Marilyn Musgrave

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, as we are debating this, I think that one thing we have to be mindful of is every Member of Congress knows what an in-kind contribution is. And I would just like to say that we know that we have to account for in-kind contributions and we have to consider this in the Lowey amendment. I oppose this because I really feel that we need to protect the international family planning integrity. We know what the Mexico City policy was put in effect to do. We know that people in this country do not want their taxpayer dollars used to provide for abortion as a means of family planning. Another thing that has not been brought into this debate is this amendment really is a poison pill. I think that it undermines the Mexico City policy, and I think that it could possibly subject this bill to a veto. And I think we need to be very mindful of that as we engage in this debate. And we need to be mindful that this amendment doesn't increase USAID funding for contraceptives. It simply diverts contraceptive commodities from organizations that do not promote or provide abortions as a method of family planning. So I rise in opposition to the Lowey amendment. I understand the intention. But, again, we all know what an in-kind contribution does, and we know what it does to the budgets of those organizations that promote abortion as a method of family planning. The Smith-Stupak amendment is the only amendment that removes the poison pill, restores the Mexico City policy, and allows the USAID to continue to direct the U.S. family-planning resources to organizations that are not engaged in pro-abortion activities.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Smith-Stupak amendment. I believe women in developing nations, these poor women are not asking help to abort their children. They are asking for help with food, housing and medical care for them and their families. It costs roughly $5 to spray a house with the cheapest insecticide to protect entire families from being infected with malaria. The drug Nevirapine reduces the risk of prenatal HIV infection by 50 percent. One dose is given to the mother and one to the baby, and these two doses only cost $5. Mr. Chairman, I believe this is how our foreign aid dollars should be spent, saving lives, not destroying them. Most preventable child deaths are from malnutrition, diarrhea, pneumonia, infections of newborns and malaria. The United States has contributed more than $1.5 billion in the last 5 years to treat almost 5 billion episodes of child diarrhea with lifesaving oral rehydration therapy, and we have reduced deaths from diarrheal disease by more than half since 1990. These are the success stories of how U.S. tax dollars are saving lives, and we need to continue to preserve lives. The money in this bill should be spent on newborn care programs and not on destructive abortion procedures destroying the life of the child and harming women. I believe we need to export lifesaving policy that provides poor women with the food, with the housing and the medicine that they need so desperately.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, this debate has gotten very interesting. There are some of us in the Chamber, Mr. Chairman, that have been concerned about fiscal discipline for a long time. We have been called things like budget hawks. Mr. Chairman, we were willing to take on our own party on that issue and we were also willing to take on our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, because, Mr. Chairman, when I think about this debate tonight and I think about the national debt being over $8.8 trillion, you know, I would have to think that there are people around this Nation tonight watching this debate and wondering why in the world Congress, and there have been many mistakes in the past, why Congress can't get serious about the way we spend taxpayers' dollars. My amendment would offer an across-the-board cut. And I know that has been criticized by my friends on the other side of the aisle, but, you know, sometimes an across-the-board cut makes a lot of sense. And I am interested to think about spending levels where we cannot cut 50 cents out of each $100 that we spend. I offered an amendment that was not accepted in the unanimous consent agreement that would have highlighted one of the more egregious forms of waste and abuse of the funding in this bill, and this was an article in the Boston Globe that I read, and they broke a story last February about the former executive director of the Global Fund and how he used Global Fund dollars. I want to tell you what the Global Fund is supposed to do. It's an organization that is supposed to combat global diseases like AIDS and malaria and tuberculosis. Let me tell you how he spent our American tax dollars. He spent between $91 and $930 a day for limousines in London and Paris and Washington and San Francisco, averaging almost $400 a day for limousines. He spent $1,695 for a dinner for 12 at the United States Senate Dining Room here at the Capitol. Then he spent $8,780 for a boat cruise on Lake Geneva in Switzerland; $8,436 for a dinner in Davos, Switzerland; and then they had champagne and expensive meals. I wonder if the American taxpayer thinks that this is frivolous nonsense. You know they do. They would be outraged to think that they get up, go to work every day, work for their children, work to pay for their home, work to buy the college education for those kids that they dream of, and people are spending their tax dollars like this. You know, I think an across-the-board cut sounds great. I would like a larger one, but I'm asking for a modest half of 1 percent, 50 cents out of $100. You know, when you look at your children and you look at your grandchildren, Mr. Chairman, and you think about that debt, and I don't care who you want to blame it on, Republicans, Democrats, Republican Presidents, Democrat President, we at this time in history have an opportunity to be responsible with the American taxpayers' dollars and cut this increase in this budget from 9.5 percent to 9. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to correct a statement I made. I referred to a cut. My amendment would take a 9.5 percent increase in funding in this bill over the last one to a 9 percent increase. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana. (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make it perfectly clear that if you had read the amendment you would see that no assistance to Israel is cut. We have common enemies, we have common values, and I am a strong supporter of Israel. If the gentleman who just made the remarks would look at the amendment, he would see there are no cuts to Israel. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Culberson).

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining?

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend from Texas (Mr. Conaway).

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, some people would not call it a hoax if we save 50 cents on every $100 dollars that we spend, that the hardworking taxpayers of this country have provided for us. I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my friend from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. I would like to recognize the ranking member.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, tonight I again am amazed that our President's numbers have been so highly esteemed by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. And I don't believe I've ever heard a debate where so much Scripture was quoted by the folks that constantly talk about the separation of church and state. So it's been quite an amazing evening here. When the American people see all this, perhaps their heads spin as we talk about all these things, and maybe they don't understand everything we say because we're in this political arena. We're serving in Congress. And they're working hard every day trying to provide for their families. But I think what the American people would understand, Mr. Chairman, I have 2 quarters in this hand. This is 50 cents. In this other hand I have a dollar bill, a $100 bill. The American people know that government spends too much money. All I'm asking for in this amendment is for us not to spend this 50 cents. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, my amendment would eliminate funding for the Denali Commission. This amendment would save taxpayers $1.8 million. In fiscal year 2007, the Denali Commission received $49.5 million. The President's request in this fiscal year for 2008 is $1.8 million and the bill provides that entire amount. When we look at the State of Alaska, it has a very low tax burden. Alaska has no State income tax. It has the lowest taxes as a percentage of per capita income of any State in the country. Also, Alaska is actually a relatively wealthy State in terms of per capita income.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Reclaiming my time, I thank both the gentlemen and look forward to our efforts to save the American taxpayers $1.8 million. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My amendment would cut one-half of 1 percent spending from the Energy and Water appropriations bill. I am offering this amendment to this bill to make a cut of just one-half percent of the overall funding of the bill. With the national debt at an all-time high, Mr. Chairman, of $8.8 trillion, Congress is leaving a very sad legacy for the next generation. I believe that we in Congress must take responsibility for this burden by establishing Federal spending priorities and setting spending caps for some programs and eliminating unnecessary spending for others. When you look at this amount of money, when you look at this huge amount that we are spending, I believe that it is very reasonable to ask for this modest cut. We owe it to the taxpayers whose money we are spending to make a serious commitment to fiscal responsibility and we need to exercise fiscal restraint. The simple truth is that the money we stand here today to spend is not our own. The funds that we are appropriating come from the hard- earned incomes of families across this country. The families in my district in eastern Colorado need money for groceries, to buy gas for their cars, to educate their children, and I think that when we are here on this floor talking about this issue, we ought to think about the families in Colorado and around the Nation that work very hard to make ends meet. I know that there are worthy programs in this bill and I commend the work of the chairman and the ranking member, but I think we need to realize that this fiscal responsibility is what we should be exercising right now. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and really to demonstrate to the American public that we remember where this money comes from as we spend it and make our decisions here in this Chamber. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend the chairman for his work on this bill, and I would like to commend the ranking member for the yeoman's job that you have done, for the work you have had before you. I very much appreciate it. In Colorado, we have a very unique situation. We have a maneuver site that the United States Army uses, and it is 236,000 acres presently. The Army is wanting to expand this by 418,000 additional acres. If you drive in that area of our State, you will see this sign. This was created by a high school teacher from La Junta: ``Our land is our life. It is not for sale.'' As a very strong supporter of the United States military, but also a very strong supporter of our private property rights, I am opposed to this expansion, and my amendment would say that no funds in this bill would be used for the expansion. A month ago in Colorado, our Democratic Governor, Bill Ritter, signed into law a bill to withdraw the State's consent to give up any land that the United States Army might acquire through condemnation. So there is a very strong message that comes from our State legislature, from our house and senate and from our Governor. But the most poignant opposition that I hear about is from the farmers and ranchers, many of them who have been there for five generations who will lose their land, who will lose their way of life. When you look at the opposition to the Pinon Canyon expansion, it goes on and on. But, interestingly enough, it is very diverse. The opposition comes from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association. It comes from property rights groups. But it also comes from groups such as the Sierra Club, Colorado Springs Chapter. This is all over the political spectrum that this expansion is opposed. As we think about what could happen in that area, it is interesting to look at the National Trust for Historic Preservation issues and their 2000 list of America's most endangered places: ``Pinon Canyon, Colorado. In Southeastern Colorado, under uninterrupted blue skies, Pinon Canyon is an area of scenic buttes, river valleys, family ranches and historic and archeological sites that span 11,500 years. The area is threatened by the United States Army's plan to expand its maneuver training ground by as much as 418,000 acres, a move that could lead to forced condemnation of private lands and damage or destroy historic Santa Fe Trail monuments, ranches and historic and prehistoric archeological sites.'' That is what is at stake in southeastern Colorado. As we look at how much land the government already owns, in the red area you can see how much of our State is already government land in Colorado. The expansion of the Pinon Canyon maneuver site would be as large as the State of Rhode Island. It is striking. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar).

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Would the gentleman yield?

Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out that my son-in-law served in Afghanistan, and I would like to commend Mr. Salazar, his father and his son for their service to this great Nation and point out that in the 1970s the land was thought about in the Colorado Springs area in El Paso County, and the landowners there fought it. And so when anyone would imply that Mr. Salazar and I, Mr. Chairman, are responding to political pressure, what we are doing is standing up for private property rights and balancing that with our concern that our soldiers have the proper training. It is like Mr. Salazar said, you oppose it in your own yard, but it is okay for someone else. I am standing up for those ranchers. You might as well cross southeastern Colorado off the map if this expansion goes forward. So I respectfully look at the opinion of my friend from Colorado and I do say, though, that in this country the government owns enough land. There are alternatives to this that would be satisfactory in balancing our support for private property rights and our support for our troops.