Stephanie Herseth Sandlin

Ms. HERSETH

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to begin by thanking the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver) and the members of the subcommittee for their hard work on this appropriations legislation. I realize that we are working with limited resources, and I commend them for their bipartisan efforts to craft the best possible legislation within the constraints of the budget resolution. But I am compelled to offer this significant amendment to the Transportation, Treasury and Housing appropriations bill. Within this bill that funds large Federal agencies like the Department of Transportation and the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Federal Judiciary often is overlooked. Yet, this year, when the Congress has passed significant legislation that will increase the workload of the courts, we need to remember our responsibility to the Judiciary, our coequal branch of government. I had the privilege of working not only with a Federal District Court judge but also a Federal Appellate Court judge. I recognize their workload, their commitment and their dedication to serving our country. And I think that this amendment is fairly straightforward in recognition of their continued hard work in light of the significant legislation that increases their workload. It would add $6.9 million to the salaries and expenditures account in the Court of Appeals, District courts and other judicial services subsection of title IV of this act. It would be fully offset from the Federal buildings fund of the General Services Administration. This amendment will provide our Federal court system with the resources they need to manage the surge of complex litigation that they will receive as a result of the recently enacted Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. The administrative office of the U.S. courts has projected that as many as 300 complex class action lawsuits will be moved out of State courts and into Federal courts as a result of this new law, at an estimated cost of $23,000 per case for a total cost of $6.9 million. Federal courts are already burdened with a huge docket of criminal and immigration cases. Failure to increase funding for Federal courts to account for the increase in complicated class actions that will flow from the Class Action Fairness Act will drastically delay the judicial process for thousands of plaintiffs and defendants seeking civil redress in our Federal courts. The Senate has already recognized this need. In the 2005 emergency supplemental appropriations bill, it sought to provide increased funding to the Judiciary, but its language was stripped out in conference. It is time for the House to take responsibility for the anticipated impact of the Class Action Fairness Act when imposing significant new costs on the coequal branch of government. We have a duty to provide the necessary resources to meet those costs. My amendment will provide this funding, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I appreciate the Chairman's concern about the GSA account. However, it is substantial. We know in our dealings with GSA that they can withstand certain cuts. I know other amendments throughout the day and this evening have been offered and have identified the GSA account for offsets. However, this is $6.9 million. I know that the chairman has acknowledged that the Judiciary has received an increase, but I would contend that it is nowhere near what is necessary for our coequal branch of government. Not only have we increased their jurisdiction from the Class Action Fairness Act, but other legislation passed by this body throughout this term. And I believe it is important especially when we are dealing with litigants who are trying to get civil relief. I have seen for myself, in working at the District Court level, other civil actions that keep getting pushed back and pushed back and pushed back because of the need to handle the increased caseload in both criminal law and immigration cases. And so I contend that the $6.9 million can be withstood out of the GSA account, and that is necessary to increase this funding, particularly for the complex litigation that will make its way from the State courts into the Federal courts. So while I acknowledge the chairman's concern, I would continue to urge my colleagues to take a close look; understand that this is not a significant amount coming out of a very sizable account for GSA to help our colleagues in the judicial branch. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Just a final point. It becomes difficult when we are trying to allocate these limited resources, I know; and I would commend GSA for the work that it has done. But I do believe that when we are looking at our colleagues in the judiciary, a co-equal branch of government, and in response to not only Supreme Court decisions that will increase the workload in the area of sentencing for many of our judges, but again, the continued increase that we have seen in the criminal case load, immigration cases and elsewhere, that our primary concern should be with civil litigants, and we should be able to find this offset from GSA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HERSETH

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Speaker, on June 20-23, 2005, I attended the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Regional Field Hearing in Rapid City, South Dakota in an effort to convince BRAC commissioners to remove Ellsworth Air Force Base--South Dakota's second largest employer--from the Department of Defense's list of military bases recommended for closure. Therefore, I was unavoidably absent from the House of Representatives on these days and was unable to support important legislation brought before the full House. I would like the record to show that had I been present I would have voted in support of H.R. 2863, the Fiscal Year 2006 Department of Defense Appropriations Act; H.R. 2475, the Fiscal 2006 Intelligence Authorization Act; and H.J. Res. 110, the Flag Desecration Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Fiscal Year 2006 Defense Appropriations bill funds the activities of the Department of Defense including the funds needed to outfit and train our servicemen and women and important benefits and services for members of our military and their families. The bill also includes funding for three partnership programs between the Department of Defense and the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology. These important programs will help bring together a unique array of capabilities offered by the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology to help our Nation's military meet the challenge of transformation and modernization. I will continue to work with my colleagues in the House of Representatives to improve our Nation's commitment to the men and women who serve in the military. There is no question that all Americans owe their freedom to those brave enough to serve in our Nation's military. I also would like to express my support for the Fiscal Year 2006 Intelligence Authorization Act. This bill provides funding for 15 U.S. intelligence agencies and intelligence-related activities of the U.S. government--including the CIA and the National Security Agency, as well as foreign intelligence activities of the Defense Department, FBI, State Department, Homeland Security Department, and other agencies. I will continue working to ensure our Federal intelligence and security agencies receive the resources and funding needed to protect the United States from external and internal threats. Finally, I would like to express my support for the flag desecration amendment to the United States Constitution. This resolution authorizes Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. Our Nation's flag is a symbol of freedom and a source of pride for all of us fortunate enough to call ourselves Americans. Our Nation has always encouraged free discussion and reasonable disagreement, but the physical desecration of an American flag goes beyond the pale. Such actions are insulting to those who have fought, and died, under the American flag, and I am proud to support efforts to ban flag desecration. In 1989, the Supreme Court held that no laws could prohibit political protesters from burning the American flag and declared unconstitutional the flag desecration laws of 48 states and of the United States. In that case, Texas v. Johnson, Justice Stevens wrote a powerful dissenting opinion that has guided my reasoning on the Amendment for some time. Justice Stevens pointed out the importance of distinguishing between disagreeable ideas and disagreeable conduct. In a particularly apt analogy, Justice Stevens noted that if Johnson had spray painted his message on the Lincoln Memorial, the government could prohibit his ``expression.'' I have always found myself in agreement with the idea that there should be a legitimate interest in preserving the quality of an important national asset. I look forward to continuing to work on these and other important issues in the 109th Congress.

Ms. HERSETH

Ms. HERSETH. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Speaker, I also rise today in strong support of S. 643, which is the companion legislation of H.R. 1930 introduced by my distinguished colleague on the Committee on Agriculture, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Lucas). This legislation would extend the authorization for the State Mediation Grant Program carried out by USDA's Farm Service Agency to provide Federal matching grants to State mediation programs. Currently 32 States, including my home State of South Dakota, are certified to receive matching funds under this program, and two more States are working on becoming certified. To receive Federal funding, a State program must meet certain criteria and have at least a 30 percent match in State funding. This program was created in 1987 as a result of the credit crisis facing agriculture in the mid-1980s. Since its inception, an original intent of dealing with credit and loan disputes, Congress has expanded its scope to cover a number of other issues stemming from farm program participation, everything from wetland determinations to commodity program eligibility and pesticide drift. Early on, leaders in South Dakota recognized the value that such a program could provide to the farmers, ranchers, and lenders in our State, and they created a program in 1988 to deal with agricultural credit disputes. It has been a resounding success. In the more than 16 years that the South Dakota Department of Agriculture has operated its mediation program, it has received more than 4,500 requests for mediation. In South Dakota, mediation is available for agricultural credit disputes involving any amount of money. However, a creditor must submit to mediation in any credit dispute involving more than $50,000. This popular program provides many benefits to both agricultural borrowers and lenders in many States across the country. We all know that lending disputes can become contentious, and this program enables participants to negotiate and create their own mutually agreeable solutions to such disputes. Also, the cost of mediation is much less than the formal appeals process at USDA, averaging less than $700 per year, as opposed to the thousands of dollars it can cost to go through the National Appeals Division. The length of time to reach conclusions is also much shorter, normally several days, in contrast to appeals cases that can stretch for months. Mediation works because it is a time-saving and affordable alternative to litigation and appeals. It also promotes communication between disputing parties rather than confrontation and animosity. And, in my communications with the South Dakota Department of Agriculture staff, mediation generally results in more successful and enduring resolution to most credit disputes. This program has worked for farmers and agricultural lenders in South Dakota and across the country for almost 20 years, and I am pleased to support S. 643 to extend the authorization of this program through 2010. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HERSETH

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in complete support of this amendment, and I want to commend the strong and tenacious leadership of the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg) for his offering of the amendment today. I also rise with no small measure of frustration and exasperation that this amendment is even necessary today. The 2002 farm bill made a promise to farmers and ranchers across this country. It promised them that the Secretary of Agriculture would implement a program to inform consumers where their meat and vegetables come from. Producers in South Dakota see tremendous potential in this program and urged its inclusion in the farm bill. In fact, had this provision not been in the bill, I think that many of them would not have supported its passage. This promise was supposed to be fulfilled by September 30 of last year. The program should already be up and running. Instead, the large meat packers have rallied to kill this program because they do not want American consumers to discover how much of the meat in the grocery case is actually imported. And these packing interests have found strong and willing allies here in this body. Two years ago in an appropriations bill, Congress voted to delay the implementation of this program until September 30 of next year. Now we see that this 2-year delay was not enough for them. Their allies in this Chamber are at it again today, seeking to delay implementation of this important program for yet another year. This is unconscionable and it is just the tip of the iceberg. Leadership in this body is breaking faith with rural America on a host of important issues. The administration is leading the fight to reopen our border to Canadian beef despite ongoing concerns about the safety of their beef supply and over the strong objections of many U.S. ranchers and consumer groups. Rural America is also under attack in the budget process. The 2007 budget, which recently passed this body with only Republican votes, will cut $3 billion from farm safety net programs in the coming years. The President's budget was even worse, seeking a cut of almost $6 billion in farm bill programs. Because of this budget, the farm income safety net, conservation programs and food stamps are now facing huge cuts in the coming years. I see mandatory country-of-origin legislation as a win-win situation and no more delays are justified. It is a win for consumers who get the security of knowing where their meat comes from, and it is a win for our producers who can build a stronger marketplace for their meat based on the quality of the product. Let us not forget that American consumers have shown overwhelming support for COOL. A nationwide poll taken last year found that 82 percent of consumers think food should be labeled with country-of- origin information; 85 percent said they would be more inclined to purchase U.S. products; and 81 percent said they would be willing to pay a few cents extra for food that is grown here at home. American consumers want the ability to be as informed about their food purchase decisions as they are about virtually all of the other consumers goods they purchase. Country-of-origin labeling gives them this tool and they support it. Let us restore our commitment to rural America. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. A 2-year delay is long enough. Let us allow the Agriculture Secretary to fulfill the promise of the 2002 farm bill by giving producers the marketing tools that they need and consumers the information that they are seeking on the origin of the food they buy.

Ms. HERSETH

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Jones amendment today because it gives this House another opportunity to slow the process down. We did not take that opportunity last night in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley), despite the compelling testimony offered by a number of Members about the fact that we still have a lot of information outlying that should come to us within the upcoming months, within the year, including the Quadrennial Defense Review, that would actually help the BRAC commissioners to evaluate the DOD's recommendations for those installations that they have submitted on a list for recommendations of closure and realignment. But the Jones amendment says, okay, if we are not going to do that, if we are not going to postpone the BRAC rounds to get all of the information from the overseas base closures, from the QDR, getting troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, dealing with the maritime issues, dealing with homeland defense and civil support directives, then let us at least say in fairness and for a process that should be open and transparent as opposed to emulating litigation discovery processes here, give us the information as Members of Congress, the task force and the communities, the commissioners now that are supposed to be evaluating these recommendations. How can we expect them to do that in a process that is supposed to be open and transparent, when piecemeal by piecemeal the Department of Defense is releasing this information as opposed to releasing it in a more comprehensive way, as was done in the last BRAC round in 1995? Let me give an example. Last night right before we voted on the Bradley amendment, we received word, the offices for South Dakota here and over in the Senate and in the community of Rapid City, that the Department of Defense had just released some additional information. Here we thought we have what we need to start assessing and evaluating these recommendations. Most of this information had already been released. We have less than 10 percent of what we need. Less than 10 percent of what we need, just a couple of weeks out from our regional hearing to begin evaluating what drove the Department of Defense's evaluation to rank Ellsworth Air Force Base the way they did, and how they applied the criteria. We cannot make our case, and there are people in Rapid City, South Dakota, with the task force in support of Ellsworth Air Force Base that have been working for years in anticipation of this day, and we are not willing to slow this process down enough to get adequate and comprehensive information from the Department of Defense? It is clear that either they were so under the gun to meet the deadline of May 13 that they did not adequately plan or have enough time to determine what it was that was going to have to be classified or declassified before releasing the information, either in the aggregate or installation by installation. If the reason for that is primarily for national security reasons because we are at war, that justifies slowing this process down at least a little bit so the Department of Defense is forced to release this information that we have had in past BRAC rounds so it is in fairness to the communities and really faithful to the BRAC process which is to be open and transparent and allow communities to make their best case before the commissioners prior to the site reviews, prior to the regional hearings. I encourage my colleagues, while Members may have had reservations last night, to postpone the BRAC round awaiting all of the other information. Can we not at least slow it down enough to ensure that the Department of Defense is accountable to each and every one of us and our constituents and our military installations to get that information to ensure a fair, open, and transparent process? I hope Members will agree and support the Jones amendment.

Ms. HERSETH

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley) for his leadership on this important issue. I rise today in support of this amendment, delaying the implementation of the BRAC recommendation, because it is clear that we need to slow this process down. Given the broad range of uncertainties surrounding our overall military infrastructure and operations, now is not the time to be shutting down domestic military installations. There are serious questions that need to be answered first. We have more than 120,000 soldiers currently deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are planning to realign our overseas bases. We are less than 1 year away from completing a comprehensive Quadrennial Defense Review. There are simply too many moving parts and too many unanswered questions right now to complete this domestic BRAC round end process on the currently prescribed schedule and close bases here at home. Simply put, we need to slow the process down to ensure we do not make critical mistakes when we are deciding our national security and military strategy. These are decisions that we should make with all available information and we are nowhere near having all of the necessary information. Ellsworth Air Force Base in Rapid City, South Dakota, is my State's second largest employer and an integral part of our national defense as home to the 28th Bomb Wing and the B-1 Bomber. It is also scheduled for closure, along with 32 other major installations across the country. Now, inexcusably, we have yet to receive complete information regarding the criteria and the reasons for the Department of Defense's recommendations. This is true of many other installations in affected communities. Site visits by BRAC commissioners are already under way. We are only weeks away from the commission holding regional hearings, including one in Rapid City to discuss the DOD's recommendations. But neither they nor we have received the complete information that was used to make those recommendations. That fact alone is evidence that there is not adequate time built into this process and ample reason to slow the process down. I respectfully request every one of my colleagues, regardless of how your district may have been affected by DOD's recommendations, to support this important amendment for our national security and for essential fairness in the process. Is postponing this BRAC round a reasonable action in light of the fact that we as Members of Congress and every member of the commission lacks the information that we have identified here today, lacks the information underlying the DOD's analysis in their decisions? The obvious answer to that question is ``yes,'' it is a reasonable action. And the obvious vote on this amendment is a ``yes'' vote.

Ms. HERSETH. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to echo the comments made by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul) a little bit ago. It has been about a year since I came to Congress to represent South Dakota. This is one of those instances in which we do have time to do the right thing. We can take a step back and take a breath and realize that the train has not left the station and the growing frustration of Members of this body as you can see from the testimony offered today is about whether or not we have complete information for us to make wise and prudent decisions and for the commission to make wise and prudent decisions. And we can learn from the lessons of what is happening with our overseas Base Realignment and Closure Commission when they released major conclusions and recommendations on May 9, only 4 days before the BRAC list was released. According to that report ``the detailed synchronization required by so massive a realignment of forces requires that the pace of events be slowed and reordered. That is precisely what the Bradley amendment is requesting to do, an action this body has taken before. Again, I encourage my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Bradley amendment.

Ms. HERSETH

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), the ranking member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2046, as amended, the Servicemembers' Health Insurance Protection Act of 2005. I would like to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Chairman Buyer) and the gentleman from Illinois (Ranking Member Evans) for their leadership on the full committee and for their good work in shepherding this bill to the floor today. I would also like to personally thank the gentleman from Arkansas (Chairman Boozman) of the Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity for his steady bipartisan leadership on the subcommittee. Mr. Speaker, I support this legislation and am an original cosponsor of the bill. This legislation is aimed at improving the quality of life of our servicemembers, veterans, and military families. It is very important for the increasingly activated National Guard and Reserve components, our citizen-soldiers who leave behind their families, employment, and comforts of home to defend this Nation. The State of South Dakota has had and continues to have National Guard units activated and serving in the Middle East. This legislation will protect them and their families as they return home to civilian life and seek to reinstate their private or employer-sponsored health insurance coverage. Mr. Speaker, this legislation also includes two corrective provisions, as the gentleman from Arkansas (Chairman Boozman) described, which amend and improve the administration of the disabled veteran adaptive housing grant program and the servicemembers' group life insurance program respectively. I am pleased we were able to include these important corrective measures. Mr. Speaker, the servicemembers, military families and veterans of this Nation have earned and deserve our best efforts here in Congress. Indeed, they deserve so much more. I am proud to support this legislation, and I am confident it will benefit the veterans of my home State of South Dakota, as well as the other veterans across the country. I fully support H.R. 2046, as amended, and urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I would just like to reiterate my appreciation for the leadership of the full committee, the gentleman from Arkansas (Chairman Boozman), and his leadership on the subcommittee, of course the efforts of committee staff and all of their hard work in advancing this important legislation, as well as those that were in hearings with the chairman and me and other members of the subcommittee, those from the Department of Labor, the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, as well as many veterans organizations serving as advocates for veterans and their families across the country and servicemembers as they return. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HERSETH

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) for yielding to me to engage in a colloquy concerning a devastating event that recently occurred on the Crow Creek Reservation in my home State of South Dakota.

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, in the middle of the night on April 24, a fire broke out in a school dormitory on the Crow Creek Reservation in Stephan, South Dakota and did extensive damage to the structure. This dormitory on the campus of the Crow Creek Tribal School housed 230 of the students who attend that school, the only high school on the reservation. Fortunately, even miraculously, no one was seriously injured in this fire. School officials scrambled to find housing for the seniors who were attending the school at the time, but the students in the other grades could not be accommodated. For many of them, the school year simply ended unceremoniously on April 24. The facility that burned also contained the kitchen and dining facilities for the school. The Crow Creek middle and high schools are now left without any dormitory, kitchen, or dining space for the more than 430 students enrolled there. The needs that have been created by this tragic event are dire and immediate. I am asking the chairman to join me in urging officials at the Bureau of Indian Affairs to reprogram existing funds so school officials can immediately begin construction of adequate temporary dormitory facilities for the students at this school.

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that Congress has granted the BIA certain emergency authorities to reprogram funds from other accounts when situations such as this arise. I would certainly consider a devastating fire that threatened the educational mission of the only high school on an Indian reservation as a situation that would trigger BIA's emergency authorities. The Office of Management and Budget may also seek to approve any BIA reprogramming requests to address these needs, and I ask the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Taylor) to join me in urging OMB to review these questions as quickly as possible. Does the gentleman agree with me on these points?

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his recognition of the serious nature of the situation and for his willingness to work with me to address the very real needs of the children and students on the Crow Creek Indian Reservation. The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Fossella.) The Clerk will read.

Ms. HERSETH

Ms. HERSETH. Madam Chairman, I am pleased that the amendment offered by my esteemed colleagues Ms. Slaughter, Mr. Shays, Mr. Dicks, Mr. Leach, and Mr. Price, passed today by a voice vote. The amendment offered on behalf of the Arts Caucus, will increase funding for the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities by $10 million and $5 million respectively. I am a strong supporter of the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities, and I enjoy a strong working relationship with South Dakota's arts community. As a member of the Arts Caucus, I am proud to support our amendment, which represents an important step towards providing these agencies with the funding they need to continue providing critical support for literary, design, performing arts, and cultural projects in South Dakota and across the country. Another agency that receives funding under this bill is the U.S. Forest Service, which has the vital responsibility to fight fires on our public lands. I recognize the need for wildland fire protection and I strongly believe that Congress must provide Federal land management agencies with the resources they need to protect our public resources from fire, as well as the lives and property of those who live in and near national forests. It was for this reason that I voted in favor of the amendment offered by my colleague, Mr. Beauprez of Colorado, to increase funding for wildland fire protection. Unfortunately, I strongly disagree with the source of funding that Mr. Beauprez chose to utilize, the National Endowment for the Arts, in order to fund this wildland fire prevention increase. This amendment was soundly defeated on the House floor. I believe this was a function of the offset that the amendment sought to use, and not a lack of support in the House for forest fire prevention. It also is an indication that we must look for other ways to increase funding for wildland fire prevention. I offer to work with my colleagues in the House of Representatives in the coming years to identify ways to fund increased wildland fire funding without raiding the important funds of the NEA to accomplish that goal.

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Cubin-Rahall-Udall amendment that seeks to increase funding to the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program by $12 million. This would increase PILT payments to local government by redirecting funds from Interior Department administrative and overhead accounts. This amendment would bring the Federal Government's payments for PILT closer to the authorized funding level, helping local governments in 49 States, while still allowing the Interior Department to spend $10 million more for administrative costs than in fiscal year 2005. Had the House of Representatives held a recorded vote on this amendment, I would have voted to support it. As it is, the propriety of this amendment was so clear to my colleagues and me that no Member of the House of Representatives sought a recorded vote on this issue and it passed by voice vote. Along with Interior Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Taylor of North Carolina, I oppose the amendment by Mr. Hefley of Colorado that pertains to PILT funding. As I mentioned above, I strongly support increased PILT funding, but I am opposed to the offset that Mr. Hefley would use to pay for his amendment. He would pay for those increased PILT funds by reducing the allocation for the National Endowment for the Arts by $15 million. The Cubin-Rahall-Cannon-Udall uses a much preferable offset and that is why I voted to oppose the Hefley Amendment and why I voice my strong support for the Cubin-Rahall- Cannon-Udall Amendment.

Ms. HERSETH

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, today I will vote in support of the amendment to the FY06 Interior Appropriations Bill, offered by Mr. Rahall, that will prevent the Secretary of the Interior from expending funds to conduct sales of wild horses for the next fiscal year. That said, I am not categorically opposed to the sale of wild horses that live on federal lands and will seek to work with my colleagues to find a feasible solution to the federal land management challenges that underlie this issue. Initially, let me indicate that I believe the process by which Wild Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act was amended, with language inserted in an omnibus appropriations act without any public hearings or comment, was extremely inappropriate and that fact alone is grounds for Congress to revisit this issue. I strongly believe that we must provide the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and all federal land management agencies the tools and the resources they need to conserve our precious public resources. Ultimately, this may mean granting horse-sale authority to the BLM. I do not believe, however, that these wild horses should end up in slaughterhouses. The fact that forty-one wild horses were recently slaughtered at a foreign-owned processing facility, and an additional fifty-two barely escaped the same fate, clearly demonstrates that the current sale program is flawed, despite BLM efforts to implement safeguards and pursue a measured approach in administering the sale authority. Humane alternatives to slaughter obviously exist, and federal agencies already have the authority to carry out such humane actions as adoption, sterilization, relocation, and placement with qualified individuals and organizations. Federal land managers may simply lack the resources they need to carry out these alternatives, but the answers to such questions are currently unclear. I urge Chairman Pombo of the House Committee on Resources to hold hearings on this matter so that we can ascertain the status of the BLM's management authorities and resources. I pledge to work with him to find solutions to this issue. In the meantime, because I believe that a one-year moratorium on BLM's sale authority for wild horses is needed to allow this debate, I offer my support to the Rahall Amendment.

Ms. HERSETH

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my Special Order at this time.

Ms. HERSETH

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to express my profound disappointment and flat disagreement with the Department of Defense's recommendation to close Ellsworth Air Force Base in South Dakota as a part of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission. This recommendation is as misguided as they come. While the BRAC process is necessary to ensure that our Armed Forces can efficiently and adequately serve our military needs at home and abroad into the 21st century, this decision does not accurately reflect the value of Ellsworth to that cause. As Lead Wing for the Aerospace Expeditionary Force, the 28th Bomb Wing at Ellsworth Air Force Base played a decisive role in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. As they did in Kosovo and Afghanistan, the B-1 and her crews from Ellsworth Air Force Base performed superbly. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, B-1s played a vital role in helping liberate Iraq by dropping more than half the satellite- guided munitions. Ellsworth once again demonstrated that it is the backbone of America's bomber fleet and the base has fulfilled its missions admirably. This is a modern, well-equipped installation that has served our country for decades and is prepared to serve for decades to come. Ellsworth has substantially upgraded its infrastructure since the last round of base closures, which will allow Ellsworth to accept new missions and continue to grow. Rather than closing, Ellsworth is well situated to receive additional assignments. In addition, Ellsworth's geographic and strategic strengths are many. Located in western South Dakota, Ellsworth is strategically positioned and is not threatened by urban encroachment or crowded air space, major factors that have not been given appropriate weight by the Department of Defense. In addition, the base is close to bomber training facilities in the region. I am also concerned the Secretary of Defense did not adequately consider the benefits of locating military bases in rural regions. A disproportionate number of bases recommended for closure realignment resulting in a disproportionate number of lost jobs are in rural States such as Alaska, Maine, North Dakota, and South Dakota. This oversight is part and parcel of a continued disregard for not only the needs of rural America but the unique value and strengths rural America offers to our country as a whole. Additionally, commencing a round of base closures during a time of war is questionable strategy and could be harmful to our national security. The current round of domestic base closures should wait until after the Department of Defense completes its plans to bring troops back to the United States from overseas bases. I am also concerned about the risks associated with consolidating all of our B-1 bombers in a single location. Furthermore, I am concerned that we are making base closure decisions prior to the Quadrennial Defense Review for 2005. The Quadrennial Defense Review analyzes force structure, modernization plans, military infrastructure, and the defense budget to help establish a roadmap for defense programs. It cannot be ignored before assessing base realignments and closures. Finally, the economic impact of closing Ellsworth Air Force Base on South Dakota would be dramatic. Our State would lose our second largest employer and an estimated $278 million a year. The loss of nearly 4,000 jobs would set South Dakota almost a year back in statewide job growth. I have invited the chairman of the BRAC Commission, Anthony Principi, and other members of the commission to visit Ellsworth Air Force Base and hold one of their regional field hearings in Rapid City, home to Ellsworth. A visit to Ellsworth will allow the commission the opportunity to see what those of us from South Dakota already know: the B-1 bomber and Ellsworth Air Force Base are irreplaceable and crucial to our national security. As the BRAC Commission moves forward and reviews the Department of Defense's recommendations, I am confident the BRAC Commission will realize the Department of Defense deviated substantially from their established base closure criteria when recommending Ellsworth for closure and will support removing it from the list.