Joel Hefley

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the business in order under the Calendar Wednesday rule be dispensed with today.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Robert L. Walker, who, after 4 years of outstanding service as chief counsel and staff director of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, is leaving to become chief counsel and staff director for the Senate Select Committee on Ethics. Rob served the committee under two different chairman, myself and my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith). I speak for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), the ranking minority member, the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), and all of my colleagues on the committee, past and present, in thanking Rob for his nonpartisan dedication to the committee and to the House. We express gratitude to Rob for his tireless work, his sense of fairness, his judiciousness and, most importantly, his impartiality. Mr. Speaker, Rob Walker is the epitome of the nonpartisan professional staff required by the House and by the Committee on the Standards of Official Conduct for the important position he held. Rob advised the members of the committee and guided the staff in an impartial and absolutely fair manner. As our counsel, in all aspects of his work Rob brought a profound sense of wisdom and respect for the history and precedents of the committee, the House and the American tradition of equal justice under the law. He carefully and faithfully balanced the rights of the committee and the House with the important due process rights of respondents and witnesses. Mr. Speaker, Rob came to the committee from the Senate Ethics Committee, where he previously served as counsel. Prior to coming to Capitol Hill, he was a prosecutor at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia and at the public integrity section of the Department of Justice. He has both a bachelor's degree and a law degree from the University of Pennsylvania and a master's degree from Stanford University. Rob is married to Dr. Alice Weiss and they have three children: Aaron, Daniel, and Madeleine. Devotion to his family and his distinguished professional record have earned Rob the personal and professional respect and friendship of the members of the committee and his colleagues on the staff. Mr. Speaker, we wish Rob Walker and his family well in his new position. Although this House and the Committee will miss him, we will long remember his distinguished service to the House of Representatives.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I believe it is essential that the Record accurately reflect the intent of the House managers regarding section 315 of this conference report relating to the incidental takings of migratory birds during military readiness activities. Subsection (b) of this provision requires the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of the Interior, to ``identify measures'' to minimize, mitigate, and monitor impacts of military readiness activities on migratory birds. I note that the provision does not state ``identify and implement.'' Am I correct in assuming that this choice of words indicates the conference committee's clear intent that the Department of Defense shall not be required directly, or indirectly through the regulations promulgated by the Department of the Interior under subsection (d), to implement the measures identified pursuant to subsection (b)?

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

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that. I would like to further clarify another question related to section 315. Subsection (d)(1) imposes an obligation on the Secretary of the Interior to exercise her authority under section 3(a) of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act not later than 1 year after section 315 is enacted to prescribe regulations to exempt the Armed Forces for incidental takings of migratory birds during authorized military readiness activities. Subsection (d)2 further specifies that the Secretary of the Interior must obtain the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense in exercising this authority. Since the Secretary of the Interior must obtain the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Interior may find it challenging to complete agency rule-making within 1 year. Is the Secretary of the Interior required to issue the regulation within 1 year?

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for that. That is my understanding of the intent of the conferees, as well. I take it, therefore, that if the process is not completed within 1 year, the interim statutory exemption conferred by section (c) would continue to run beyond the 1-year period identified in section (d)(1), plus the 120-day period for seeking judicial review identified in section (e)?

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for these important clarifications. I think it is important that we are clear on what the conference committee meant when we enacted it in this form.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, this is a difficult decision. I do not think anyone here takes this decision lightly. And so I ask myself some questions as I approach this. The first one is, Can we do what needs to be done without going to war? And the answer I come to is, maybe. I hope so. But not if we show lack of resolve. That is why I am supporting this resolution. That is why I encourage my colleagues to support it. Saddam Hussein has said he will give inspectors unfettered access; however, his regime has in place an elaborate organized system of denial and deception to frustrate both inspectors and outside intelligence efforts. Unfettered access to him does not include the presidential palaces. And when I say palaces, my colleagues may think of some nice building with some scenic grounds and gardens around it. That is not what a presidential palace is in Iraq. Many of these palaces are many acres. One of these palaces is about the size of Washington, D.C., 40,000 acres, with thousands of buildings, including warehouses. That is what he calls presidential palaces. Some ask, now that Iraq has agreed to unconditional inspections, why does Congress need to act? Well, my colleagues, the issue is not inspections; the issue is disarmament. The issue is compliance. Four years of satellite surveillance has shown these complexes he calls palaces are expanding. What is inside or underneath them we do not know, and we must know. The next question is, Does he have the means to be a threat? And the answer is, and we have heard it over and over today, of course he does. Iraq has a 30-year history of weapons of mass destruction programs. His regime is actively pursuing weapons of mass destruction. His regime has amassed large clandestine stockpiles of biological weapons, including anthrax, botulism toxin, and possibly smallpox. His regime has an active program to acquire and develop nuclear weapons. The answer to that question is, yes, indeed, he does have the means. The next question I ask myself is: Does he have the intent? Saddam Hussein's history of using weapons of mass destruction demonstrates the likelihood that he will use them in the future. In 1982, Iraq used riot-control agents against Iranian attacks. Iraq has used more deadly agents, including mustard gas in 1983, and tabun in 1984, becoming a nation in the world today who has used nerve agents in a time of war. The State Department lists 10 incidents of Iraqi chemical attacks between August 1983 and March 1988. All were launched against the Iranian and Kurdish populations, resulting in casualty tolls in the tens of thousands. Saddam Hussein has ordered the use of chemical weapons, sarin, tabun, VX, and mustard agents against his own people, in one case killing 5,000 innocent civilians in one day. Well, then, what kind of a history does he have with these kinds of things? Saddam Hussein's regime has invaded two of its neighbors and threatened others. In 1980, Iraq invaded Iran and used chemical weapons against Iranian forces. In 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait and was responsible for thousands of documented cases of torture, rape, murder, and on and on the story goes. The answer is, yes, he has the will, the intent, the history to use these things and to thumb his nose at the world's society by violating United Nations' resolutions. A decision to use military force is never an easy decision, and no one with any sense considers war a first choice. It is the last thing that any rational person wants to do. We do not want to go to war. But there are times when we have to be prepared to go to war to stand up to such despotic psychopathic killers as Saddam Hussein. I encourage the support of this resolution.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, America will never be the same as a result of September 11, 2001. The horrific events of that day dramatically changed the landscape of not only New York City and Washington, D.C., but also the entire civilized world. The images of commercial airliners plunging into symbols of American enterprise, economy and security will forever be seared on our individual and national memories. But, also vivid are the images of Americans’ spirit of community, gratitude and generosity that have been demonstrated these past twelve months. Through our heartache and sorrow, Americans joined together this year in an unprecedented show of strength and unity. The outpouring of patriotism and pride across the country is displaying itself in every conceivable way. The American flag is flying: large and small; cloth and paper; store-bought and handmade; the red, white and blue is everywhere. Americans opened their homes and wallets to care for the victims. Goods and services were donated to the victims and rescue workers at an almost unmanageable pace. Restaurants in New York and Washington opened their doors to feed the rescuers, people stood on street corners and handed food to passing firemen and companies donated pillows and blankets for weary workers. The morning after the attack, a column appeared in the Miami Herald that spread across the Internet because it captured the thoughts and feelings of our nation so aptly. In it, the columnist described the “vast and quarrelsome” American family, one “rent by racial, social, political and class division, but a family nonetheless.” If the tragedy proved anything, it is that the American family is one that reaches out its hand to help another in need. The tragedy also redefined the American hero and turned ordinary people into extraordinary Americans. After the first assault on the World Trade Center, New York City firefighters and policemen rushed into the building and began saving lives—even as the buildings were collapsing. Yes, it was the job of firefighters to go into the buildings, but they could have reasoned that the buildings were going to collapse anyway, so why try. When the victims rushed out, they rushed in, and became heros in the process. Three hundred-forty three firefighters sacrificed their lives to save more than 25,000. Our nation has had a resurgence of faith and spirituality. The tragedy caused people to reevaluate their core values and cling to their traditions. In one day, everything that we thought was meaningful and important slid to the wayside and we rediscovered fundamental beliefs about faith, family and freedom. If the terrorists had hoped to break the American spirit, they failed spectacularly. We are now engaged in a war on terrorism and it is a war we will win. This is a struggle that concerns the whole of the democratic and civilized and free world. We will bring to account those responsible, and we will dismantle the apparatus of terror and eradicate the evil of mass terrorism in our world. The cause that we are fighting is just and it is decent. No citizen, in any country, should live in fear of senseless terrorist attacks. On September 11, 2002, thousands of American civilians gave their lives for a cause they did not know. An attack against civilian targets of women and children, mothers and fathers, peaceful and without prejudice, is beyond comprehension in our modem, civilized world. America responded to this crisis and emerged from the tragedy stronger and more determined. The course and duration of the conflict is unknown, but it's outcome is not. America will prevail and remain the greatest nation in the world.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Madam Speaker, we are approaching the end of this Congress without sending an energy bill to the President. The House passed H.R. 4, the Securing America's Future Energy Act of 2001; and unfortunately, we are not, after 1 year from that passage, celebrating the signing of H.R. 4 into law. The President is still waiting to sign a comprehensive energy reform package that reduces our Nation's dependency on foreign oil. Why is the President still waiting, Madam Speaker? Not because of this House, who worked with the President to pass a comprehensive energy reform that increases America's national security. H.R. 4 was ignored by the party that controls the other body, who, instead, chose to take up and pass an energy package that did nothing to reduce our dependency on countries like Iraq and people like Saddam Hussein for our country's energy needs. Madam Speaker, let us send the President an energy bill that he can sign with confidence, one that increases both our economic security and our national security. Let us pass one that looks very much like the one we passed a year ago August.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I will hold that decision in abeyance until we get down to that time. I will take it into consideration.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), who is the chairman of the Investigative Subcommittee in this matter.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes and 45 seconds to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof), who is a member of the committee.

Mr. HEFLEY

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

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, no, I do not.

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

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, for the first time in our Nation's history, we have five former presidents alive at the same time. We are also in the process of recovering from an economic downturn and all Americans are being asked to tighten their budgets to make ends meet. That should include all government employees and agencies, even our former Presidents. We should make a strong effort to use cost-effective methods of operating our offices. The trend of drastically increasing the amount of money we give our former Presidents to operate their offices is a trend that we have the ability to control. We have a situation where former President Clinton's rental expenses will end up costing taxpayers at least $436,000 next year, whereas the expense of Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush's offices combined would only cost $528,000. We are also seeing a drastic increase in miscellaneous services. Former President Clinton received $80,000 for what is called ``other services'' in fiscal year 2002. That is roughly five times the amount that former President Reagan used, six times the amount that former President Bush used, and eight times the amount that former President Ford used in fiscal year 2002. Now, I am not picking on President Clinton. What I am trying to do here is simply show a trend. After all, there are more Republican former Presidents than there are Democrat former Presidents, and may it always be the case; but there is a trend there. Many of the allowances for former Presidents are necessary; no question about that. However, numerous costs leave room to be reduced. I am asking for a reduction in these budgets, as they have seen strong growth in the past few years. I want to take care of our past Presidents, but enough is enough. I am merely asking for a slight reduction in allotting these funds. We cannot continue to increase the allowance at the rate of more than 10 percent every year. What I am asking for, Mr. Chairman, is that in the time of impending budget deficits, we tighten our belts where we can. What we are talking about is a little over $300,000 worth of reduction here, not a monumental amount as our budgets go; but at least it would reverse this trend of ever increasing these particular accounts. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think the gentleman from Maryland has a good point, this is a small amount, and it is somewhat symbolic. It is saying, when we are trying to get our budget back in balance, we need to cut wherever we can cut. But even though I would say to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) that it is a small amount, it amounts to all of the taxes, Federal income taxes paid by 60 American taxpayers, average taxpayers. That is a lot of money for them. That is all their taxes. What we are saying is, for those 60 taxpayers, we are going to use your money in a more effective way. We are going to use it for things that maybe are a little more important. I tell my colleagues, when we are in this kind of a situation, when we are in great times, we do not seem to worry about it much; but when we are in these kinds of tight times, we really do need to put value judgments on where we spend our money and where we do not spend our money and where we save money wherever we can. So I would again encourage the adoption of this 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 yield myself such time as I may consume. I respect our former Presidents, and I think they have a unique role to play; and I want them to play that role, and I want us to provide for them so that they can play that role. But do we really need half a million dollars to support them playing that role each year? Ford, Carter, Reagan, about a half a million dollars, a little more, a little less, about a half a million dollars. By the way, President Carter, who I have great respect for as a former President, a tremendous former President, I think, he asked for no increase whatsoever this year. President Bush, former President Bush, he is moving up towards three-quarters of a million dollars, and, of course, President Clinton is $1.1, a little over $1.1 million. Do we really need, for instance, in Clinton's case, to spend $436,000 for rent? Do we really need that? Now, he chose New York City. He could have chosen Arkansas, where he is from; but he chose New York City. Do we really need to spend half a million dollars on his rent? Do we need to spend $174,000 for the rent of President Bush in Houston? Mr. Chairman, I question these things. I think this symbolically does send a message that we are trying to get a grip on spending up here. It does not make a great impact on the total budget of the United States Government, but it does send a message.

Mr. HEFLEY. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.

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

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I am asking we make a 1 percent reduction in our spending for the Treasury and Postal Services appropriations. With a discretionary budget of roughly $18.5 million, a 1 percent reduction with amount to $185 million, which is a lot of money to most of us but not a lot compared to the overall budget. When dealing with these billions and billions of dollars of spending, this is a figure that the agencies can easily work around. I am not criticizing, Mr. Chairman, the work of the committee. I know the dynamics of getting a bill through the committee and getting it to the floor, and I think they have done a good job on this bill. But the last estimate for this year's budget deficit would amount to roughly $150 billion dollars. In order to balance this budget, Mr. Chairman, I am asking that every agency make a minor decrease in its rate of spending. I am not asking for any agency to take a big cut. I am requesting that they reduce their spending. If every agency complies with this request, we can actually come close to offering a balanced budget this year. We would the excuse that. We are at war and we are at a time of economic downturn. And, by gosh, that is a good excuse. It is not only an excuse, it is a reason. And if we want a reason to not balance the budget this year, we have got reasons for not balancing the budget this year. But I think we need to adopt the philosophy that if we do not have it, we do not spend it. We tighten our belts and we figure a way to maintain that balanced budget. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Idaho (Mr. Otter) is not here, so I guess I will go ahead and close. I do not want to hold things up. Both the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Istook) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) mentioned the law enforcement portions of this thing. I am not going into any accounts and picking out and saying cut that except for the presidential thing that I did earlier. You have to make choices. If law enforcement is the important thing now, we need to put the emphasis on law enforcement. I think the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) had very good figures there about the percentage we were spending before and now, the point is we have had a history of spending far, far too much money at the Federal level over the years, and we continue this history. Now, we have tightened our belts. I have listened to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) but I have to close this thing out. We have spent too much money traditionally. It is the habit here and as I said in my statement, I am not criticizing the committee for their work. By golly, the gentlemen here do a good job on this committee. They do the best they can. I understand too it is very tough to get a bill with any cuts out of it out of committee because everybody has something they are particularly interested in. Everybody has at least one thing that is the most important thing in their life, and in committee those dynamics work. On the floor, it may be those dynamics do not work as well. It might be easier for us to pass something like this on the floor than it is in committee. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).