Joel Hefley

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I was in a defense conference with the Senate and missed my opportunity to offer this amendment on page 57. We have barely passed it. I do not think the committee is going to accept it, but I would at least like the opportunity to offer it. If they would grant me unanimous consent to do so, I would appreciate that.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and with the concurrence of the gentleman from California (Mr. Berman), the ranking minority member on the committee, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct be permitted to submit a privileged resolution and report to the House by midnight, Friday, July 19, 2002.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, since 1971 taxpayers have subsidized Amtrak to the tune of $25.3 billion, yet they have not received a reliable or efficient mode of transportation in exchange for 31 years. Amtrak has not made a profit. Almost since its inception Amtrak has hemorrhaged money in all directions, particularly on many of its routes. Of the 40-plus routes of Amtrak, only two are profitable. Its worst performing route, from Los Angeles to Orlando, loses $347 per passenger, meaning it would be cheaper for Amtrak to keep the train on the platform and buy its passengers airline tickets. Last year, Amtrak ended the year with a record operating loss of $1.1 billion and a $5.8 billion backlog in maintenance and repair. Despite receiving Federal funds totaling $5 billion in the last 5 years, Amtrak has made no progress toward achieving self-sufficiency and is in a weaker financial condition than in 1997. It is time to wean Amtrak from the public trough. Amtrak gets my Porker of the Week Award this week and it ought to get the Porker of the Week Award for several decades, as a matter of fact.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Virginia (Mrs. Jo Ann Davis) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for their support of this resolution. How could we not support this kind of a resolution? Where would our society be without those people who are willing to lay their lives on the line for us every day out there in the trenches of the front line? Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the peace officers from around the country, those who came to Washington last month to commemorate the deaths of over 230 peace officers last year and, particularly, to honor the memory of those 230 peace officers who gave their lives last year. Today, we pay tribute to the commitment, the sacrifice and public safety services peace officers have provided on a daily basis and continue to do so. As we all know, September 11 stands out as one of the most tragic days in American history. That fateful Tuesday we lost 72 police officers, the largest single loss of law enforcement personnel in a single day in the history of our country. While September 11 offered an extreme glimpse of law enforcement service and sacrifice, similar acts of heroism and valor are performed every day by police officers across our Nation; and the two speakers that preceded me illustrated some of those just in this 1 year, leading up to this day, less than a year, those who have died and lost their lives and given of themselves. In addition to the 72 officers that died on September 11, another 158 officers died in the line of duty last year; and these 230 deaths represent the sixth deadliest year in law enforcement history, as has already been said. Peace officers in every community have an admirable record of service and sacrifice; yet too many Americans lack a true understanding and appreciation of law enforcement's worth. That is why I worked 2 years ago to help establish the National Law Enforcement Museum in Washington, D.C.; and once construction is completed, the museum will highlight the proud history of the law enforcement profession and educate the people about the dangers and the importance of this job. Unlike any other job, peace officers face unprecedented risks while bravely protecting our communities and our freedoms. I hope my colleagues will join with me today in paying tribute to our Nation's fallen officers and expressing our gratitude for the work that these men and women do day in and day out. While we are awake, while we are asleep, they are out there on the job.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, responding to the gentlewoman, a recent study has shown that death tax repeal would not increase the deficit. A 1999 study showed that it decreased the economic growth that would come from repeal of the death tax, and would lead to Federal revenue gains within 7 years of the death tax repeal. In the long run, the economic activity would increase the income, not decrease it. But the death tax affects real live hard-working people. I have some friends in Colorado Springs who started out 60 years ago or so with one little lumberyard. Over the years, three generations have built that one little lumberyard, started with nothing, built that one lumberyard into a multi-lumberyard system throughout southern Colorado. It was a home-grown business which was very successful. Recently, they sold it even though the children of the owners worked in the business and wanted to continue to work in the business, but they sold it because they could not afford the death tax that they would have to pay in the future. Colorado is a State mostly of small farms, ranches, and small businesses. The heirs should not have to sell the business of the farm in order to pay the tax. The $6 billion in the substitute, these people were successful. Members say we are helping the rich here, but by gosh, they earned it. It is their money. They paid taxes on it. It is wrong to tax them again when they die, or to make them sellout in order to pay the taxes when the heirs inherit the money.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, we are always being asked, what are you hearing out there? What are you hearing out there in your district? I will tell my colleagues what I am hearing. I am hearing, ``I cannot find a doctor.'' I receive countless calls and letters from people in Colorado regarding Medicare physician reimbursements and how it is affecting their access to doctors. Physicians have either decided to no longer accept any new Medicare patients or not see their current Medicare patients because they are losing money due to reimbursement payments not covering the costs. In Colorado Springs 2 months ago, one-third of all doctors under the Colorado Springs Health Partners program dropped all of their Medicare, Medicaid and Tricare patients. So much focus over the last several years has been on preserving and strengthening the Medicare trust fund that we have lost sight of the fact that if a Medicare recipient cannot find a doctor, we have a program in name only. Unfortunately, in Colorado and many other parts of the country, that is what has happened. Reforms need to be implemented now to restore Medicare, the Medicare program, as it was intended to be. I believe that reducing Medicare's physician payments will have a devastating impact on physician reimbursement and put at risk seniors' access to medical services.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, peace officers around the country are in Washington this week to commemorate and honor the 230 officers who died last year in the line of duty. Yesterday was National Peace Officers Memorial Day, where we paid tribute to the commitment to public safety these officers demonstrate on a daily basis. As we all know, September 11 stands out as one of the most tragic days in American history and law enforcement history. We lost 72 police officers on that Tuesday, the largest loss of law enforcement personnel in a single day ever. While September 11 offered an extreme glimpse of law enforcement service and sacrifice, acts of heroism and valor are performed every day by police officers across our Nation. Mr. Speaker, 230 police officers who died last year represent the sixth deadliest year in law enforcement history. Peace officers in every community have an admirable record of service and sacrifice, yet too many Americans lack a true understanding and appreciation of law enforcement's worth. That is why I worked 2 years ago to establish the National Law Enforcement Museum in Washington, D.C. Once construction is complete, the museum will highlight the proud history of the law enforcement profession and educate the public about the dangers and importance of the job. Unlike most other jobs, peace officers face unprecedented risks while bravely protecting our communities and our freedoms. I hope colleagues will join me in expressing our gratitude for the work these men and women perform.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not recognize the contribution of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Stump), who leads our committee, and the gentleman is truly a great American. I do not throw that phrase around very casually. He has led the committee well. I think he has the respect of his entire committee. We are going to miss him. It is a bad decision to leave the House of Representatives and leave us behind. We love the gentleman, and I have appreciated the opportunity to serve with him and call him a friend. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4546, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003. I believe the committee has done a superb job in fulfilling its role in oversight of the Department of Defense and has done its best to provide the necessary funding to improve the readiness of our military forces. Let us not forget, however, that for many years we have seen our military do more and more with less and less, and now as we are engaged in the war on terrorism we are asking our military men and women to do even more. The budget requests for fiscal year 2003 contains some significant increases in defense spending and an effort by the Department of Defense to fully fund their stated requirements. We are all heartened that these increases make a good attempt at arresting the decline in military readiness and begin the process of rebuilding and restoring our military forces. To accomplish this, the administration has had to significantly increase critical readiness funding this year as compared to last year. As an example, air, ground, and sea operations as well as training and training range operations have increased by $2.1 billion. In addition, base operations accounts required for the day-to-day operation of our military facilities have increased by $1.2 billion. These increases are fully supported in this bill. The committee has included two provisions that I believe strike a needed balance between the needs of our military to adequately and effectively train for combat and the need to protect our environment. First, we have included an amendment to the Endanger Species Act that will weigh the impact of national security along with existing obligations under current law not to take any action that will result in the extinction of or harm to an endangered or threatened species. Second, we have included an amendment in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act to permit the Fish and Wildlife Service to issue a permit to the Department for the accidental taking of migratory birds incidental to authorized military readiness activities. These and all segments of the Subcommittee on Readiness part of this bill and in fact of the bill as a whole were very bipartisan. As was already mentioned, the bill passed out of committee 57 to 1. It is not a Democratic bill. It is not a Republican bill. It is a bill for the defense of this Nation. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4546 is a responsible, meaningful bill that fairly allocates resources for the restoration of acceptable readiness and an acceptable quality of life for the men and women of our military forces. To do anything less will allow the readiness of our military to slip further and could risk the lives of countless men and women in every branch of the military.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, it is time to take a serious look at the problems we have with Medicare. Medicare started for the right reasons; there is no question about that, and I do not think we can argue with that. We did not want the elderly going without the ability to have the proper health care. We all realize it is not perfect and we need to do something about the prescription drug portion of it. But there is a bigger problem with Medicare, and that is the problem of access. Doctors are dropping out across this country in droves. They are dropping out because the compensation is too low, and we proposed this year to make it even lower. They are dropping out because there is a hassle factor of feeling that if they make a little clerical error, that they might be drawn in by the police and pulled before the courts. I had a woman come to me in a town meeting the other day that said she brought her mother from Missouri to Colorado, and they had gone to 128 doctors trying to find care for her mother and none of them would take new Medicare patients. If we do not have access, we do not have a program. Congress must stop ignoring this problem. It is time for action.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, today I would like to salute an outstanding young woman who has been honored with the Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. Gold Award by the Girl Scouts-Wagon Wheel Council in Colorado Springs, Colorado. She is Alicia Wadle, of Girl Scout Troop 446. She will be honored in June of 2002 for earning the highest achievement award in Girl Scouting. The Girl Scout Gold Award symbolizes outstanding accomplishments in the areas of leadership, community service, career planning and personal development. The Girl Scout Gold Award can be earned by girls, age 14-17 or in grades 9-12. Girl Scouts of the U.S.A., an organization serving over 2.6 million girls, has awarded more than 20,000 Girl Scout Gold Awards to Senior Girl Scouts since the inception of the program in 1980. To receive the award, a Girl Scout must fulfill five requirements: earn four Interest Project patches, earn the Career Exploration pin, earn the Senior Girl Scout Leadership Award, earn the Senior Girl Scout Challenge, and design and implement a Girl Scout Award project. A plan for fulfilling the requirements of the award is created by the Senior Girl Scout and is carried out through close cooperation between the girl and an adult Girl Scout volunteer. As a member of Girl Scouts-Wagon Wheel Council, Alicia began working toward the Girl Scout Award in 2000. She completed her project in the area of beautification of school property. Alicia assisted a local elementary school in updating a school playground in need of repair. She completed a ground mural of the United States, enabling children to learn about each state. Alicia also scraped and painted and refurbished playground equipment. The earning of the Girl Scout Award is a major accomplishment for Alicia, and I believe she should receive the public recognition due her for this significant service to her community and country.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Donald ``Mac'' McLaughlin. After 61 years of service to his country, Mr. McLaughlin is retiring. He began his career in 1940 as a cadre in the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Carson in Colorado Springs. He went on to become a member of the 82nd Airborne Division and a parachute jumper for the regimented combat team. After a combat jump in Holland in 1943 and the end of World War II in 1945, he returned home. Mr. McLaughlin separated from the Army that year and began his service with the Air Force in food services. Twenty-six years later, Mr. McLaughlin retired from active duty as a chief master sergeant, but his service to our Nation did not end there. He was hired by the Air Force Academy athletic department as a concessions manager where he devoted many long hours to ensure that Falcon Stadium and its patrons were accommodated. This man knows the true meaning of service to his country and I am proud to have him as a constituent. I congratulate him on his long and rewarding career and wish him well as he enters retirement.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I attended the retirement parade for Lieutenant General John Pickler. It was a sad day for the Army as they were losing one of their best to the retired roles. It was also a sad day for me personally as over the years John and his wife Karen have become close friends. I rise today not; however, to remark on the retirement of a great soldier but to thank him for a lifetime of service to our country. General Pickler leaves the Army after over 36 years of dedicated service to our Nation and the soldiers that he loves. His biography is distinguished. Lieutenant General John M. Pickler assumed the duties of the Director of the Army Staff on 17 August 1999. A native of Chattanooga, Tennessee, General Pickler was graduated from the United States Military Academy, West Point, and commissioned in the Field Artillery on 9 June 1965. He was awarded a Master of Science in Physics from the University of Virginia in 1971. Prior to assuming duties as the Director of the Army Staff, he served as Chief of Staff, United States Army Forces Command, Fort McPherson, Georgia; Commander, Fort Carson, Colorado and Deputy Commanding General, III Corps; Deputy Commanding General, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, North Carolina; Commanding General of Joint Task Force Six, Fort Bliss, Texas; and Assistant Division Commander (Support), 4th Infantry Division (Mechanized), Fort Carson, Colorado. General Pickler has held a wide variety of Field Artillery positions from battery through corps, culminating as the Chief of Staff, III Corps Artillery and the Director of Plans, Training and Mobilization, Fort Sill, Oklahoma. Other key assignments include Instructor and Assistant Professor in the Department of Physics at West Point; Executive Officer to the Director, Defense Nuclear Agency; Commander of 2d Battalion, 81st Field Artillery, 8th Infantry Division (Mechanized) with concurrent duty as Commander of the Idar-Oberstein (Germany) Military Sub-community. Following command, he was assigned as the 8th Infantry Division Inspector General. In 1987, he returned to Germany as Commander, 8th Infantry Division Artillery in Baumholder, and then became the Executive Officer to the Chief of Staff of the Army, Washington, DC, in 1989. In addition to Germany, his overseas assignments include Vietnam and Turkey. General Pickler is a graduate of both the Command and General Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and also the Army War College with duty as an Advanced Operational Studies Fellow at the Combined Arms Center, Fort Leavenworth. His awards and decorations include the Distinguished Service Medal; the Defense Superior Service Medal with Oak Leaf Clusters; the Legion of Merit with Three Oak Leaf Clusters; the Distinguished Flying Cross; the Bronze Star with ``V'' Device; and the Meritorious Service Medal with Three Oak Leaf Clusters. General Pickler and his wife, Karen, have one daughter, Nevelyn, and two sons, Andy and Jeff. General Pickler attended his last parade as a soldier on Monday, 29 October 2001. I am proud to have had the opportunity to attend it and witness the retirement of a friend.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the call of the Private Calendar be dispensed with on today.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to thank my leadership for scheduling this bill today. It is my hope that, with the passage of this legislation, we can begin the cleanup work on certain naval oil shale reserves and proceed with the transfer we enacted on the floor 3 years ago. I was the author of legislation which transferred these two oil shale reserves from the Department of Energy to the Bureau of Land Management in 1998. After a 10-year debate on the issue, even the Clinton administration came to agree that there was little future in using oil shale to fuel battleships and that these two reserves could be more useful to the public as BLM properties managed for multiple use and particularly for oil and gas leasing. The State agency charged with promoting such development estimated as much as $125 million in oil and gas revenues to be generated by the two sites, to be split equally between Colorado and the Federal Government. The early returns seemed to confirm this as the first lease sale in the fall of 1999 generated $7 million, and that amount has since risen to around $8.5 million. At the same time, it was acknowledged that cleanup work needed to be done on the two sites, particularly at Anvil Point on the naval oil shale reserve number 3, which was the site of a Bureau of Mines experiment years before. It was also acknowledged that a cost estimate for the cleanup could only come through negotiation. Strangely, whoever held the site seemed to feel it was an environmental hazard to all, while whoever no longer had the site felt it was a matter of minimal danger, perhaps of no danger at all. Because of this, it was agreed that the State Department of Public Health and the Environment could serve as the mediator between the two agencies and that the cleanup would be conducted to State standards. All of this moved along until late 1999 when the BLM approached my office for help in funding the cleanup. As an interior solicitor had concluded, a specific authorization was needed to allow BLM to assess the leasing monies needed for the cleanup. This was further complicated by the question of just who the proper authorizing committee was. The transfer came about through the defense authorization of 1998, and the Committee on Armed Services bill. The House Committee on Resources is the normal authorizing committee for the BLM, but the Committee on Appropriations, The Subcommittee on the Interior, often handled such matters in the past, under BLM's standard authorization. The bill before us, a Committee on Resources bill, would supply BLM with the authorization it needs to undertake the cleanup at Anvil Point and begin to realize the program first adopted in 1998. The authorization would be for 5 years, meaning the cleanup should be completed within that time. If it were completed earlier, the two secretaries could certify as much and the distribution of revenues could begin. About a year ago, we were talking to Colorado BLM director Ann Morgan about the problems surrounding the transfer. We thought we did this 3 years ago, we said. And she said, welcome to public lands management. Unfortunately, I think she may be right. Mr. Speaker, at this time I will insert for the Record documentation in regard to this bill. House of Representatives, Committee on Resources, Washington, DC, December 18, 2001. Hon. W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your earlier letter in which you agreed to waive the Committee on Energy and Commerce's additional referral of H.R. 2187, to amend title 10, United States Code, to make receipts collected from mineral leasing activities on certain naval oil shale reserves available to cover environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance costs incurred by the United States with respect to the reserves. I agree that your waiver does not affect your jurisdiction over the subject matter of the bill, and I will support your request to be presented on any conference on the bill, or a similar matter, if one should become necessary. A copy of your letter to me regarding this bill was included in the Committee's bill report on H.R. 2187 (House Report 107-202). I will be pleased to also include your letter and my response in the Congressional Record during today's debate on the measure. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter, and I look forward to working with you and your staff during the second session of the 107th Congress. Sincerely, James V. Hansen, Chairman.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 2187) to amend title 10, United States Code, to make receipts collected from mineral leasing activities on certain naval oil shale reserves available to cover environmental restoration, waste management, and environmental compliance costs incurred by the United States with respect to the reserves, as amended.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further speakers. I encourage support for this bill. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will try not to take the full 20 minutes. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 107, which I introduced, would direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a National Historic Landmark theme study to identify sites and resources in the United States that are significant to the Cold War. Generally speaking, the Cold War is considered to be from 1946 to 1989. H.R. 107 would direct the Secretary to study military and nonmilitary sites and resources associated with the people, events, and social aspects of the Cold War. The study shall include recommendations for commemorating and interpreting the sites identified by the study, including cooperative arrangements with the State and local governments and local historical organizations, as well as cost estimates for carrying out each of the recommendations. The Secretary shall submit the report to the House Committee on Resources and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The legislation also requires the Secretary to prepare and publish an interpretive handbook on the Cold War and disseminate information gathered through the study. Mr. Speaker, the bill is supported by the majority and the minority of the subcommittee, and I do not believe it is controversial. In addition, the bill is supported by the administration with the ongoing caveat that the maintenance backlog be addressed first. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 107, as amended. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 107) to require that the Secretary of the Interior conduct a study to identify sites and resources, to recommend alternatives for commemorating and interpreting the Cold War, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the conference report on S.R. 1438, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2002. During this extraordinary time in our national history, our military forces need our support more than ever. We must provide our dedicated military men and women with the necessary resources to continue to go in harm's way with the best equipment and training available. The readiness of our military's forces is the responsibility of every Member of Congress. The conference report on the fiscal year 2002 Defense Authorization bill provides a significant increase for readiness funding this year as compared to last year. As an example, funding for flight operations has increased by over $5 billion, which includes the increased costs for fuel, and attempts to address severe spare parts shortages. In addition, there is an increase for training of over $825 million, an increase for facilities repair and sustainment of nearly $500 million, and an increase of $1.2 billion for depot maintenance and repair of equipment. We have also provided $6 million for protection of critical needs. The conference report on S. 1438 supports these and other increases in critical readiness funding. Mr. Speaker, the conference report before us today provides the military services with an acceptable level of funding necessary to maintain readiness and to help reduce the continued stress on our military forces. At a time when our military services are being called upon to conduct combat operations, we must ensure that our military remains the best-trained, best-equipped, and most effective military force in the world. We must also ensure that we take the necessary steps to reverse declining readiness rates throughout all of the military services. At the same time, we must take action to ensure that the living and working conditions for our service members and families are at acceptable levels. This conference report accomplished all these goals. To do anything less would allow the readiness of our military to slip further, and could risk the lives of countless men and women in every branch of the military. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on the conference report, vote yes for improved military readiness, and vote yes for the men and women of our military forces.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, we need airport security, we want airport security, and we must have airport security. When I say that, I do not mean Argenbright Security. Did we ever hear a worse oxymoron than using the term ``Argenbright'' and ``security'' in the same sentence? How can one claim to be a security company and let a man get through with seven knives, a can of Mace, and a stun gun? That is not security. How can airlines keep hiring this company? Southwest and United up in Baltimore just hired them again to manage their security. How can anyone put confidence in a company that has repeatedly been fined for violations? How can anyone put confidence in a company that either does not do background checks or does them in such a shoddy way that felons can slip through their screening? How can anyone put confidence in a company when they are hiring new immigrants from the Third World to do their security checking? What we are doing is not working. We need a change. The first change we need is to recognize that airport security is a Federal responsibility. Now, whether they are all Federal employees or not is not the point, but it is a Federal responsibility. The other body needs to stop stonewalling and negotiate in good faith and get us an airport security bill today. The American public is losing its patience.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill, not because of its subject matter, but because of the way it is being done. Seven years ago, I began work on the National Park Service Reform Act. I authored that bill because I believed then, and I believe now, that Park Service units should be designated on the basis of what they are, not because they are the pet project of someone in a powerful position. Instead, they should be the end result of a logical, thoughtful process of evaluation by the Park Service that must maintain them. This bill before us has none of that. Instead, it straightforwardly designates the Ronald Reagan Boyhood Home in Decatur, Illinois, as a National Park unit, without study by the Park Service or indeed any real idea of what the Park Service's role in this will be or how they will manage it. Now, Ronald Reagan is a political and personal hero of mine, and I think Decatur's efforts to preserve his home are a wonderful example of what private citizens can do to preserve something worthwhile. They had this site in tip-top shape and have no problem waiting a year for designation until the Park Service does a study. In fact, they told us that was perfectly fine, to wait the year and do like every other single bill of this nature that came through the committee while I was chairman of the committee was done. Democrat and Republican bills alike, they all went to a study by the Park Service first. These people have no problem with that. That is perfectly all right. The board members, though, are getting up in years; and they would like the designation as insurance that their work will be continued after they are gone. So they do not want it to string on too long, and I do not either. They are proud of that work, and they should be proud of that work. By looking at them and what they have accomplished, maybe we can see a little of where Ronald Reagan got his beliefs. So at full committee I offered an amendment to give the Park Service 1 year to study the Ronald Reagan home, again like every other bill of this nature that came through there in the last few months, and then report back to us about how they would manage this site. That amendment was passed unanimously at the Subcommittee on the Park Service markup; but in the full committee they elected to act on the base text because that is the way the Speaker and/or the Speaker's staff wanted it to be acted on, again, violating all the rules we had done for everybody else. It passed the full committee until one Member was persuaded to switch their vote. Now, I have absolutely no doubt that the Reagan home will be found worthy of National Park designation. But the way it is being done here is an affront to what we have been working for. We have been working for logical processes here, so that someone who just happens to be in the right spot, maybe it is the Committee on Appropriations, maybe it is the Speaker's office, maybe it is the minority leader's office, somebody who happens to be in the right spot can have their way just because they are in the right spot. It should not be that way. There should be a logical process. So we are working for logical processes, and we are working for fairness. We treated in this committee everybody's suggestions, everybody's ideas, every Democrat's idea, every Republican's idea, with the same evenhanded fairness and the same approach, except this one. I introduced the Park Reform Act because I believe everybody's ideas should be judged by the same rules. My ideas should, my colleagues' ideas should, and the Speaker's ideas should. Make no mistake, this bill is before us in this form today only because the Speaker wants it, and that is not right. For this reason, I must oppose this suspension.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, what are we waiting for? The Senate, or the other body, I should say, passed an airport security bill. The House passed a transportation security bill. In these two bills there are differences, but we agree on a great deal. We agree that this security for transportation should be a Federal responsibility. We agree that the Feds should do the background checks. We agree that the Feds should screen the applicants. We agree that the Federal Government should do the training, and we agree that the Federal Government should do the supervision. Mr. Speaker, we agree on all of these important issues. Then why do we not move? We disagree on whether screeners should be Federal employees or should be private employees. Well, in the scope of things, this is an insignificant disagreement. What we agree on is that we want the job done and we want it much better than it is being done today. We should charge the President with the responsibility to get this job done, and let him figure out what mix of Federal and civilian and private employees there should be. Let us get on with it. It is too important for us to fiddle around.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the House Committee on Armed Services and as vice chairman of the Defense and Security Committee of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Parliamentary Assembly, I stand in strong support of this Gerald Solomon Freedom Consolidation Act of 2001. I think it is appropriate that we would name this after Jerry Solomon. It has been said before, and I will not belabor it, but Jerry believed so strongly that when democratic free societies worked together in a security alliance, the world is a safer place to be. He promoted this idea. Not that he wanted to enlarge NATO just to be enlarging NATO, just to have more numbers, but that every NATO member must bring something to the table, something not only for their own security, but for the security of the NATO alliance. It is difficult to depart from the memories of September 11. Almost everything we do in this Chamber now is viewed through the scope of terrorism. Just like the threat of communism, the catalyst for NATO, current threat reaffirmed the need of a strong transatlantic alliance for the protection of free societies all around the world. By endorsing expansion, we are sending a message to those who decry democracy and freedom. As the response to September 11 has shown, an attack on one is an attack on all. It is very relevant in our redefined geopolitical world. We could easily conclude in this body that NATO has more of a purpose against terrorism than it did against communism. With a time-tested formula and victories under our belt, we would be foolish to turn our backs on those who aspire to join the greatest alliance history has ever known. A little more than a month ago in Ottawa, Canada, I had the privilege of speaking to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly's Defense Committee, and in my remarks I spoke about how we, being NATO, must look forward and come together as a family of nations. The worst of times, as we have seen, separate the civilized world from the uncivilized. As nations that respect and honor freedom, democracy and decency, we must join together and form an unbreakable bond against terrorism. Terrorism has been a plague on our world for far too long. Every nation in the alliance has been on the receiving end of terrorist attacks, ranging from the brutal to the barbaric. We have watched airplane hijackers negotiate with guns, we have seen truck bombs explode on embassy grounds, we have seen extremists raid an Olympic village, plane wreckage in Lockerbie, Scotland, car bombs on the streets of London and Belfast, and a gaping hole in the hull of an American warship. When I finished my speech, there was overwhelming support from not only the NATO nations represented there but from the observers as well; from the French who oftentimes do not agree with us on things, and the second one to speak after I had spoken was a Russian observer who pledged strong support to this effort. We need NATO now maybe more than ever. I think we need to support the further enlargement of the NATO Alliance. I urge passage of this resolution.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to vacate the ordering of the yeas and nays on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 2589, as amended, to the end that the Chair put the question on the motion de novo.