Joel Hefley

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Obey amendment and in support of the Hunter amendment. I think the Obey amendment passes judgment before we know what the judgment ought to be in this thing. We are assuming that this chaplain, one of the many chaplains that they have at the Air Force Academy, we are assuming she was reassigned because she blew the whistle, as the expression has been used here. What blew the whistle on this was the survey that they did of cadets, and a few of them said there was something wrong. And she said, yes, there was something wrong; and she has been reassigned. When the Air Force was asked why she has been reassigned, they tell us it was because the person she was working for reassigned and it is customary to reassign. So let us not pass that judgment right now. I think the Hunter amendment strikes the kind of balance that we really want. It does not pass judgment. It recognizes that studies are going on so we can get to the bottom of it and find out how much of a problem there might be there. It emphasizes that religious intolerance is unacceptable, and we all agree with that. Religious intolerance is unacceptable. But it also recognizes the importance of the spiritual side of our lives and does not try to scrub religion from public life in America. There are some who would like to do that. We are looking up here at ``In God We Trust'' over the Speaker's rostrum. We open each day with a prayer. We do not want to scrub religion or faith from all public life. I think the Hunter amendment emphasizes that, but it also recognizes that we need to wait and pass judgment when we get all of the facts. Mr. Chairman, I serve on the Board of Visitors at the Air Force Academy. This was not discovered by newspapers or a chaplain who blew the whistle. This was discovered during the normal administrative process of the Air Force Academy. They have discussed it with the Board of Visitors, and we have dealt with it for some time. First of all, the Air Force Academy recognized there might be a problem, and they immediately jumped on it. They have had some problems out there. I do not know how it tied into this, but the gentleman from Wisconsin mentioned the sexual thing. That really was a scandal. I question whether we have a scandal going here. But they knew that they were under the bright light because of what happened in the past, and they were on this immediately; and they are in the process of taking action. I do not think they need the help of the Congress of the United States to do this. I think they are on top of it. As I said earlier, I do not think we have a scandal here. I think we have an administrative situation that the Air Force Academy and the Air Force are perfectly capable of taking care of. If that is not the case, when the studies come in, we will be able to see that and maybe we do need to get into it. We need to let this process work. We need to, I hope, not support the Obey amendment with that kind of language and support the Hunter amendment which strikes the kind of balance that I think we want. Then we will watch until the results of these studies come in and see if we need to move any further. I encourage defeat of the Obey amendment and passing of the Hunter amendment.

Mr. HEFLEY

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

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise again today to offer this amendment to cut the level of funding in this appropriation bill by approximately 1 percent. This would equal $570 million. As you well know, I have offered this amendment on a number of bills this year and in prior years. And I understand the difficulty that the appropriators have with narrowing down the requests from Members and from the administration; and although this committee has done an excellent job on this, and I understand also that the committee will oppose me and beat me into submission, I will whimper and go away. But I still think the point needs to be made that we need to begin to really draw the line, and the projected deficit is simply too large. We could do something about the deficit. Now, this will not solve it by any means if we did 1 percent. I mean, we are talking one cent on the dollar, and that will not solve it. But it would tell the American public that at least we are concerned about the deficit and we are willing to do something significant in that direction. I have no doubt that some of the good programs in this bill would take a cut, and that is unfortunate. But the budget should be no different from the taxpayers' budgets at home. When you have less money, you spend less money. It is really as simple as that, although we all know it is not really simple. It is a difficult thing to do. I would ask for support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Mr. HEFLEY

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

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I will not take a lot of time with this. I rise again today to offer an amendment to cut the level of funding in this appropriations bill by 1 percent. This amount equals $168.32 million, which represents only one penny off every dollar. As most Members are aware, I have offered a series of amendments on appropriations bills like this. It is no criticism of the committee or the job that they have done. It is just the idea that we need somewhere to begin to draw the line, and the budget we have next year is simply too large, and we can do something about the deficit right now. By voting for this amendment, you are stating that American taxpayers should not have to pay higher taxes in the future because we could not control our spending today. This fiscal year 2006 agriculture appropriations bill provides nearly $17 billion in total discretionary resources and represents an increase of $93 million over the President's request. Mr. Chairman, I ask for support 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 demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HEFLEY

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take 2 minutes, but I just wanted to say that in committee the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews) introduced this amendment. I thought it was an excellent amendment and that we ought to follow through on it. We had a problem in committee that it might have a jurisdictional problem. The gentleman was nice enough to agree to withdraw it so we could check that jurisdictional problem. We do not have that problem at this point. The gentleman is on the right track. It ought to be passed. I am glad it is in the en bloc, and I thank the gentleman for bringing this to our attention. I do not think most of us who grew up with the thrill of playing with model airplanes ever dreamed that this was the situation, and this will correct the situation. I appreciate the gentleman doing that.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 15 minutes of my time to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), a very active and thoughtful member of the Subcommittee on Readiness of the Committee on Armed Services, for purposes of control.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Over the past several years many Members of this body, including myself, have tried to delay or cancel the 2005 Base Closure Realignment and Closure round. Last year, in fact for a couple of years, the House has actually passed something to do that. And last year in the Defense act we passed a 2-year delay which would have required very much similar types of reports and so forth, which we thought was a very reasonable approach to give us more evidence to base our decision on. I think the approach the gentleman makes today is a very reasonable approach. And I had hopes that last year we could delay the process because it did not seem to me to be the time for a base closure round, and I used many of the same reasons that the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley) does. But I do think that last year was the last chance to delay BRAC. Unfortunately, we faced a veto threat from the President and opposition from the other body, and in the conference committee what we passed here in the House disappeared. And as I said, I think it is too late now. The Secretary of Defense has made recommendations for the base realignments and closures. The BRAC Commission has been appointed and has begun review of BRAC data. The Commission has held hearings. I think today they started their visits to bases around the Nation. And as the old cliche says, ``The train has left the station.'' I think it is very difficult to call that train back at this stage. BRAC is a carefully crafted process. It was designed in time to ensure that base closures are made in a fair and nonpartisan manner. The process allows for Congress to disapprove the final BRAC recommendations. And while I recognize that disapproving the recommendations is a difficult hurdle to clear, that is our best remaining opportunity to terminate the BRAC process. The Bradley amendment before us today may be tempting to anybody who has a military installation in or near their district. Those who dodged the bullet fired by the DOD's BRAC recommendations are still at risk of being placed on a closure or realignment list by the Commission. Those who were not so fortunate face a very difficult task in trying to convince the BRAC Commission to remove their bases from the closure and reassignment list. However, those tempted to support this amendment should know that it does have some problems. First, the amendment would terminate all that has already occurred and would restart the BRAC process at some undetermined time out in the future. For communities not on the DOD's BRAC list, this amendment would reset the process and put them through years, perhaps, of worry that DOD might change its mind. For communities on DOD's BRAC list, the Bradley amendment may spare them temporarily, but they would face the likelihood and perception that DOD is likely to reach the same closure and realignment conclusions when the round recommenced in the future. Such a stigma would leave those communities in a state of limbo. Can any of us imagine businesses investing money into a community around a base they almost are sure or know will be closed or realigned, but that lacks a redevelopment plan? For such communities, the sooner BRAC is complete, the sooner they will be able to redevelop and attract new businesses and commerce. Secondly, the Bradley amendment would postpone BRAC until some unknown period in the future. According to the amendment, BRAC would restart 1 year after a number of items are completed, including the quadrennial defense review and the withdrawal of substantially all major combat units and assets from Iraq. Not only would this rolling delay leave all of our communities without any clarity when the next BRAC round will occur, but it means the next BRAC round could occur during an election year. We tried to get away from that because of the partisanship of it. Those that built the 2005 round of BRAC timed it carefully to ensure that Presidential politics or even congressional politics for that matter do not drive the process. So the timing would be a problem, perhaps. On a final note, the Bradley amendment is effectively dead on arrival, unfortunately. The administration threatened to veto the bill 2 years ago, and I am sure that threat will come about again. I do not think the Senate is in a mood to change its mind, although that may have changed because of the recommendations that were made. Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest respect for my colleagues from New Hampshire and Connecticut and those who are very interested in this. They have the best of intentions. But with reluctance, I cannot support the amendment, and I encourage a ``no'' vote on it.

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

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me time. The gentleman and our ranking member have done a wonderful job in pulling all of these committees together to make this thing work. The ranking member mentioned that this is a good bill. It is a good bill, and I will probably not belabor that point. But I am pleased to come to the floor today in support of H.R. 1815, the fiscal year 2006 National Defense Authorization Act. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Ortiz) and the subcommittee and I worked very closely together to examine the Department's funding for military readiness, which includes $108 billion in operation and maintenance funds, as well as another $12 billion for military construction, family housing, and base realignment and closure. The actions we took this year addressed the needs of our Armed Forces, both on the battlefield and on the home front. We looked at the readiness levels of our military units, the ability of the military services to maintain equipment in theater and to reset and reconstitute equipment that returns from war; and we confirmed what we already knew, war is expensive and funding is needed. This is why the bill contains a ``bridge fund,'' which is intended to provide the resources necessary up front to allow our military to continue to fight the war against terrorism. I believe this to be the proper approach and eventually one way to move away from the annual supplemental appropriations bills. On the home front, we examined funding for the upkeep and maintenance of military installations. While the readiness needs of our forward deployed military personnel are our top priority, we cannot forget the families at home, the servicemembers preparing for deployment, and the personnel just returning. The committee is well aware of the Department's long-standing practice of utilizing infrastructure budgets as billpayers for operational requirements. Unfortunately, the consequences of taking this approach are reductions to basic services such as child care, dining hall operations, or facility management activities. H.R. 1815 will alleviate the Department's need to raid infrastructure budgets for operational needs and includes the tools we need to improve oversight of infrastructure accounts. On a final note, we are well aware that the Secretary of Defense recently sent over a list of bases that he is recommending to be closed or realigned. For the past several years, I have fought for a delay in the base closure process. I do not think this is the right time to do it. But, unfortunately, we win that battle in the committee, in the subcommittee, on the House floor, and then we lose it over in the conference because the other body and the President did not go along with our thinking on that. Now I think it is not a fun time, BRAC is never a fun time; but I think it is probably a little too late to get that process reversed. But we are going to get an opportunity to debate it today and get an opportunity to vote on it, and I would encourage all of us to not support that effort and to support the bill. It is a good bill.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway), a member of the committee.

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It will not be much time because we are coming to the end of this. I just want to say this. I think we have heard some excellent debate here this afternoon, and the arguments have been very good, mostly in favor of the Bradley amendment and very positive. And if I thought it was possible for us to get from here to there in a reasonable manner, as those who serve on the Committee on Armed Services with me know, I would be very sympathetic with the Bradley amendment. The gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) and the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Taylor) particularly serve on the Committee on Armed Services. I serve with these gentlemen on the Committee on Armed Services. They are fine, decent, hard-working, thoughtful members of the committee that are valued by, I think, all of their colleagues on that committee. And I got to thinking about this as we have approached this day, if anyone could have kept those bases of theirs off the list, they would have been able to do it because they have that kind of respect. But the gentleman from Texas made the point that the way the BRAC situation is set up is to take us out of that formula at this stage and to let the Department of Defense and then the Commission do their work. Once the Commission gets started, we can get back into it and do whatever we can do to do that, but it was designed to take politics out of it. So the people who try to make a political issue out of someone's base closing, I think, are making a very bad mistake and are fooling the American public. And we see this from both sides going on, rushing to say, oh, my gosh, if someone else had been there. No, that is not the case. This should not be a political issue; this should be a national defense issue. It should be evaluated based upon the need to defend this country. And we will have disagreements about what is needed and what is not needed, but that is what it should be based on. It should not be political. I commend these gentlemen and all those who have spoken. They did an excellent job. But I encourage people, reluctantly, not to support the Bradley amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HEFLEY

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

Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is identical to those I have offered to appropriations bills for the past couple of years. The amendment trims outlays for H.R. 2361 by 1 percent under the Holman Rule, which means if the amendment passes, it will be up to the administration to determine where the cuts will fall. I want to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), the ranking member. As always, they have done a solid job of this. I understand the dynamics of bringing a bill out of committee. They have done a good job. They are below what would have been expected, but we are still not at a balanced budget; and so I offer this amendment. In fact, just the other day a Democratic colleague mentioned this bill and said the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) is ``as tight as a snare drum,'' and I take that as an extreme compliment. That said, I do not think the funding levels of this bill are reflective of a country with a $340 billion deficit. The amendment would trim a penny on the dollar across the agencies funded by this bill. Despite the stripped-down character of the bill, I think there are still some areas worthy of examination. For example, the Kennedy Center for Performing Arts. Some years ago as a member of the House Interior Committee, I heard testimony on de- accessioning the Kennedy Center from the National Park Service. James Wolfensohn, its director and later head of the World Bank, pleaded with the subcommittee to cut the center loose. He said the center needed millions of dollars in structural repairs, yet he could not move forward on them because of the Park Service contracting requirements and inflated costs. ``Let us raise our own funds and we will be able to do this much more efficiently,'' he said. And so we did. We got rid of the Kennedy Center, except that we did not really. The only National Park Service cut loose in the past 20 years, supposedly, and yet in this bill it includes $17.8 million for operation and maintenance at the Kennedy Center and $10 million for construction. Now, I know the Kennedy Center has serious structural problems, but given the legislative history of this issue, I would like to know how long we are going to continue to have this center that we have to fund. That is just one example. I question whether the various agencies really need all of the new vehicles authorized in this bill. I estimate at least $5 million for those. I question some of the administrative accounts. The chairman has done a fine job in reining in costs, particularly in the area of land acquisition; but at a time of a $300-plus million deficit, we need to do more. This amendment would do that. Even in a small way, I encourage support 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 demand a recorded vote.