Stephanie Herseth Sandlin

Ms. HERSETH

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss a problem of potentially catastrophic proportions. It is not a matter of foreign policy or national security, and it is not natural disasters like this past summer's hurricanes or the ongoing drought in States like my home State of South Dakota. No. This is a man-made disaster. This debacle is of government creation and, in particular, legislative irresponsibility. This is a crisis that we, as elected representatives, have an obligation and a duty to address. I rise to discuss the crisis facing our community pharmacists, particularly those who serve rural communities. As I mentioned on Tuesday of this week, of all the health care professionals struggling with the implementation of the new Medicare drug benefit, pharmacists appear to be the most negatively affected. This past weekend I spent several hours meeting with health professionals from South Dakota communities, small and large, to discuss their ongoing efforts to implement the new Medicare prescription drug benefit. These meetings proved incredibly beneficial to me and to my staff, and I have scheduled more of them in the near future. I encourage my colleagues to take the time to sit down with those administering the program in their districts. It is important that you hear from them first hand. But because of the urgency of this issue, I feel compelled to share with you now some thoughts on the crisis facing rural and community pharmacists. Here is what is happening: PHARMACIES large and small receive no or inadequate compensation for the time they spend filling prescriptions. This is particularly troubling for those serving ``dual-eligible'' beneficiaries, those who qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid; and those in assisted living facilities who take large numbers of pre-packaged medication. Much of the responsibility of ensuring the drug benefit's implementation has been assumed by the pharmacist. To the extent that it is working at all, we have them to thank. In many ways for many of the pharmacists I spoke with, much of the damage has already been done. On the horizon, however, are significant cuts to the Medicaid program that will be achieved primarily by changing the way we reimburse pharmacies for prescription drugs. That is right. The choices we made during the budget reconciliation process once again targeted our Nation's pharmacists, without asking for corresponding sacrifices from the insurance companies or the pharmaceutical manufacturers, which is outrageous. It is truly shameful. And the implications will be significant. After absorbing significant losses during the rollout of the Medicare drug program, pharmacists will soon be hit by changes to the Medicaid program, and many simply will not survive. This one-two punch is not only bad policy, it is inexcusable. Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt even praised pharmacists last week for their ``heroic'' efforts in shouldering the burden for implementing Medicare Part D. Their reward for their selfless and heroic behavior? Drastic pharmacy reimbursement cuts in the Medicaid program that will have a devastating impact on our communities, disproportionately impacting the poorest and sickest Americans and that will no doubt put hundreds if not thousands of small businesses out of business. I encourage my colleagues to talk to their pharmacists, learn more about this situation, and work with me in a bipartisan manner to ensure that we are not sacrificing the health of our Nation and the good-will of our community pharmacists by taking the path of least resistance and caving to large and powerful interests.

Ms. HERSETH

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to honor the life of SGT Jeremiah Boehmer, who died February 5, 2006, while serving in Iraq. Every Member of the House of Representatives has taken a solemn oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. While we certainly understand the gravity of the issues facing this legislative body, SGT Jeremiah Boehmer lived that commitment to our country. Today, we remember and honor his noble service to the United States and the ultimate sacrifice he has paid with his life to defend our freedoms and foster liberty for others. The lives of countless people were enormously enhanced by Jeremiah's compassion and service. Jeremiah, who represented the best of the United States, South Dakota, and the military continues to inspire all those who knew him and many who did not. Our Nation and the State of South Dakota are far better places because of his service, and the best way to honor him is to emulate his devotion to our country. I join with all South Dakotans in expressing my sympathies to the family of SGT Jeremiah Boehmer. His commitment to and sacrifice for our Nation will never be forgotten.

Ms. HERSETH

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to honor the life of SPC Allen Kokesh Jr., who died February 7, 2006, from wounds suffered while serving in Iraq. Every member of the House of Representatives has taken a solemn oath to defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. While we certainly understand the gravity of the issues facing this legislative body, SPC Allen Kokesh Jr., lived that commitment to our Country. Today, we remember and honor his noble service to the United States and the ultimate sacrifice he has paid with his life to defend our freedoms and foster liberty for others. The lives of countless people were enormously enhanced by Allen's compassion and service. Allen, who represented the best of the United States, South Dakota, and the military continues to inspire all those who knew him and many who did not. Our Nation and the State of South Dakota are far better places because of his service, and the best way to honor him is to emulate his devotion to our Country. I join with all South Dakotans in expressing my sympathies to the family of SPC Allen Kokesh Jr. His commitment to and sacrifice for our Nation will never be forgotten.

Ms. HERSETH

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to honor the life of SPC Patrick Herried, who died February 6, 2006, while serving in Iraq. Every member of the House of Representatives has taken a solemn oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. While we certainly understand the gravity of the issues facing this legislative body, SPC Patrick Herried lived that commitment to our country. Today, we remember and honor his noble service to the United States and the ultimate sacrifice he has paid with his life to defend our freedoms and foster liberty for others. The lives of countless people were enormously enhanced by Patrick's compassion and service. Patrick, who represented the best of the United States, South Dakota, and the military continues to inspire all those who knew him and many who did not. Our Nation and the State of South Dakota are far better places because of his service, and the best way to honor him is to emulate his devotion to our country. I join with all South Dakotans in expressing my sympathies to the family of SPC Patrick Herried. His commitment to and sacrifice for our Nation will never be forgotten.

Ms. HERSETH

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss the crisis facing our community pharmacists, particularly those in rural communities. Of all the health care professionals struggling with the implementation of the new Medicare drug benefit, pharmacists appear to be the most negatively affected. Guess what? Pharmacists are facing another blow. The recently enacted cuts to the Medicaid program are achieved by changes in the way we reimburse pharmacies for prescription drugs. The choices made during the budget reconciliation process once again targeted our Nation's pharmacists without asking for corresponding sacrifices from the pharmaceutical manufacturers and the PBMs. This one-two punch is not only bad policy, it is outrageous. Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt praised pharmacists last week for their ``heroic'' efforts in shouldering the burden for implementing Medicare Part D. Their reward? Drastic pharmacy reimbursement cuts in the Medicaid program that will have a devastating impact on our communities, disproportionately impacting the poorest and sickest Americans that will no doubt put hundreds, if not thousands, of small businesses out of business. It is time this body quit taking the path of least resistance and base our health policy decisions on what is good for our constituents, communities and small businesses, not the powerful drug and insurance companies. I respectfully and urgently ask my colleagues to address this important issue.

Ms. HERSETH

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Ohio for yielding and for his long-standing commitment for health care issues facing this country. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4568, the Proficiency Testing Improvement Act of 2005, because this legislation reflects a thoughtful compromise, and I am extremely pleased we are going to have an opportunity to address the underlying issues concerning the clinical laboratory proficiency testing regime currently being implemented by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. As I toured laboratories in South Dakota earlier this year and discussed the proficiency test with pathologists in my State, it has become clear to me that the science and practice guidelines for cytology have advanced substantially in the 13 years since the initial design of the proficiency testing program. I have serious concerns with the possibility of qualified physicians and lab personnel being penalized as a result of a test based on outdated standards, and I have concerns about the access problems this may create in rural areas. The Clinical Laboratory Improvement Advisory Committee, which is charged with advising the Secretary of Health and Human Services on the standards governing clinical laboratories, has recommended that the Department of Health and Human Services revise the outdated regulation to reflect the advances in the practice of cytology. When it became clear that Secretary Leavitt intended to proceed with the January 1 implementation date, as Mr. Brown indicated, I joined with him and many others of this body to urge the Secretary to suspend the current testing program and make the necessary revisions to reflect the advances in science, technology and practice. But time grows short, and without any assurances that the flaws in the current regime will be addressed, it is necessary for us to act. This legislation delays implementation of proficiency testing for 1 year to allow the Secretary to make the appropriate revisions and ensure a testing program that reflects medically and scientifically current standards for the practice of cytology. This step is necessary to protect access to clinical laboratory services and to ensure the high quality of those services. I want to express my sincere thanks to all those who have worked so hard in the last few weeks to bring this legislation to the floor before the end of the session. Ranking Members Dingell and Brown, Chairman Deal, Mr. Price, have all been diligent and thoughtful throughout this process. And I also want to extend my thanks to Chairman Barton for his flexibility and offer my prayers for his speedy recovery during the Christmas season. I encourage my colleagues in the House to support H.R. 4568 and our colleagues in the Senate to act swiftly to pass this important legislation before we adjourn.

Ms. HERSETH

Ms. HERSETH. Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of this important amendment to eliminate the Diversity Visa Program, otherwise known as the visa lottery. I thank my good friend, the gentleman from Virginia, for the time. Chairman Goodlatte and Chairman Sensenbrenner have effectively outlined the serious security risk posed by the visa lottery program and the flaws in the administration of the program, so I will not repeat them at this time. But I would like to address a question raised by some of my colleagues: whether it would be possible to reallocate the visas currently utilized by the visa lottery program and add them to the family-sponsored and employer-based categories. Although the amendment we are offering today does not reallocate the diversity visas, I am committed to working with Chairman Goodlatte and our colleagues in the Senate to do just that. I believe strongly that the elimination of the visa lottery program will strengthen our national security, that our amendment is an appropriate and necessary step towards resolution of this issue. I believe strongly that if our amendment passes today, we can negotiate a compromise that will ensure reallocation of some or all of the immigrant visas available under this outdated and problematic program which has deviated from its original purpose. I encourage my colleagues to join me in voting in favor of this amendment.

Ms. HERSETH

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in support of H.R. 4473, the CFTC Reauthorization Act of 2005. As a resident of a farm State and a member of the Committee on Agriculture, I understand the critical role that futures exchanges play in the marketing of agricultural commodities. They are indispensable in providing price discovery and market transparency for producers and commodity users alike. That said, futures markets cannot perform these functions if they are being manipulated. Futures markets must be effectively regulated in order to ensure their integrity and protect the well-being of small investors. This bill strikes that balance. Five years ago, Congress undertook a major overhaul of the Commodity Exchange Act, which my colleagues who have already risen in support of took a lead. By most accounts, the reforms adopted at that time have worked well, but there have been some issues that have arisen since the bill passed. I believe today's legislation makes important improvements to the act while maintaining a good balance between the competing goals of promoting robust futures exchanges and protecting market participants. One provision of this bill that is particularly important is language on energy derivatives. This legislation would increase recordkeeping requirements on entities that hold large quantities of natural gas contracts, and give the CFTC access to these records so it can better investigate and prevent market manipulation. The bill also raises civil and criminal penalties for energy price manipulation. In light of today's high natural gas prices, this authority is needed. Because of the balance that it strikes and because of the provisions that it leaves alone, I strongly support this legislation and urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this important bill.

Ms. HERSETH

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Speaker, I am saddened to report the passing of SFC Richard Schild. He was killed while serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The lives of countless people were enormously enhanced by Richard's goodwill and service. He inspired all those who knew him. Our Nation is a far better place because of his life. All Americans owe Richard, and the other soldiers who have made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of freedom, a tremendous debt of gratitude for their service. Every Member of the House of Representatives has taken a solemn oath to defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. While we certainly understand the gravity of the issues facing this legislative body, Richard lived that commitment to our country. Today, we remember and honor his noble service to the United States and the ultimate sacrifice he has paid with his life to defend our freedoms and foster liberty for others. Mr. Speaker, I express my sympathies to the family and friends of SFC Richard Schild. I believe the best way to honor him is to emulate his commitment to our country. I know he will always be missed, but his service to our Nation will never be forgotten.

Ms. HERSETH

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Speaker, I am saddened to report the passing of SSG Daniel Cuka. He was killed while serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The lives of countless people were enormously enhanced by Daniel's goodwill and service. He inspired all those who knew him. Our Nation is a far better place because of his life. All Americans owe Daniel, and the other soldiers who have made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of freedom, a tremendous debt of gratitude for their service. Every Member of the House of Representatives has taken a solemn oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. While we certainly understand the gravity of the issues facing this legislative body, Daniel lived that commitment to our country. Today, we remember and honor his noble service to the United States and the ultimate sacrifice he has paid with his life to defend our freedoms and foster liberty for others. Mr. Speaker, I express my sympathies to the family and friends of SSG Daniel Cuka. I believe the best way to honor him is to emulate his commitment to our country. I know he will always be missed, but his service to our Nation will never be forgotten.

Ms. HERSETH

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Nevada for yielding. I rise today in support of S. 1234, the Veterans' Compensation Cost- of-Living Adjustment Act, which authorizes the annual cost-of-living adjustment for disabled veterans and their survivors. I, too, would like to commend Chairman Buyer and Ranking Member Evans, as well as their staff, for their hard work and support of this important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill which will improve the quality of life for our disabled veterans and their families. It is very important that we provide for the basic needs of our veterans, particularly our disabled veterans. Our Nation's disabled veterans rely on this annual cost-of-living increase and rightly expect us to provide it to them. I am proud to support this legislation, confident it will benefit the more than 3,000 veterans of my home State of South Dakota who received disability compensation last year, as well as disabled veterans throughout the country. As wounded young service men and women return home from the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is imperative that we work to provide this newest generation of veterans and their families with the financial support they have earned and deserve. Providing adequate disability benefits is an issue that will impact these brave men and women for the rest of their lives as they struggle to cope with the scars of their sacrifice and should be considered an ongoing cost of war. Again, I am proud to support the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of- Living Adjustment Act and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. HERSETH

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Arkansas for his kind words and for his extraordinary leadership on this important issue within the Blue Dog Coalition and within the Congress on highlighting the impact of budget decisions over the last 5 years that have created perils, dangerous situations for the country now and into the future. I would like to just share, if I might, and read from some quotes that have come out, quoting individuals recently within the last week or two, to highlight what Mr. Scott, Mr. Tanner, and Mr. Ross have already noted, that this is not a partisan issue. There are those on both sides of the aisle and those who do not have any affiliation with either political party that are expressing the concerns with the budget reconciliation package offered by the majority. Let me first quote Robert Bixby, the executive director of the Concord Coalition, from a statement he made just 2 days ago: ``This year's budget resolution calls for two reconciliation bills, a spending cut bill of $35 billion and a tax cut bill of $70 billion.'' He is referring here to Senate numbers. ``Simple arithmetic dispels the notion that this combination is aimed at deficit reduction. It is hard to rally support for a spending cut labeled the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 when it will be followed by a tax cut that, by the same logic, should be labeled the Deficit Increase Act of 2005.'' Or take a quote from our colleague on the other side of the Capitol, Senator George Voinovich, a Republican from Ohio, a statement made just last week: ``I do not know how anyone can say with a straight face that when we voted to cut spending last week to help achieve deficit reductions, we can now then turn around 2 weeks later to provide tax cuts that exceed the reduction in spending. That is beyond me, and I am sure the American people.'' Or let us take a statement from Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan from 2 weeks ago: ``We should not be cutting taxes by borrowing. We do not have the capability of having both productive tax cuts and large expenditure increases, and presume that the deficit doesn't matter.'' Or take a quote from the editorial boards across the country, including one from the Des Moines Register: ``As a deficit reduction strategy, the House GOP plan is ludicrous. After passing the budget cuts, next on Congress's agenda is passing further tax cuts for the wealthy at a cost to the Treasury of $70 billion over 5 years. Cutting spending by $55 billion while cutting taxes by $70 billion will make the deficits worse, not better.'' The New York Times editorial board stated: ``An additional $70 billion worth of upper bracket tax cuts heavily backed by the White House are waiting in the wings and will drive the deficit even deeper across generations of taxpayers. The administration and congressional leaders arranged to separate votes on the two halves of the budget to obscure the full picture.'' Finally, from the Atlanta Journal and Constitution from last week: ``This proposed belt-tightening by Congress is not being driven by national security, deficit reduction, or hurricane relief. Instead, it has been proposed as a way to finance a $70 billion tax holiday for the wealthiest Americans. Congress can't tell the public one week that a dooming deficit is forcing it to cut food stamps and Medicaid, then turn around the next week and award the wealthiest Americans a generous tax cut.'' Mr. Speaker, that is really the bottom line here tonight, is it not? And what we are trying to share with our colleagues and our constituents is that if you do that, say one thing one week and turn around the next week and do something that obliterates the savings that you claimed that you were trying to achieve, that damages your credibility, it damages the credibility of the work we do in this Congress. It damages the credibility of the budget process, which is why the Blue Dogs have offered the 12 points to reform the budget process. Mr. Speaker, I agree with many back home in South Dakota that budget cuts take courage. They do. They take a lot of political courage. Decisions to cut spending, especially from popular programs, certainly are not easy decisions. But I contend that it is cowardly not to be straightforward with the American people about the priorities reflected in the entirety of the reconciliation process. As my colleagues have noted here earlier this evening, we can question legitimately the priorities within the spending cut bill, the spending side of the ledger in this reconciliation process. Take higher education, over $14 billion worth of cuts out of the 50 to $55 billion overall on the spending cut side of the package. This is a double whammy on our younger generation, because not only do they have to pay thousands more to finance their higher education, but they also have to pay the interest tax on our national debt that increases. Mr. Speaker, our knowledge base has been this country's way of staying ahead of the rest of the world and maintaining our competitiveness in a fast-changing global economy. But yet they take student loan programs that represent 1 percent of the overall Federal budget and make it 30 percent, roughly 30 percent of the spending cuts that they targeted in the spending cut side of the reconciliation equation. Then take agriculture and rural development. We cut all of these programs out of agriculture and rural development that not only go back on the deal we cut with farmers and ranchers in the farm bill in 2002 which, by the way, has saved billions more than what was projected at the time it was passed; but then we leave rural America behind at a time of skyrocketing fuel costs, cutting value-added marketing programs, cutting programs intended to expand broadband technology in rural America. Then, take Medicaid. Medicaid, a program designed to help children, pregnant women, people with disabilities, and the elderly. Now claims that the growth of Medicaid spending is out of control cannot be supported when you compare the growth in spending in the private sector. It is about half in Medicaid as to what it is in premiums paid out and the growth of the spending in the private sector for health care insurance. So when you look at the number of people who are eligible for Medicaid, that really requires a different approach and different solution, like making it easier, not harder, to finance a higher education and making it easier to get a higher-paying job. These cuts also in Medicaid affect long-term care facilities, the residents, the staff, the communities; and it affects the workforce, health and productivity issues that we face in this country. I also think we can raise serious questions as well about the priorities within the preferential tax treatment portion of the reconciliation bill, which extends provisions that are now secure until 2008, rather than providing a fix for the alternative minimum tax, which is affecting more and more middle-income taxpayers. The final point here, we need to seriously question, as we have done tonight, with our colleagues in the next couple of days, with the American people, the overall result of this reconciliation package, which makes the deficit worse, as we have demonstrated, which increases the country's level of borrowing further, as Congressman Tanner pointed out with the statistics of the foreign ownership of our national debt, and the increasing percentages of that. The Treasury is set to borrow $151 billion in the first quarter of 2006 alone, not to mention that this is simply an interest tax on my generation, the generation following me, and future generations of Americans. Let me conclude by saying, let us stop the recklessness. I think the American public wants us to stop the recklessness, to reform the budget process as the Blue Dogs have proposed, restore the credibility in managing the Nation's finances by taking action that reduces the deficit and puts us back on track towards balanced budgets. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote no, oppose these reconciliation proposals for both sides of the Federal Government's ledger, for which the bottom line is even more red ink.

Ms. HERSETH

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Speaker, today, I am introducing the Blunt Reservoir and Pierre Canal Land Conveyance Act of 2005. The origins of the bill stretch back to The Flood Control Act of 1944 which authorized a 190,000 acre irrigation project surrounding the Oahe dam and reservoir. As part of this project, the Bureau of Reclamation acquired approximately 19,000 acres of land in two South Dakota counties before organized opposition halted the project in 1977. Since then, the Bureau of Reclamation has retained ownership of the land and, even today, the original landowners continue to lease the land from the department. Recognizing that the project will not be restarted, the State of South Dakota initiated talks to resolve the ownership situation. Working with the South Dakota Department of Game Fish and Parks, local stakeholders, the Bureau of Reclamation, and others, a general consensus emerged that the best way to deal with the associated economic, tax base, wildlife mitigation, and public access concerns would be to allow the original landowners to buy back the land. Years of negotiations and meetings led to the bill I am introducing today. Under this bill, former Blunt Reservoir and Pierre Canal landowners would be allowed to repurchase their former lands, on which they currently hold preferential leases, from the Bureau of Reclamation. The bill also will transfer non-preferentially-leased lands and unleased lands to the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and Parks, GFP, as part of its broader plan to restore wildlife habitat that was lost due to the construction of the Missouri River dams. The proposals in this legislation were included in an identical bill that passed the Senate by unanimous consent last year. This legislation is an important opportunity to resolve a land ownership issue left open for over 3 decades. I urge my colleagues in the House to give this bill their swift consideration.

Ms. HERSETH

Ms. HERSETH. Madam Speaker, I too stand united today with my fellow Blue Dog Democrats in opposition to the majority's budget reconciliation decisions. Blue Dogs have consistently stood for fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets, and an honest, open, and accountable budget process. So why would Blue Dogs support a proposal that is part of a budget reconciliation package that will increase the deficit, not lower it? Why would we be in support of a budget reconciliation package that is part of a broken budget process in need of serious reform? And why would we support a budget reconciliation process that is part of an overtly partisan failed strategy, a strategy that will fail the House majority leadership and would fail the American people if Blue Dogs did not stand firmly against it. I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand firmly against it as well and vote ``no'' on the budget reconciliation bill.

Ms. HERSETH

Ms. HERSETH. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3665, as amended, the Veterans Housing and Employment Improvement Act of 2005. This bill incorporates a number of important measures aimed at improving the quality of life of our servicemembers, veterans and military families. I would like to thank Chairman Buyer and Ranking Member Evans for their leadership on the full committee and for their assistance in moving this bill to the floor today. I also want to express my appreciation to the Chairman of the Economic Opportunity Subcommittee--Mr. Boozman, for all his hard work and bipartisan leadership on the subcommittee this legislative session. I look forward to continue working with my friend from Arkansas as we begin discussions with the Senate to ensure passage of a bipartisan, bicameral veterans' benefits package for this year. I know that the veterans of my home state of South Dakota and all veterans of this nation will appreciate the important benefits and program improvements we have included in this legislative measure. Madam Speaker, H.R. 3665, as amended, incorporates important provisions that would provide greater flexibility to the VA's adaptive housing grant program. It also includes important measures to extend the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program and improve the Department of Labor's Veterans Employment and Training Service. In addition, the bill also includes language from H.R. 1773, the Native American Veteran Home Loan Act--a measure I introduced along with a number of colleagues earlier this year. Section 102 of the bill would make permanent the Native American Housing Loan Program, currently a pilot program administered by VA since 1993. The Native American Housing Loan program has provided 443 direct loans nationwide since its inception--20 to veterans in South Dakota. By all accounts the pilot program has been a great success and in fact currently has a negative subsidy--that is, it actually pays for itself. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that enactment of the provision would generate savings of $1 million over five years. Section 103 of the bill would authorize non-native American veterans married to a Native American spouse and living on trust or tribal land to fully participate in this direct loan program. Because certain tribal sovereignty rules prohibit ownership interests by non-native persons they have been unable to qualify for this home loan program. The language in section 103 now makes it possible for a non-native military member or veteran to qualify for a VA loan if he or she shares a ``meaningful interest'' rather than ``ownership interest'' with their respective spouse in their home. I want to thank Mr. Faleomavaega the Delegate of American Samoa for bringing this issue to my attention, and I want to also thank the VA for its assistance in drafting this particular provision. Madam Speaker, the service members, veterans and military families of this nation have earned and deserve our best efforts here in Congress. Indeed, they deserve so much more. As we approach Veterans Day, I am very proud to support this legislation and confident it will benefit the veterans of my home state of South Dakota, as well as the other veterans around the country. I fully support H.R. 3665, as amended, and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Ms. HERSETH

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in strong support of the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005. I want to thank the Judiciary Chairman Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member Conyers, as well as Agriculture Committee Chairman Goodlatte and Ranking Member Peterson, for their hard work in moving this legislation to the floor today. I would also like to acknowledge and thank the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Henry Bonilla for his strong leadership on this very important issue as well as the work of Chairman Pombo and Congresswoman Waters who have been steadfast in their advocacy for private property rights in light of the threat posed by the Kelo decision. This legislation is a priority for farmers and ranchers and landowners across my home State of South Dakota. I am extremely pleased that the Agriculture Committee acted swiftly on the legislation originally introduced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Bonilla) and myself, the Strengthening the Ownership of Private Property, or STOPP Act, and that Chairman Goodlatte made reporting out the bill from the Agriculture Committee a priority. I am equally pleased by the determined, thoughtful attention demonstrated by the Judiciary Committee and the collaborative approach taken as we put together the Private Property Rights Protection Act. It is important, commonsense legislation that deserves our attention. As my colleagues know, the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London dealt a serious blow to the fundamental rights of property owners in the United States. The House overwhelmingly expressed its disapproval shortly after the decision by a vote of 365 to 33. This court ruling allows governments to take private property from one landowner and give it to another private individual so long as some economic development justification is given. In short, it means that governments can take your property and give it to someone else. I have been impressed by the widespread support for the proposition that this decision requires prompt congressional action. As I have said before, South Dakotans from all walks of life are outraged about the Supreme Court's Kelo decision. As I have repeatedly noted in previous discussions of the case and as noted by Chairman Sensenbrenner earlier today, even Justice John Paul Stevens, the author of the Kelo decision, has expressed the feeling that the use of eminent domain by the City of New London was unwise as a matter of policy. And I agree. I am pleased to have been part of the effort to craft a good bipartisan response that addresses these policy shortcomings by discouraging State and local governments from arbitrarily taking land from private landowners and giving that land to another private party. I felt compelled to take a lead in this process because of the people I represent and my roots on my family's farm in South Dakota. South Dakota is a rural State, and our population's livelihood is deeply tied to the land. This is true for virtually all of the State's citizens, whether they live in town or whether they live on the farm. Because of this, the belief in private property rights runs strong and deep, and everyone I have talked to back home on this matter has delivered the same message: Landowners should not be vulnerable to the whims of a government that decides to take their land and often their livelihood just to give it to someone else who the government decides would deliver more in tax revenues. I am pleased to say that many of my colleagues agree with this, which is why in the short term since its introduction, this act and other initiatives have garnered broad bipartisan support, because the legislation makes sense. As many of you know and as Chairman Goodlatte was discussing, Chairman Bonilla and I, along with Chairman Goodlatte, drafted H.R. 3405 to provide a strong response to the Kelo decision. At the time we introduced the STOPP Act, other legislation which took a similar approach by withholding some Federal funds when eminent domain is used to facilitate a private-to-private transfer of property for economic development purposes left open the possibility that a creative community or State could essentially shift funds within its budget to render the Federal response less effective. In the words of Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau, in his testimony before the Agriculture Committee: ``All of the Federal bills introduced thus far take this approach. The differences among them are the degree to which such funding is withheld. While we support all the approaches taken in these bills, H.R. 3405 seems to offer the most effective deterrent to abuses of eminent domain.'' The Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2005 incorporates the core components of the STOPP Act, namely, the withholding of all Federal economic development assistance for 2 years if communities choose to use eminent domain to take private property from one landowner and give it to another private individual for the purposes of economic development. I think this development is a testament to the hard work of individuals like Chairman Bonilla, Chairman Goodlatte, Congresswoman Waters, Chairman Pombo, and others to define, develop, refine, and promote a strong commonsense approach to the situation presented by the Kelo decision. As I have said, I am happy to have been a part of these important efforts, and I encourage my colleagues to join with me today in passing this important bill. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren). (Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar).

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Chairman, let me just conclude by commenting in my remaining time on some of the testimony that we heard in Chairman Pombo's Committee on Resources, on which I also sit, about the compelling testimony of individuals, business owners, who have been victims of abuses of eminent domain for the purpose of a private-to- private transfer. So not only have we heard these compelling stories from individuals, families who have been affected, both in cities and in the country, but we have also had good bipartisan work in drafting sessions, our legislative hearings, our markups, in the Agriculture Committee, in the Resources Committee, now the Judiciary Committee. The bill that is under consideration today, that has attempted to respond in the most effective way to a ruling, as I mentioned, that received strong disapproval from this body shortly after the Supreme Court's ruling and on which even the opinion's author and, as I understand, even another member of the court who recognized that this is something the legislatures should contend with. And that is precisely what we are doing today on the House floor. Congress needs to take action. We need to take it immediately. Our hope is certainly that we can make this bill law in short order, because, as some of the testimony before the Resources Committee last week also indicated, certain municipalities and other local units of government moved quickly after the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo to exercise their eminent domain powers for purposes of economic development for a public purpose, public benefit, beyond the plain language of the United States Constitution that limits the eminent domain power to public use. This has been a broad trend for a number of years, culminating in the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo, that requires the action of this body. I urge my colleagues to support final passage of this bill that is a well-crafted, careful, thoughtful attempt to address a serious problem for property owners across the country. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Ms. HERSETH

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of H.R. 4061, the Department of Veterans Affairs Information Technology Management Improvement Act. This bill helps the VA construct a balanced, responsive and accountable system to manage information technology at the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Department Chief Information Officer will be given the control and resources necessary to manage information technology department- wide. Measures of effectiveness across the administrations will be tracked and should demonstrate that VA has become a more effective organization. The CIO will have control of the budget, assets, personnel and systems necessary to achieve this success. Also under the bill, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes) noted, a Deputy CIO will be assigned to each of the three administrations. In this capacity, they are the principal advocates for the business and mission needs of their respective administrations at all levels of use, from senior managers to end-users throughout the field. The Deputy CIO will be responsible to the Department CIO for IT system alignment and related matters but will otherwise be in control of day-to-day IT operations in their respective administration. I, too, would like to congratulate Chairman Buyer, Ranking Member Evans, their staffs and all Members who worked hard on working out this improved IT management system for the VA. I am glad to be a cosponsor of this bill which will help our veterans.

Ms. HERSETH

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Speaker, I am saddened to report the passing of Specialist Daniel Bartels. He was killed, while serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom. The lives of countless people were enormously enhanced by Daniel's goodwill and service. He inspired all those who knew him. Our nation is a far better place because of his life. All Americans owe Daniel, and the other soldiers who have made the ultimate sacrifice in defense of freedom, a tremendous debt of gratitude for their service. Every member of the House of Representatives has taken a solemn oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. While we certainly understand the gravity of the issues facing this legislative body, Specialist Daniel Bartels lived that commitment to our country. Today, we remember and honor his noble service to the United States and the ultimate sacrifice he has paid with his life to defend our freedoms and foster liberty for others. Mr. Speaker, I express my sympathies to the family and friends of Specialist Daniel Bartels. I believe the best way to honor him is to emulate his commitment to our country. I know he will always be missed, but his service to our Nation will never be forgotten.

Ms. HERSETH

Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order.