police coverage for those areas. All of this, while operating under the diminished tax base that I mentioned earlier. So I have always supported full funding of PILT, and I know we cannot get there this year. I do appreciate the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) for what they have done for PILT in this bill. They have moved it forward somewhat. But since we have all this land, I think we should give us the funds we need to help take care of it. Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would just encourage an ``aye'' vote on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think it is interesting that the gentlewoman is from Connecticut. If my colleagues remember that map, public lands are insignificant in Connecticut by comparison with States in the west where we have up to 85 or 90 percent of the land owned by the government. I said at the outset that this is not an NEA-bashing amendment. The NEA does many good things; but we only have so much money, and the committee knows that is the case. They are the ones that had to struggle with the allocation they got and they had to make tough, tough choices. When you have to make choices, I think you need to ask yourself the question, NEA, as good as it is in some areas, is it better than having the funds to educate your children in many of those western States? Is it better than having the funds to provide fire protection, to provide police protection, to take care of those public lands that are out there? Which is better? We have to weigh it and balance it. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks) said a while ago that he thought they had a pretty good balance. I think that if you are making these choices, the balance needs to lean a little bit more to the PILT. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much for the time. Let me say that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct was not broken. There was no deadlock ever. There were no partisan votes ever. Almost every vote was unanimous. Every staff member was hired or fired in a bipartisan way; but at the same time, neither the process nor the rules are perfect, and they should be looked at. They just should not be looked at in the way we have done it. My colleagues have heard me say it over and over, and they are getting tired of it and I apologize, and maybe we will not have to talk about it anymore; but we cannot have a Committee on Standards of Official Conduct unless it is completely bipartisan in every way. I want to praise the Speaker of the House for taking the leadership in this and getting us out of this mess. I want to praise the gentleman from Washington (Chairman Hastings) and the other members of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct for trying to resolve this dispute. I want to praise the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) for trying to resolve the dispute and making sure that we continue with an absolute nonpartisan or bipartisan committee. There are ethics charges flying around this place that are being used in a political way, there is no question about it. I do not think the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) is a part of that, however. I think he sincerely is concerned about the institution, and I think all of us are. We should be open to reforming the ethics process when necessary; and I encourage the committee, and in a bipartisan way, to look at these rules and to look at other rules. The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan) and I talked often about a package of rules that we would like to present to the House for consideration of changing, and I would encourage the committee to do that. Some of the due process provisions of the rules that were made in the January decision are good, and the committee should give consideration to adopting them even if not directed by the House. I am encouraged by this effort to return to a bipartisan ethics process that existed during the last Congress. I urge my colleagues to vote for this and to continue the effort to return the process to a bipartisan type of process that it absolutely must be. Then we can go from here and make sure that when we have a Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, it is an ethics committee we can all be proud of.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 6) expressing the sense of the Congress that the Department of Defense should continue to exercise its statutory authority to support the activities of the Boy Scouts of America, in particular the periodic national and world Boy Scout Jamborees.

Mr. HEFLEY. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the concurrent resolution under consideration.

Mr. HEFLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, once again we find the Boy Scouts of America under attack from the American Civil Liberties Union. This time the ACLU has set its sights on the Department of Defense, challenging its longstanding support of the Boy Scouts. In 1999 the ACLU of Illinois sued the DOD, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Chicago Board of Education for sponsoring Boy Scout programs because participation in Boy Scouts includes an oath to God. Ultimately, the Chicago Board of Education suspended its sponsorship of scouting activities, and on Tuesday, November 16, 2004, the Department of Defense agreed to issue a worldwide directive to all its military facilities that the Department and its personnel may not sponsor Boy Scout units in an official manner. Madam Speaker, it is already the policy of the Department of Defense not to sponsor any private non-Federal organization including the Boy Scouts of America. The Department does, however, provide support to the Boy Scouts with use of bases and facilities and donations and the use of surplus equipment. Currently, the DOD spends $2 million every 4 years to prepare Fort A.P. Hill, a Virginia military base, for the Boy Scouts' national jamboree. The Department also makes an annual allocation of $100,000 to support Boy Scout units on military bases overseas and another $100,000 to improve Boy Scout properties such as summer camps. This support, and not the Department's sponsorship, asserts the ACLU, is in violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment to the Constitution, and is the basis for the lawsuit. However, since March 10, 1972, the Department of Defense has been specifically authorized to make military installations available to, and to provide equipment, transportation, and other services to the Boy Scouts of America in support of national and world gathering, including events like their jamborees. The Department has also been given authority under title 10 of the U.S. Code to sell and in certain cases donate obsolete or excess material to the Boy Scouts. While the Pentagon's directive will not impair their continued support for the Boy Scouts, the ACLU lawsuit quite frankly threatens it. Since its inception, millions of Americans of every race, creed, and religion have participated in the Boy Scouts of America. As of October 1, 2004, the Boy Scouts utilize more than 1.2 million adult volunteers to serve 2.863 million youth members organized in 121,051 units. With the help of agencies like the Department of Defense, many of these fine young men have gone on to become notable world figures. Let me give some examples: Neil Armstrong, Hank Aaron, Sam Walton, President Gerald Ford. And this is just a few. Madam Speaker, the traditions of the Boy Scouts have been under attack for years by liberal groups. The DOD has been authorized to support the Boy Scouts for over 30 years, and any move to threaten this relationship is simply unconscionable. My resolution encourages the DOD to continue to exercise its statutory authority in its longstanding and successful relationship with the Boy Scouts of America. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HEFLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. HEFLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton) knows firsthand the impact of the Boy Scouts in the lives of a young boy, and I appreciate very much his statement. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. HEFLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hostettler). (Mr. HOSTETTLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HEFLEY. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and encourage everyone to support this resolution.

Mr. HEFLEY. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me this time. I am going to support this rules package. I was not. I came here today fully expecting not to support it; but because of the action taken last evening where we reconsidered some of the suggestions that had been made, I think we have a package now that we can live with. I think some of the recommendations that are in here are ill conceived, and I would hope to work with the chairman again in a bipartisan way with him and his committee and with the leadership to make some additional changes as we go through the process. But I want to thank him and thank the Speaker and the leadership for accommodating my concerns about some of the amendments that I thought were the most difficult and the ones that created the biggest problem in trying to implement the Code of Official Conduct. Each of us, in fact all of us, individually and collectively, have a responsibility to maintain the highest standard of conduct for this House. And changes in the rules, as was said by the previous speaker, should strengthen, not weaken, those standards. As it stands now, I think the previous speaker said we are gutting the ethics committee standards now. We are not as it stands now. I would not be standing up here encouraging people to support the rules package if in any way I thought we were gutting it. We are tweaking it, and as I said earlier, we are tweaking some of it in a way that I wish we were not tweaking it, but it does not gut it. It is something that the rules work pretty well the way they are now, and this does not change that that much. I have had the privilege of serving on the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct since 1997 and have had an additional responsibility as serving as chairman since 2001. And during that time, I have learned one paramount lesson: ethics must be bipartisan. The ethics process must be bipartisan. Ethics reform must be bipartisan, and the ethics committee must be bipartisan. And I can tell the Members the ethics committee is bipartisan. I see our ranking member over here. I could not have a better partner in this ethics process than the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Mollohan). The ethics committee is a bipartisan committee that follows the evidence wherever the evidence leads. Meaningful ethics reform must be genuinely bipartisan. To have a bipartisan process, any significant change in the ethics rules must be made only after careful, thorough bipartisan consideration, as was done in 1989 and 1997. In 1989 and 1997, ethics reform came only after a broad consensus developed for change. I have always strongly supported reevaluating the ethics rules and procedures and making changes wherever a need is shown. I think a number of the criticisms of the ethics process that have been made over the past year are well taken and should be looked at. On the other hand, since I joined the committee, almost every significant decision, I believe every significant decision, has been made on a unanimous vote. Despite the deletion of the amendment that I found the most objectionable to the Code of Conduct, the rules package includes a number of provisions that would make major changes in the ethics- related rules, but as to which neither the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct nor Members outside the rules process were consulted. While I will not vote against the rules package because of these provisions, I urge the leadership to reconsider all the amendments added to the committee's procedural rules without a bipartisan process. In 1997 the House, through a bipartisan task force, carefully studied the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct's enforcement procedures, made a series of changes. The rules package includes provisions that would significantly alter those procedures. It would be a mistake to reverse these bipartisan determinations without a bipartisan process of our own. The 45-day thing that has been mentioned, I do not like that. I think that creates a problem in trying to implement a fair and even-handed ethics process. I would like to see that removed. When in 1997 the Bipartisan Task Force Report was before the House, the House significantly rejected, on a bipartisan vote of 181 to 236, an amendment that would have required automatic dismissal of any complaint after 180 days, not 45 days. The reason for rejection of that amendment, as set out in the floor debate, is that such an artificial time limit on the life of a complaint would serve to encourage deadlock within the committee and partisanship among committee members. I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker. I think that is something we need to look at. The ranking member and I and the members of the ethics committee have been considering a group of suggestions that we would like to bring to the full House. We would like to do that, Mr. Speaker, shortly after the new session of Congress convenes, when we are ready for that process. I think that is the way it ought to be done. These are the people that struggle with these issues every day. I think they ought to be concerned about what we think would make the process better. They do not have to follow it, but at least be concerned about it. The process in the House is not perfect. Let us strive to make it perfect. On this one issue, let us act together on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4837, the Fiscal Year 2005 Military Construction Appropriations Act. As is the usual practice, each project appropriated in this bill was authorized by the recently passed National Defense Authorization Act. In order to achieve this level of coordination, the appropriations and authorizations committees spent the past several weeks working hand-in- hand together to reach matching conference agreements on our respective bills. Working with Chairman Knollenberg and Mr. Edwards during this process was a pleasure, and their efforts were essential to our success. I thank the gentlemen from Michigan and Texas--as well as the tremendous staff at the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee--for their extraordinary efforts in producing the conference report before us, and look forward to joining my colleagues in voting ``yes'' on passage of this conference report.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and remember the life of former Republican Congressman Donald Brotzman of Colorado, who recently passed away at the age of 82. Congressman Brotzman honorably represented Colorado's second Congressional District from 1962 through 1975, during some of this great nation's most tumultuous and trying times. He was born June 28, 1922 on a farm in Logan County, on Colorado's eastern plains. Both a musician and three-sport athlete at Sterling High School, Don Brotzman won a football scholarship in 1939 to the University of Colorado in Boulder where he was an all-conference center and varsity letter-winner in shot put and discus. As war continued to rage on the other side of the world, Don Brotzman delayed his education and served as an Army officer in Yokohama, Japan, and the Philippines through World War II. Following the end of the war, he returned to Boulder to complete degrees in business and law in 1949. Mr. Brotzman began working as a lawyer in Boulder in 1950, and was elected to the Colorado House of Representatives in 1952 and later the State Senate. Local media named him the outstanding freshman member in both chambers. By 1959, he was appointed United States Attorney for Colorado by President Eisenhower and served as such until he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1962, where he was voted president of his freshman class. Congressman Brotzman served five terms and helped to shape laws such as the Clean Air Act and the Public Broadcasting Act. He reached across the aisle to champion causes such as the Indian Peaks Wilderness Area west of Boulder, a national program to help runaway youth and a tax credit for higher-education expenses. Despite serving on the minority side of the aisle, he successfully found the funds to complete the Chatfield Dam and Reservoir, and sponsored the bill authorizing the building of Bear Creek Dam and Reservoir in Colorado. Furthermore, he persuaded the Johnson Administration to sponsor a study that eventually changed the Army's environmental practices at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal in Adams County, Colorado, and he was one of the first members of Congress to call for an all-volunteer military. Colorado lost a great friend and a tremendous leader when it lost Donald Brotzman. His strong western values and commitment to always do what was right, despite partisan interests and outside persuasion, has continued to serve as a great example.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 10, the 9/ 11 Recommendations Implementation Act. This legislation is vitally important to overhaul the nation's intelligence system, which has been in place since World War II. There are five majors areas of reform in this legislation that will dramatically alter the way our country approaches national security. First, this bill establishes a National Director of Intelligence who will have full budget authority over the nation's intelligence agencies. For the first time in our Nation's history, we will have one person whose sole job is to coordinate the activities and information from all of our Nation's intelligence services. Second, this bill restructures terrorism prevention and prosecution. It gives law enforcement agencies and the Department of Justice new tools to prevent and prosecute potential terrorists and acts of terrorism. Whether it is strengthening our money laundering laws to combat terrorists' financial networks or adding additional security measures to our printed currency, this legislation will make it more difficult for terrorists to have access to financing and make it more difficult for those who want to finance terrorist activities. Third, this legislation dramatically strengthens the security of our Nation's borders and restricts the ability of terrorists to travel. I think we can all agree the best way to keep our country safe is keep the terrorists out of our country. If terrorists do manage to get into the country, this legislation gives law enforcement officers the tools they need to make it easier to deport them. also, this legislation makes sure that our federal air marshals have anonymity on all flights, both domestic and foreign. We will add more federal air marshals to foreign flights coming into this country on both U.S. and foreign carriers. We will add a second layer of protection in cockpits, and require the use of biometrically-protected crew badges for airline employees. Fourth, this bill reaches out to other nations to join us in combating terrorism. We will require machine-readable passports for tourists entering our country and also require that all names on passports be translated and printed in Roman alphabet for international travel documents and placed into watchlist systems. Also, this bill makes it a federal crime to give a false claim of citizenship or nationality. Finally, this legislation restructures the government in many important ways. It provides the authorization for the intelligence community reorganization plans, it restructures the Department of Homeland Security for faster and smarter funding for first responders, and it modifies the homeland security advisory system. Mr. Chairman, this legislation contains many important and necessary changes to our Nation's laws. I would like to thank all the members who have worked so hard on a bi-partisan basis to produce such a comprehensive piece of legislation. This is a positive step in improving the nation's intelligence system and our national security.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4200, the National Defense Authorization Act. I too would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member for their leadership on this committee. These are two people who really have their heart with the troops, who are out there doing the job for us as Americans, and they lead the committee greatly. I am so appreciative of the efforts of the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton). This Spring the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) declared that 2004 would be the year of the troops, and he instructed us as committee chairman to focus what we did on the troops. What do they need? What will make them the best equipped and best trained fighting force in the history of the world. And that is what we tried to do in this bill. The conference report before us today is crafted in that spirit, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the troops by saying yes on the conference report today. There are several items in the conference reports to which I would like to call attention, and I will do the one I am disappointed in first, and that is the BRAC provisions in here. We overwhelmingly in the committee voted, and have for the last couple of years, voted to delay the BRAC process for 2 years, and the reason for that is not parochial. It is because we do not think with the transition that we are going through in the armed services right now, in the war, that we have enough information to really make the decision that we will not be sorry for later. So we overwhelmingly in the House and in the committee voted to delay it. But that did not stay in the bill. The one BRAC provision which I am very pleased with the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) put forward it is a very thoughtful provision and it will make the process work much better. Second, this bill repeals the cap on the military housing privatization program effective immediately, ensuring that this extraordinarily successful program will continue to improve homes in which our service members and their families live. The House cast an overwhelming vote in support of the program this summer, and I could not be more pleased that we have found a way to allow it to continue. It would have been a tragedy if we had not done this. Third, the bill authorizes more than $10 billion, an increase of approximately $450 million for military construction and family housing programs of the Department of Defense. By carefully applying these resources, the conference report provides for new facilities that will improve military readiness and enhance the quality of living for America's service members. I would like to express my deep appreciation to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and the ranking member, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), of the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee and their staffs for their hard work this year in what was often a very frustrating process. But they worked with the authorizing committee like the Appropriations Committee, and authorizing committees should work around this House, and have completed the military construction bill working together. This bill also recognizes and rewards the equally patriotic and committed civilian workforce. Passage of the bill signifies America's continued and unwavering support for all of our military troops, active, Reserve, Guard, airmen, sailors, Marines. I ask you to support the troops. Vote ``yes'' on the Ronald Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005. It is an act that you can be proud of.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker. I rise today to recognize and remember the life of former Republican Congressman Donald Brotzman of Colorado, who recently passed away at the age of 82. Congressman Brotzman honorably represented Colorado's second Congressional District from 1962 through 1975, during some of this great nation's most tumultuous and trying times. He was born June 28, 1922 on a farm in Logan County, on Colorado's eastern plains. Both a musician and three-sport athlete at Sterling High School, Don Brotzman won a football scholarship in 1939 to the University of Colorado in Boulder where he was an all-conference center and varsity letter-winner in shot put and discus. As war continued to rage on the other side of the world, Don Brotzman delayed his education and served as an Army officer in Yokohama, Japan, and the Philippines through World War II. Following the end of the war, he returned to Boulder to complete degrees in business and law in 1949. Mr. Brotzman began working as a lawyer in Boulder in 1950, and was elected to the Colorado House of Representatives in 1952 and later the State Senate. Local media named him the outstanding freshman member in both chambers. By 1959, he was appointed United States Attorney for Colorado by President Eisenhower and served as such until he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1962, where he was voted president of his freshman class. Congressman Brotzman served five terms and helped to shape laws such as the Clean Air Act and the Public Broadcasting Act. He reached across the aisle to champion causes such as the Indian Peaks Wilderness Area west of Boulder, a national program to help runaway youth and a tax credit for higher-education expenses. Despite serving on the minority side of the aisle, he successfully found the funds to complete the Chatfield Dam and Reservoir, and sponsored the bill authorizing the building of Bear Creek Dam and Reservoir in Colorado. Furthermore, he persuaded the Johnson Administration to sponsor a study that eventually changed the Army's environmental practices at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal in Adam's County, Colorado, and he was one of the first members of Congress to call for an all-volunteer military. Colorado lost a great friend and a tremendous leader when it lost Donald Brotzman. His strong western values and commitment to always do what was right, despite partisan interests and outside persuasion, has continued to serve as a great example.

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 today to offer an amendment that would reduce this appropriations bill by 1 percent, which would have been $899 million at what we started out. I am not sure what it will be now, 1.25 maybe if it continues like it was last night; but I am sure that this money will come back into the bill as we go along. So I would like to offer this 1 percent amendment. My amendment is not intended in any way to slight the chairman or the ranking member. I know this has been a difficult task to draft this bill, and it is still difficult to try to put it together and make it come out like it should, and they are doing a good job of that. The chairman has worked with me very closely on some of this effort. However, I again today offer the amendment to cut the level of funding in this appropriations bill. As most Members are aware, I have offered a series of these amendments over the last weeks as we have dealt with the appropriations bills. If we had adopted these amendments, Congress would have saved $3.2 billion for the American taxpayer. Currently, the projected deficit is over $422 billion for just the next fiscal year, and I do not believe it is too much to ask that we tighten our belt just a bit; and by just a bit, I mean we tight our belt by 1 cent on the dollar. We have to draw the line somewhere. The budget we have is too large. We can do something about the deficit right now. By voting for my amendment, my colleagues are stating to the American taxpayers that they should not have to pay higher taxes in the future because we cannot control our spending today. Mr. Chairman, I encourage support for this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, let me correct just one thing. The gentleman makes a very good argument. By the way, we should have dealt with this at budget time; there is no question about that. The way this amendment is crafted, it does not reduce high-priority programs as well as low-. It allows the administration to determine where the 1 percent comes from; and, hopefully, they have got the good sense to not take it out of the high-priority programs. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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