Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 3161, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug

Administration, and Related Agencies program. I regretfully do so even though agriculture is second only to tourism in terms of revenue for my home state of Florida.

By passing this legislation in its current form, the House of Representatives is almost ensuring a veto from the White House. This bill would spend $91.5 billion including $18.8 in discretionary spending, and is $993 million over the President's budget request. I am concerned that if we send this bill to the President's desk with the current excessive spending, it will be vetoed along with many of the other fiscal year 2008 Appropriations bills. It is imperative that we write a bill with real reform and realistic spending levels. My constituents of the Fourth Congressional District of Florida, along with the rest of America deserve legislation that contains realistic funding levels to ensure the safety of their food, promote conservation, provide assistance to those in need and protect the health of plants and animals through research.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my displeasure with H.R. 3162--The Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act (CHAMP). The CHAMP Act would expand the existing State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) by giving nearly 5 million children who come from middle-income families access to free healthcare. This proposal pays for this expansion by cutting 3 million senior citizens' access to Medicare. This legislation would nearly double the 6.6 million children who are currently enrolled in the SCHIP program.

In my home state of Florida, the current SCHIP program level covers children in families who earn up to 200 percent above the poverty level, which amounts to a $41,200 annual income for a family of four. I support the SCHIP program in its current form. However, I cannot support an over-expansion of the program that uses hard-earned tax dollars to provide free healthcare to children and adults who come from middle-income families that make 300 to 400 percent of the federal poverty level.

The CHAMP Act is nothing more than a veiled effort to develop a single-payer healthcare system. In order to pay for this gross expansion of socialized medicine, this proposal would cut Medicare funds for 9,746 seniors who live in the Fourth Congressional District of Florida and are currently enrolled in the Medicare Advantage Program. I believe that my constituents would be unsupportive of any measure that compromises healthcare to the elderly in an attempt to give free healthcare to middle-class children and adults who were already covered by private health insurance plans. Finally, the funding mechanism for this expansion incorporates an increase in the federal cigarette tax from 39 cents to 84 cents per pack and increases taxes on many other forms of tobacco products.

In the Fourth Congressional District of Florida, 27,416 families, or 31 percent of all families with children under the age of 18, are already eligible for either Medicaid or SCHIP under current law. Despite this fact, the Medicare cuts to seniors are exacerbated by the fact that the CHAMP Act would cover individuals up to the age of 25. Once again, the very nature of the program, which is intended to provide medical care to children, is compromised by the expansion plan to cover young adults as well.

In addition to all the concerns I mentioned above, I was unable to support this legislation due to several additional concerns I had during the consideration of this legislation. First of all this bill was clouded in secrecy until hours

before the House of Representatives voted on the bill. Additionally, the proposal authorizes a one-month waiting period for a motorized scooter even if a doctor determined the scooter was medically necessary, and reduces the amount of time that the government would rent oxygen equipment to seniors from 36 months to only 13 months. Finally, the CHAMP Act, in its current form, provides free healthcare to illegal immigrants. This complete disregard for existing law will inevitably aggravate the existing illegal immigration problem.

This legislation was an erratic attempt to re-authorize the State Children's Health Insurance program while creating an open-ended entitlement program that moves us further away from providing benefits to those most in need.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report for H.R. 1495, the Water Resources Development Act. This important legislation provides overdue authorization for hundreds of critical water projects throughout the United States including several in my district, the Fourth Congressional District of Florida. The bill authorizes 900 flood-control, navigation and environmental projects managed by the Army Corps of Engineers and will authorize $21 billion dollars. Many of these projects are critical to the safety of our commercial and recreational ship traffic as they navigate inland waterways. I applaud the Chairman and Ranking Member of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee for completing this imperative legislation.

Madam Speaker, on August 3, 2007, I underwent surgery to relieve the condition of spinal stenosis before any permanent nerve damage occurred. Due to this surgery, I was absent from the House of Representatives from 7 p.m. Wednesday, August 1st until Sunday, August 5th.

Had I been present, I would have voted: ``aye'' on rollcall No. 786 on motion to recommit with instructions on H.R. 3162; ``no'' on rollcall No. 787 on passage of H.R. 3162; ``aye'' on rollcall No. 788 on motion to change the convening time; ``aye'' on rollcall No. 789 on motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 3248; ``aye'' on rollcall No. 790 on agreeing to the conference report on H.R. 1495; ``no'' on rollcall No. 791 on ordering the previous question on H. Res 602; ``no'' on rollcall No. 792 on agreeing to the resolution on H. Res. 602; ``no'' on rollcall No. 793 on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 601; ``no'' on rollcall No. 794 on agreeing to the resolution on H. Res. 601; ``aye'' on rollcall No. 795 on motion to recommit with instructions on H.R. 3159.

``No'' on rollcall No. 796 on passage of H.R. 3159; ``no'' on rollcall No. 797 on approving the journal; ``aye'' on rollcall No. 798 on motion to adjourn; ``no'' on rollcall No. 799 on ordering the previous question on H. Res. 599; ``no'' on rollcall No. 800 on agreeing to the resolution on H. Res. 599; ``aye'' on rollcall No. 801 on motion to recommit conference report with instructions on H.R. 2272; ``aye'' on rollcall No. 802 on agreeing to the conference report on H.R. 2272; ``aye'' on rollcall No. 803 on agreeing to the amendment on H.R. 3161; ``no'' on rollcall No. 804 on agreeing to the amendment on H.R. 3161; ``no'' on rollcall No. 805 on agreeing to the amendment on

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I want to rise very briefly in opposition. I share the same concern that we all share about these unexploded ordnance sites. The safety of our citizens is important, and I think our subcommittee has recognized that by stating very clearly in very strong language that the Department of Defense should make this a priority, that we should get rid of this unacceptable backlog.

But I don't think we can take money out of the 2005 round of BRAC to solve the problem. That would be like robbing Peter to pay Paul. The 2005 round of BRAC has been put together. There is already some concern that it may not be fully funded, so if we take one penny out of that pot of money and spend it somewhere else, we could upset a very delicate balance.

We have to remember we have made a commitment to our men and women in uniform. For instance, I know in my community, they are building a $129 million hangar to house all the P-3s that will come down from Maine. If there is not enough money to do that, what happens to those planes? They are stranded. What happens to the sailors that are coming? They are stranded.

So while I share everyone's concern in dealing with this backlog, I think it is inappropriate and I think it is wrong to take money which would upset that kind of balance. We have to remember not only do we care about our communities, but we care about our commitment to our men and women in uniform.

Therefore, I would rise in opposition and urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Madam Speaker, today, along with several of my colleagues, I introduced the Financial Security Accounts for Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2007. As we know, the federal government gives American families a helping hand in saving for the future. Accounts with special tax advantages help people save for college, retirement, and other life events. But people with disabilities don't always have the same expectations for the future.

Individuals with disabilities may have very different needs and concerns for their long-term care. However, no matter how different the needs or the financial demands that face a family, all parents have a common interest--to ensure the financial security of their children. Although several savings tools exist for all families, increased costs for care, long-term security, more flexibility, and the desire to foster greater independence for children with disabilities warrant the establishment of a new savings instrument.

Many of you know about typical tax-deferred savings plans--such as a ``529'' and college tuition plans. These savings tools, which are available to all Americans, can't help a family with a child who may not go to college. Yet, one could argue that the need for savings and planning for the future is even greater for a child with a disability because he or she will likely be less able to earn a self-supporting income. And may require continued expenditures on medical treatment or adaptive equipment.

Without a new savings tool, parents of children with disabilities must choose between turning down the advantages of savings plans available to others or risk a hefty penalty if their child cannot use the funds according to the account restrictions.

The Financial Security Accounts for Individuals with Disabilities (FSAID) Act of 2007 will provide families of people with physical, cognitive, or developmental disabilities access to the savings tools that everyone else enjoys. Individuals with disabilities, or their families, could create a Financial Security Account (FSA) that accrues tax-free interest during the life of the beneficiary. The FSA will help families of individuals with disabilities to pay for a variety of current and long-term essential expenses including medical care, community based support services, education, employment training and support, and assistive technology. As adults, beneficiaries can also use these accounts to pay for housing and transportation needs.

FSAs differ from existing savings tools by providing much needed flexibility for families and beneficiaries:

Accounts can be established as easily as a typical savings account, without overburdensome paperwork, administrative fees, or on-going legal fees;

Beneficiaries are allowed to control their own financial destinies; and if they are unable to serve in this capacity, parents, guardians or other designees can serve in this capacity;

Qualified expenses under the FSAID are purposefully broad to accommodate the greater needs of people with disabilities and the financial demands of their individual care plan;

Qualified expenses are not limited to adulthood or retirement age so resources can be used whenever they are needed;

The flexibility in expenses also allows families to save with confidence even though they cannot always predict how independent their children will become;

A family who saves money in a traditional account for a child who becomes disabled later in life can roll over the funds into an FSA without penalty; and

Unlike some savings instruments, FSA would be created and regulated on a federal level so any eligible individual in the United States would have access to this savings tool.

The Financial Security Accounts for Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2007 will give families of people with disabilities the ability to save for their children's futures just like other American families. Today, we are taking the first step toward that realization by giving all American families the tools they need to provide for their families--no matter what their specialized needs might be.

A new approach to savings for these families--one that fosters ownership, self-control and flexibility--is needed today. I urge my colleagues to support this innovative approach to saving for the long- term, specialized needs of children with disabilities.

FSAs will bring families the much needed peace of mind by giving them the tools to provide for their children and helping ensure that children with disabilities are able to live life to the fullest and be as productive as possible.

Our legislation offers hope to families to provide resources that are life-enhancing and meaningful and the control necessary to ensure that their loved ones obtain essential services. I urge my colleagues to support the Financial Security Accounts for Individuals with Disabilities Act of 2007.

Madam Speaker, on Monday, May 14, 2007, I was unable to cast several votes because I was meeting with Forest Service and fire fighting personnel to assess the hazardous situation and current evacuation of several areas in the Fourth Congressional District threatened by wildfires.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall 342, the D.C. Tuition Assistance Grant Program Reauthorization; ``yea'' on rollcall 343, Supporting National Day of Remembrance for Murder Victims; and ``yea'' on rollcall 344, Recognizing National AmeriCorps Week.

Madam Speaker, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge the outstanding leadership Captain Zecchin and the past commanding officers of the USS Kennedy, including Captain Dennis Fitzpatrick and Captain Harv Henderson, have provided to the sailors and this great Nation.

Naval leadership depends on two core military values--cohesiveness and mission. Orchestrating 3,500 sailors to pull together to accomplish a mission, whether that mission is war, training, repair or preparing to decommissioning, is a monumental task. The Kennedy's 39 years of outstanding service is due to the series of leaders who stood at her helm and kept her ready at a moment's notice. I wish Captain Zecchin well on his next tour as the Commanding Officer of the USS Kitty Hawk; we will miss him here in Mayport.

The Kennedy has seen many farewells--from the spouses and family of its crew and from Navy servicemen seeing her off on various deployments. Just think, how many loved ones have proudly watched their son or daughter sail off to gloriously defend our freedom and preserve our way of life. But at the end of each deployment there has always been a welcome home. Today, we say goodbye for the last time.

We are here today to say farewell to a ship that has symbolized so much to so many.

To the sailor, the Kennedy has been a home away from home on many deployments. She represents small town America, where many of her sailors are from. Her population is a little over 5,000 and she boasts a post office, doctors' offices, a place of worship, restaurants that serve over 15,000 meals a day and employment opportunities for all. She has elevators, runways, and a busy airport.

This ``carrier'' town represents the best of America. All the sailors work together toward a common goal, never separated by race or class or gender. Ships are steel, they are not alive. It is the crew who bring a ship to life. The stories that emerge from her sailors will keep her spirit alive. The Kennedy will continue to live in the lives of the thousands of sailors who manned her rail, flight crews who donned a rainbow of colored shirts and made her flight deck roar to life, and aviators who were catapulted into the sky and prayed to catch her hook on their return.

To the Jacksonville community, the Kennedy will always be a symbol of our great city. She has meant so much to this community and this community has meant so much to her. Here on this pier where you sit today, the sailors of the Kennedy and the men and women of our local ship-repair companies worked long hours on grueling jobs to complete the largest pier-side availability ever accomplished in the Navy. The skills of the artisans from these Jacksonville companies have kept the boilers and propulsion plant working during the Kennedy's time in Mayport.

Big John's connection to our community is more than just the economic base she provides. We will miss her sailors and their wives and husbands. We will miss the children in our local schools and athletic clubs. We will miss their involvement in the Mayport community.

To our country, the Kennedy has been part of our history for 39 years. She is one of the finest ships in the world's finest Navy. As our country continues to fight the war on terror, we must remember the role the Kennedy played in the earliest counter-terrorist actions.

Even though she entered active duty during the height of the Vietnam War, she soon found herself in a role more familiar to today--spending the first of several deployments in the Mediterranean to help deal with a deteriorating situation in the Middle East. In the 1980's, she responded to the growing crisis in Lebanon, and in 1988 F-14 Tomcats launched from the Kennedy intercepted and downed two hostile Libyan MiGs in response to Libya's terrorist activities. On the Kennedy's most recent deployment, the air wing dropped more than 64,000 pounds of ordnance on Taliban and al Qaeda targets.

To me personally, I share many of the same memories as the Jacksonville community, but the Kennedy also provided me with the great honor of joining the national debate on how the Navy is going to meet the threats of tomorrow while fighting the budget pressures of today. The discussion that followed the announcement that the Kennedy would be decommissioned was good for our Navy, good for our Congress and good for our Nation.

We must be keenly aware of how important our aircraft carrier fleet is to this Nation's ability to counter current threats and deter future aggression. Carriers are mammoth cities, and are not constructed in a single day. We cannot take lightly the decision to take an aircraft carrier out of service; that decision cannot be reversed. The discussion will continue well past the final days of the John F. Kennedy, and I will remain an active member of any debate on the size and shape of our Navy fleet, and for this I thank the John F. Kennedy.

To Mayport, the Kennedy has been the symbol of this national treasure. This Naval Station is defined not only by the ships that are home ported here, but also by its strategic location to counter the ever growing threats in South America and the Caribbean. If we do not deter the aggression and narco-terrorist threats today, South America could very well become the next Afghanistan. Terrorist training camps would be dangerously close to our own shores.

I will continue to work with our Navy leadership to make sure that we have the right ships in the right places for the right missions. The Navy needs Mayport even more now than it did when the Kennedy battle group called her home.

The Kennedy is a great and noble ship and when this day is done, she will cease to be four and a half acres of sovereign U.S. territory that can launch an array of fighter aircraft and precision weapons which strike terror in the hearts of America's enemies. She will be stripped, docked and viewed by most as just a great mass of steel. Her dedicated crew will be dispersed to other carriers and they will continue to perform their duties. And as those who served aboard her and as those in our community who loved her, remember the glory of the USS John F. Kennedy--then our ship, the sacrifices of her crew and the freedom she fought to defend will continue to live on and on.

I thank the gentleman for the time, and I rise today in strong opposition to this resolution which says Congress disapproves of a war plan.

There are a lot of reasons to disapprove of this resolution, one of which is I believe that war should not be waged from the floor of this House. That is why we have one Commander

in Chief, that is why we have military leaders on the ground. They are in charge of conducting the war. And they have said we have made a mistake and we need a new direction, we need a new plan. And they have proposed that plan, and it is broad and it is comprehensive. It involves political considerations, it involves economic situations, diplomatic considerations, and, yes, it entails additional troops to go to Iraq. Yes, additional troops.

But it is a plan. And you can be skeptical and you can say it may be too little, it may be too late. Maybe it is a good plan but it won't be executed properly. But it is going to give us hope and it is going to give the Iraqi people hope. And, if anything, we ought to be here today trying to make that plan better, not debating a resolution that is nonbinding, that is symbolic, that means nothing, that says nothing, that does nothing. In fact, it has no useful purpose whatsoever, unless maybe it is to undermine the President or perhaps to demoralize our troops by saying to them, ``We have a new mission for you to undertake. Go to Iraq and try to execute this mission. But, by the way, the United States Congress doesn't believe in the mission, and we think it is doomed to failure.'' You tell me that that is not going to have a negative impact on our American soldiers.

Now, I know there are people in this Chamber that think the plan is doomed from the very beginning. You don't think it will work. And if that is your belief, you ought to do more than introduce a symbolic resolution and then stand here and pound the podium and hem and haw and make speeches and leap in front of the television cameras. You ought to do something that really means something. You ought to propose a resolution that says we believe it was doomed from the very beginning and we are going to do everything we possibly can to stop this plan. That is what you should do.

And if you don't think the plan is going to work, if you think it is doomed to failure, and you don't have a viable alternative strategy and you don't want to find a viable alternative strategy for winning, then you ought to go even further and you ought to stand up and say, ``We admit defeat. It didn't work. We are not going to fund the war altogether anymore. We are going to withdraw.''

I will tell you one thing, the plan is there. It may not be perfect and, quite frankly, it may not work. I have got reservations myself. But it is there, and every American, Democrats and Republicans alike, ought to hope that this plan succeeds because it may very well be our last best chance to prevent a catastrophic failure in Iraq. And if that happens, the disastrous effect won't just be felt in Iraq, won't just be felt by the people of the Middle East, but quite possibly will be felt by all Americans alike.

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Joint Interagency Task Force, the Navy and the Coast Guard drug interdiction forces for their role in seizing more than 43,420 pounds of cocaine during operations over the last several months in the Pacific. In particular, I would like to commend the Jacksonville based Coast Guard Helicopter Tactical Interdiction Squadron, HITRON, for their critical role in missions which intercepted 8,850 pounds of cocaine that was headed for our Nation's shores. These actions represent a crucial victory in keeping drugs off our streets, out of our schools, and away from our children.

HITRON is the Coast Guard's premier airborne law enforcement unit trained and authorized to employ Airborne Use of Force. With an historic record of success, HITRON consists of eight leased AgustaWestland MH-68A StingRay helicopters. These helicopters are extremely fast and maneuverable, and they are armed and cutter- deployable. They have proven very effective at intercepting the go-fast boats favored by drug runners on both coasts.

Prior to HITRON, drug runners would simply ignore our orders to cease and desist.

HITRON now has the ability to shoot out the engines of these drug boats, preventing them from reaching our shores. During a House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security hearing the Commandant of the Coast Guard told me that HITRON is batting a thousand--every time the HITRON aircraft went after a go-fast drug boat it had stopped the drug runners cold.

America is continuing to fight the war on drugs, and these are the kinds of successes we need to win. For their contributions the HITRON unit has a lot to be proud of, and our Nation owes them a great debt of gratitude.

Mr. Speaker, in 1967 the Federal Government spent just over $157 billion and operated with a deficit that was under $9 billion. Today, almost 40 years later, the Federal Government spends approximately $2.7 trillion and has a $260 billion deficit.

The Federal Government's total spending and oversight has vastly changed from the 1960s, yet it still operates under the basic accounting rules established 40 years ago by President Lyndon Johnson's Commission on Budget Concepts.

Just as an engine of a 1967 Cheverolet Impala would be an automotive disaster in a 2006 Toyota Prius, our economic policies suffer today because we are using outdated concepts and antiquated accounting practices.

Today, I am introducing the Accountable Budgeting Commission. This needed legislation will provide the long overdue review of the underlying concepts that are impairing our ability to properly and effectively analyze and understand the issues we face in the 21st century.

This Commission will provide the necessary oversight and make recommendations on ways to modernize our basic budgetary principles as Congress brings more accountability and transparency to the budget process.

I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important and long overdue legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule and the underlying bill. For me, the question of drilling off our coastal waters is a difficult one, and it is made even more difficult by the fact that I represent the State of Florida, where we have 1,300 miles of shoreline, and we have a tourism industry that adds up to about $60 billion, and a lot of that is due to our magnificent beaches.

But I am faced with a question today, whether I vote in favor of letting the people of Florida control their own destiny as it relates to offshore drilling within 100 miles of the shore. I can do that, or I can just vote ``no'' and do nothing.

It seems to me, as I look at this bill, I would urge my colleagues to support it because it gives to our precious beaches in Florida unprecedented permanent protection, something we have never had before, something we may never have again within that first 100 miles.

Would I like to see more protection? Sure I would. Most people in Florida would. But wishing it so is not going to make it so. And I am going to support this bill.

Other people will say no, I will just vote ``no.'' And people that do that, I think, are going to find themselves hoping against hope, rolling the dice that somehow, some way drilling won't occur off the coast of Florida or any other coastal waters in America. And I think that is pretty shortsighted.

I don't want to sit back and wait, sit back and watch. I don't want to find myself watching the sun rise and the sun set through the silhouette of an oil rig. That is too big a chance to take.

So I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule, in favor of the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I rise in strong support of this rule so that we can get on with the underlying bill to grant the President line item veto to just be another tool in trying to get a handle on the way we spend money here in Washington. Everybody knows that we are trying to do a better job of controlling spending, and the line item veto would just be another piece of the puzzle, another reform that we ought to put in place to help us toward that goal.

Now, first and foremost, we have got to exercise discipline ourselves here in this House. And a lot of people do not realize it, but we have actually done that. The last couple of years we have written a budget in this House where, for instance, last year in the budget, when you take out defense and homeland security, the nonsecurity spending of the United States Government actually went down for the first time in 20 years since Ronald Reagan was President. This year we wrote a budget that freezes nonsecurity spending. And that is a huge step in the right direction.

We have also put a rainy day fund in our budget this year to kind of be like most American families, to say if there is an unexpected problem, we will have some money set aside. We are already talking about earmark reform. That is part of some legislation.

So now we have got the line item veto. That will give the President the right to say, ``I see something in the spending bill that looks a little bit out of line, and I want to bring it up.'' Now, all that does is add a little bit more oversight, a little bit more accountability, a little bit more transparency into this overall budget process. What is wrong with that? If you really want to get a handle on how we spend money, what is wrong with an additional review? It might even make us here think more thoughtfully about the things that we do and the money that we are spending it on.

So I just think that this is part of the puzzle. It is one tool. It is not going to solve the spending problem once and for all, but it certainly is a valuable tool. We all know that government needs money to provide services, but it seems to me right now government needs something more. It needs discipline, and we are providing that, and the line item veto will help with that. The government needs the commitment to make sure that every task of government is completed more efficiently and more effectively than it ever has been before, and the line item veto will help in that regard.

We can do more with less around here, and if we pass this line item veto, that will just be another part of the puzzle, another tool in our equipment to get a handle on the way we spend money. The American people deserve no less.

So I urge adoption of this rule and adoption of the underlying bill.

Yes, sir.

I know this year there will be a deficit in terms of our overall budget and spending this year.

I think it is going down, and that is the good news, because the economy is growing.

We raised the debt ceiling twice. And the economy is roaring, and we lowered taxes, and people are back at work, and the deficit is going down, down, down. And that is good news.

For instance, I would say this: We had a transportation bill last time.

And you have heard of the ``bridge to nowhere''? That was about $300 million, and that kind of made its way through the process on to the President's desk. And I think if the President had had a line item veto, he might have said, You know what? I think you ought to take another look at that ``bridge to nowhere.'' And he could have exercised that line item veto. And maybe if that had gone away, then, yes, we would have spent less money, and the deficit would not be as large as it is today, and that is good.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his hard work, working on this legislation.

I am proud to be a cosponsor of this and rise to ask my colleagues to vote in favor of this.

I cannot help but be a little bit amused when I hear some of the opponents stand up and say that they kind of think this gives too much power to the President. It is like some brand new secret idea that the Republicans dreamed up to give a Republican President more power than he ought to have.

I just want to remind everyone this is not a brand new idea. It has been around a good while. People have pointed out that 43 governors in the States around the country have the same or similar kind of power, that we passed legislation like this through the Congress before. In fact, people have said they like it, both Democrats and Republicans.

Let me read you what one of the strongest supporters of this legislation, this line item veto, said. He said: ``The fresh air of public accountability will glow through the Federal budget. This law gives the President tools to cut wasteful spending, and even more important, it empowers our citizens, for the exercise of this veto or even the possibility of its exercise will throw a spotlight of public scrutiny onto the darkest corners of the Federal budget.''

Do you know who said that? President Clinton said that when he signed similar legislation in 1996.

I could not say it any better. I just urge my colleagues to add this tool to our arsenal. If you are serious about getting a handle on controlling spending, you will vote in favor of this.

Mr. Speaker, in the days after 9/11, the United States took the last action our enemies thought we would take--we took the fight to them. They believed that our partisan bickering would provide them with the protection they needed to continue to operate. They were wrong. Our armed forces struck hard at the very heart of their operation--disrupting their terrorist network and bringing down their leaders.

They are an enemy without borders, and believed they could find sanctuary in any number of countries that would provide safe haven. They operated camps and training grounds half way around the world, far away from any U.S. military presence. Today, we have them on the run. Saddam Hussein has been captured and Zarqawi is dead. In their place stands the very thing our enemies fear the most--democracy. Instead of a fascist dictator is a newly elected Prime Minister, and fear and oppression has been replaced with an emerging economy.

However, our enemies continue to fight . . . but why? Does their resolve stem from some military, political or strategic error on our part? To the contrary, it's our doubt that gives them strength.

Al Qaeda has declared Iraq as the battleground between democracy and their hatred of our way of life . . . but they know that their war cannot be won on the battlefield. Instead, their war is waged in the minds of every American. By definition terrorism is the spreading fear and doubt through violence . . . and that's what they are trying to do.

Since the days immediately following 9/11, solidarity has once again given way to partisanship. Despite our successes, this has given the terrorists the foothold they need. Unlike before 9/11, our forces are at their front door, poised to strike before they can do any more harm. But the terrorists believe the day is well within their grasp where they can resume operations without fear of intervention by the U.S. and our allies. A day when they can tumble a newborn democracy and another one more than 200 years old. If we let this day come and allow the fight to return to our shores, we have not only failed those who lost their lives on 9/11 and the those who died fighting for our freedom, but our families, friends and everything we hold dear. I look forward to the day when our friends in the Middle East can stand on their own. They have already proven to be dedicated allies, but their future and the future of our friendship still hangs in the balance.

Some would rather abandon our friends and everything we have accomplished, hoping that this act of good faith will somehow appease a foe proven to be without mercy. But I know our borders and our communities should not be our front lines . . . and in our retreat, this would be the next battleground. It's happened before, and it would happen again.

We didn't choose this fight, but we are in it. It is a war of freedom against tyranny. We have to stand together and prove to these killers they can't win. It's our job to keep our nation safe, and we will.