Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I want to follow up on comments recently advanced by my colleague from Hawaii, someone who has so quickly thrown himself, tried to make some sense of them, and I appreciate very much the gentleman's conclusions.

We have got a runaway debt. We have got a very serious financial situation facing this country.

We are all familiar with the concept of credit card limits. Maybe we get pretty little limits. Maybe we get even generous limits. But somewhere there is a limit on how much money we can run up on our credit card.

The Nation, similarly, Congress establishes the limit, the credit card limit, for the Federal Government. We do that by a vote of Congress, how much money we are allowed to borrow as a country. And we have got a limit of $7.384 trillion, $7.384 trillion. We are allowed to borrow that much as a Nation.

That might give one pause. One might wonder how in the world are we going to get that debt paid off before we all leave the workforce, retire, and turn the country over to our children. Surely it would not be fair to leave our children with this debt.

As bad as this credit card limit is, as troubling as it ought to be to all of us, $7.384 trillion, I have got very bad news for the Members. In the budget conference presently underway in the bowels of the Capitol, there will be an additional borrowing authority added to this country. The bill, the budget bill, to come out of conference to be voted on by the House of Representatives, will raise the credit card limit for our Nation. We do not know how much because no one is talking about this in public. No one wants the American people to realize that $7.384 trillion is not enough, that we are going to raise it even more by $1 trillion, more by $2 trillion. One projection that we have seen from the majority would take the credit card limit of this Nation over $10 trillion.

One of the things I think that is lost in financial debates is these numbers get too big and one really does not know what they mean. They are just enormous. I went recently to an instruction course on how to teach mathematics. And the presenter said 1 trillion, do we know how many seconds are in 1 trillion? If we took 1 trillion seconds, we would go back in time 16,000 years. So obviously 1 trillion is a staggering number, and we are now finding that, under the budget plans of the majority party and the administration that drive this national debt ever higher, $7.384 trillion is not enough. I think the American people had better say it is enough.

We do not as families, we do not as families plan our financial affairs where mom and dad run up the credit cards, happily thinking the kids will pay them off. I know of families that I represent much like the family that raised me, just an awful lot of sacrifice in the mom and dad to leave things better for the kids, not tipping it on its head where we really do not care what happens afterwards, after we are gone.

If that is how we operate as families, as moms and dads worrying about making things better for our children, why should this Nation representing all the moms and dads in this country be running it a way so significantly different? Why should this Nation run up a debt like there is no tomorrow? Because there is a tomorrow, and it will be our children's tomorrow, and our children's tomorrow will be diminished by the fact that this generation is refusing to pay its way.

I am going to vote against the budget that comes out of conference because I believe it is wrong, absolutely wrong, to raise the borrowing limit for this country, leaving more debt for our children, when there is no plan anywhere in terms of how we ever get out of this mess.

The minority advanced a plan that brought us to a balanced budget in about 8 years. Some might think that is just not fast enough. That was a very difficult task. That is how far in the hole we now are. But the majority budget does not have any plan at all. And that is why they want to raise the debt, and that is why their budget should be rejected. We owe it to our children to get our Nation's finances back on track.

Mr. Speaker, at an event last year commemorating North Dakota's Prisoner of War and Missing in Action soldiers, I had the privilege of listening to Joanna Sherman read from her essay, ``Freedom's Obligation.'' Joanna's work was chosen as the North Dakota State winner in the Veterans of Foreign Wars Voice of Democracy Scholarship Contest. This essay is a testament to the great value of instilling patriotism and the appreciation of our Nation's freedom into our Nation's youth.

I would like to include in the Record her essay, which eloquently describes the meaning of freedom and the cost of preserving it. I commend Joanna for her achievement.

Freedom's Obligation

(By Joanna Sherman)

The ancient Athenian leader Pericles, a proponent of

democracy, once said, ``Freedom is the sure possession of

those alone who have the courage to defend it.'' Freedom is

America's greatest gift, and it is the duty of the American

people to honor and cherish it. Our great gift of freedom

relies heavily on three obligations: remembering the past,

understanding the present, and committing to the future.

How can we ensure tomorrow's freedom? We must remember that

today's freedom was paid for by the sacrifices of yesterday.

From the past, there are countless personal stories that

remember freedom's fight. My grandparents' story is only one

of them. They were married July 2, 1942. One week later my

grandfather was inducted into the army at Fort Snelling.

During World War II, he served in Patton's Third Army in the

European Theatre and fought in ``The Battle of the Bulge.''

My grandmother has told us many stories of these difficult

times. During the first months after their marriage, she was

able to follow him across the country while he completed his

training and was on maneuvers. Each day he would call her

from the base and would tell her, ``Lucille, one day my calls

will stop, and you will know that means I have been shipped

out.'' One day the calls did stop. She went back to her

hometown and waited. Three long years later, he returned

home. They were so lucky. Her younger brother, many of his

friends, and so many others, did not come back. Our freedoms

were ``paid in full'' by those brave men and women who have

put freedom far above themselves. However, the luxury of our

freedom must not make us complacent. We too may find

ourselves again face to face with hardships such as those

experienced by past generations. We must remember their

courage. In remembering their stories of honor, dignity and

sacrifice, I can only pray that we preserve our freedom today

with the same measure of success.

Samuel Johnson once wrote, ``The future is purchased by the

present.'' I believe that freedom is no different. We must

have an understanding of the evil present today. On September

11th, our freedom and our way of life came under attack. The

brave men and women of the past who sacrificed their lives to

extinguish evil in the world, will have not died in vain if

we continue to extinguish the evil that is present today.

Like yesterday's Nazis, today's terrorists want to drive

freedom into extinction. They must not, and will not win if

we defend our precious freedom. We must do it for ourselves,

and for the future generations of Americans. Now is the time

to purchase the freedom of the future.

We have a supreme obligation to commit ourselves to do our

duty for our country. We must pay the price for tomorrow's

freedom. Tomorrow's children must be assured by our

generation that it is our duty to protect their freedom. Some

of us will become soldiers like my grandfather, and some will

serve in other ways, but all of us must be willing to

sacrifice, and remain committed to play a part and pay the

price today for freedom tomorrow.

All of us can help pay for tomorrow's freedom by dedicating

ourselves to what our ancestors have fought so hard for, and

carrying out obligations of remembrance, understanding, and

commitment. Remember by learning your history and by

listening to those with stories to tell. Understand by being

aware and mindful of current history, and commit to this

country by being willing to sacrifice to preserve our

freedom. Call it patriotism. Call it love of country. Call it

loyalty. But whatever you call it, keep it in your heart, and

freedom will always follow.

My grandparents have been married for 60 years. They are my

heroes!

Mr. Speaker, I recently had the privilege of meeting with John Strauss, one of North Dakota's distinguished World War II veterans at the North Dakota Veterans Home. John's unit, the 164th Infantry Battalion, saw more than 600 days of fierce combat in the South Pacific. For his heroism, John was awarded a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart.

I would like to include in the Record an article from the Ransom County Gazette in North Dakota about John's life and military service.

[From the Ranson County Gazette]

NDVH Resident, John Strauss Tells of His World War II Experiences

(By Janet Hansen)

John Strauss, a resident of the North Dakota Veterans Home

(NDVH), Lisbon, was a member of the U.S. Army's 164th

Infantry Batallion which spent three years in the South

Pacific during World War II. Strauss, who recently celebrated

his 90th birthday, can still recall clearly the details of

that time in America's history.

Strauss was born on September 5, 1913. He was next to the

youngest in a family of six boys and two girls. He and his

younger sister, Mary Bartholomay of Sheldon, are the last two

surviving siblings. He was raised on a farm near Harvey,

North Dakota and attended the Whitby School, a one-room

country school located just a half mile from the Strauss

farmstead. He received his high school education at Harvey

High School, from which he graduated in 1932.

Following his graduation from high school, Strauss worked

at various farm and construction jobs. He spent some time

working in the Sheldon area on the Muscha and Stansbury

farms. He milked cows as well as caring for a herd of Angus

beef cattle. His other jobs included working for a plumbing

and heating business, doing construction and cement work, and

spending ten months as a maintenance man at the hospital in

Harvey

In January of 1941 Strauss joined the National Guard. ``I

was 27 years old when I joined the guard,'' commented

Strauss. ``Most of the guys signing up were only 18. We

organized our own company. Up to that time, Harvey did not

have a Guard unit of its own, although there were several

units in surrounding towns. Since there was a need for an

anti-tank company, that is what our unit became.''

Shortly after Harvey's National Guard unit was organized.

its members were shipped to Camp Claiborne, Louisiana, where

they underwent training for ten months. Then came the attack

on Pearl Harbor, which pushed the United States into World

War II and the National Guard into active duty.

``It wasn't long after the attack on Pearl Harbor that we

were loaded on a troop train for San Francisco. We expected

to get sent overseas immediately, but we were instead sent up

north to guard installations such as roads and bridges which

were thought to be vulnerable to attack by the Japanese.

In March of 1942 Strauss and his fellow guardsmen were

loaded onto an old luxury liner, the President Coolidge, for

their long trip to Melbourne, Australia. ``The ship was

nice,'' recalls Strauss. ``It still had a swimming pool and a

continental lounge with a grand piano. I enjoyed sitting

around listening to various soldiers playing boogie-woogie

music on that piano. But the ship was very crowded! There

were many other soldiers besides our battalion on board. I

believe there were about 5,000 of us in all. The ship had

two-room apartments with a bath between. Each had been made

to house a husband and wife. The single compartments designed

for one person were each crammed with about a dozen soldiers

in bunk beds.''

Strauss does not complain about the accommodations. He says

he was happy with two decent meals a day. He spent much of

his time on the deck of the large ship. ``I loved it on the

water,'' he said. ``I didn't get seasick. I liked to stand on

deck and watch the waves roll by.''

After a long ocean voyage, the ship finally reached

Melbourne. ``We had to unload all our gear and equipment from

that ship onto three small Dutch ships which were waitin for

us in the harbor.'' said Strauss. ``They were old wooden

vessels with crews from the Indonesian island of Java. The

crew members were dirty and used to eating tired old mutton

for meat. It didn't look or smell fit to eat, and tasted as

bad as it looked, but I managed to eat enough to get by.''

The old Dutch ships took the soldiers to New Caledonia, a

French held island in the South Pacific east of Australia. It

was believed that that island might be one of the next

Japanese targets. The troops immediately set about fortifying

the beach by digging in gun enplacements. The soldiers lived

in tents. It was hot and humid during the day but cooled off

at night. The Japanese attack which had been expected did not

come. Strauss recalls hearing that some troops encountered

problems with the Communist French but it didn't affect those

with whom he was encamped on the shoreline.''

From New Caledonia, Strauss and his fellow soldiers were

sent to Guadalcanal in the Solomon Islands. ``We only found

out a day in advance that we were to be sent there,'' Strauss

said. ``We arrived there just after daylight. We had to

unload our own ships with small boats that ferried the cargo

from the large ship to shore. We had only a day in which to

complete the job because the ships wanted to leave the harbor

while it was still daylight. There was too much danger from

Japanese air strikes to chance staying there at night.''

Strauss said that the first night at Guadalcanal was the

most frightening time which he experienced during his entire

tour of duty. ``We sat on the beach,'' he said. ``There was a

lot of confusion with people milling around. There were air

raids going on and we were pretty scared because of the lack

of protection. In the evening they lined us up in formation

and told us to march. I did not know where we were going. I

just followed the guy in front of me. Suddenly all hell broke

loose! There were Japanese ships in the bay and they were

attacking Guadalcanal. The attack from air and sea lasted

until morning. The area was all lit up by the explosions. We

got initiated fast! We felt completely helpless.'' ``The main

target of the attack was the airbase at Henderson Field. The

Japanese had originally built the airstrips and the United

States had taken control of the base. The Japanese wanted it

back. Around 10,000 Japanese troops landed on the island.

They were on the opposite end of the island from where we had

landed. The Japanese would come in swarms at night but we

were safer on our side of the island than we would have been

if we had landed on the other side.''

Strauss explained that his battalion's first objective was

to entrench their 37 millimeter guns along the beach. ``We

were sent in to help the Marines at Guadalcanal,'' he said.

``We served under General Vandegrift, Commander of the 1st

Marine Division.

As a result of their service under the Marines at

Guadalcanal, Strauss and his fellow members of the 164th

infantry were each awarded the Presidential Unit Citation,

which is given by the commander of the regiment. ``To my

knowledge we were the only army outfit in the world to get a

citation from the Marines,'' said Strauss.

Strauss states that his main job was to guard the beach

area. He manned a 37 millimeter gun entrenched in the sand.

``I was glad to stay there instead of going farther onto the

island,'' he said. ``We stayed there for six months. There

were a few small battles, but we were mostly mopping up.''

``The Marines left in January and we followed in March,''

said Strauss. He explains that by the time they left

Guadalcanal most of the men in his outfit had dysentery and/

or malaria.

``Most of us were sent to the Fiji Islands for some R & R

(rest and relaxation) time,'' related Strauss. Some members

of his division enjoyed their vacation, but Strauss spent

five months in the hospital because of a tropical ulcer on

his leg. The ulcer started as a sand fly bite and became

infected by his boot rubbing on it. After two and a half

months with no results in the treatment of of the ulcer, a

doctor tried grafting some skin over the ulcerated area.

After that it finally began to heal and he was released from

the hospital.

``I was out of the hospital for one day,'' said Strauss,

``and I came down with malaria.'' I spent another two and a

half months in the hospital recuperating.'' By the time

Strauss got out of the hospital his company's R & R time was

over and it was time to train once again.

``We were in Fiji for a total of nine months,'' said

Strauss. ``From there we were shipped to Bougainville Island,

where we stayed for the next year. Again, we were sent there

to do some mopping up. We saw action, but it was usually

small attacks. However I actually saw more action there than

I had previously.''

Strauss explained that he served as sergeant of a flame

thrower platoon. ``I had 26

men under me,'' he said. ``Of those 26, 13 lost their lives

during our stay on Bougainville Island. Our job was to dig

machine gun nests out of the big banyon tree roots where the

Japanese had placed them. It was my job to lay down in a root

trench and receive the flame throwers from one of my men. I

would then drop the flame thrower down a hole which looked

like a gopher hole to try to destroy the machine guns.''

Strauss would then have to scramble out of the hole as

quickly as possible. We continued that dangerous mission for

seven days but were unable to burn the machine gun nests

out.''

He explains that the flame throwing itself was not the hard

part of the mission. The difficult part was getting back to

their line without being hit by enemy fire.

He goes on to explain that on one of his flame throwing

missions he received a head wound which was believed to have

been from shrapnel but which he describes as ``just a nick or

scratch.'' For that wound he received a Purple Heart which he

proudly displays with his other medals. He also received a

Bronze Star for meritorious service while under the call of

duty.

From Bougainville the 164th Infantry was shipped to the

Philippines. Shortly after arriving there, Strauss came down

with a strange skin disease. He received orders to go to the

medics and, as a result, ended up in the hospital again.

After a couple weeks he was shipped back to the United

States, since his skin condition seemed to be getting worse

instead of better. He was hospitalized at Harmon General

Hospital in Longview, Texas for a few months and then was

sent home for a month. An army doctor in Texas diagnosed his

skin condition, which had been previously thought to be

`jungle rot,' as dermatitis. Once the correct diagnosis was

made and proper treatment provided, his skin cleared up. He

told his doctor that he was afraid of getting it back when he

went back to the Philippines, since it seemed to be the dirty

conditions in which the soldiers were forced to live that

caused it. The doctor replied that he did not have to be

afraid of that happening because he was sending him home

instead.

In June of 1945 Strauss was sent to Fort Snelling where

papers were filled out for his discharge. He was then sent

back to his home town of Harvey.

After his discharge Strauss went back to work at the

plumbing and heating business where he had been formerly

employed. He was sent to a private machine shop in Wahpeton

for six months of training, on a lathe. He later spent some

time working on a ranch in the Bowman area. He then answered

an ad for a maintenance worker at the Harvey hospital and was

hired. He eventually became head of maintenance there and

worked there for six years.

He left that position in 1969 and went to work for the

Bureau of Reclamation with a crew that was working on the

McClusky Dam. He worked at the commissary at the Fortuna Air

Force Base at Crosby for a while and then worked in Housing

and Maintainence at the same base for a couple years.

Strauss retired in 1975, at 62 years of age, and moved into

an apartment in Harvey. He continued to do odd jobs in the

Harvey area.

When his health began to fail in 1998 Strauss moved to the

North Dakota Veterans Home. ``I always had it in mind that I

wanted to live here some day,'' said Strauss. ``I had visited

the home a few times and thought it was a nice place. I have

never been sorry for a minute that I came here.''

Strauss celebrated his 90th birthday with cake and ice

cream treats at the NDVH in September. His nephew, David

Strauss, Valley City, planned a big party for him. Strauss's

sister Mary and several nephews and nieces were on hand to

help him celebrate.

Outside of some arthritis and a few heart problems Strauss

said he is doing fine. He explained that he got the flu last

spring and was sick for several months. However, once he

recuperated from that bout he has been back to his old self.

``They are so good to me here,'' he said. ``Anything you

need, you get. The staff people are always smiling. I

couldn't have found a better home anywhere.''

Mr. Speaker, I will be casting my vote against this bill today because of many serious flaws in this legislation, flaws that were included in the bill despite widespread, overwhelming opposition. Additionally,

the bill tragically underfunds several key programs, such as funding for education reform and veterans.

Included in this legislation is language to delay the implementation of country-of-origin labeling until 2006. Country-of-origin labeling was required by the 2002 Farm Bill and is necessary to give U.S. consumers important information and give U.S. producers credit for the considerable investment they have made in the quality and safety of their products.

Included in this legislation are provisions that could make 8 million women and men lose the overtime pay that they use to feed their families, pay for medicine, and educate their children. These provisions were not approved by a majority of the House and Senate.

Included in this legislation today is language to allow television networks to own as much as 39 percent of a market. Shortly after the Federal Communications Commission made its decision to allow television networks to own stations reaching as much as 45 percent of the country earlier this year, both chambers of Congress went on record for supporting lowering the limit to 35 percent.

In addition, while I support the intentions of last year's education reform promise to leave no child behind, I am also convinced that the success of this new law will be determined in part by the investment made in this historic reform effort. I am deeply disappointed that this funding plan falls more than $7.8 billion short of the resources promised.

I am pleased to have supported the inclusion of a number of important North Dakota projects in this legislation. However, the House could and should consider clean legislation that does not contain those provisions not supported by a majority of representatives. I hope this bill is taken up again in January without these objectionable provisions.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of this resolution condemning the terrorist attacks in Istanbul, Turkey on November 15 and 20, 2003. I wish to express my most sincere and heartfelt condolences to the Turkish government and the relatives of those killed or injured. My thoughts are with Turkey and its people in this time of sorrow.

If there is one thing these cowardly acts have demonstrated, it is that terrorism knows no borders. These catastrophic attacks were not just an attack on Turkey, but an attack on humanity and civilization. As Americans who have experienced terrorism firsthand, we share in Turkey's grief.

I am convinced that the United States must stand shoulder to shoulder with Turkey as it defends its safety and protects its liberty by bringing to justice those responsible for these heinous acts. Together, we must stand ready to provide any assistance deemed necessary to ensure that justice is served--not solely to account for the lives taken and injuries inflicted against the Turkish people, but in defense of freedom around the world.

In the end, Madam Speaker, these tragedies will be remembered as a time of incredible loss and sadness. But it will also mark a time when America and Turkey came even closer together to respond to global terrorism. We are united today as never to ensure that terrorism is defeated, completely and finally.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 7(c) of the House rule XXII, I hereby notify the House of my intention tomorrow to offer the following motion to instruct House conferees on H.R. 2660, the Departments of Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2004.

The form of the motion is as follows:

I move that the managers on the part of the House at the

conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the

bill, H.R. 2660, be instructed to agree a level of

$8,410,000,000 for the Limitation on Administrative Expenses

of the Social Security Administration, as proposed by the

Senate.

Mr. Speaker, on November 4, 2003, I missed rollcall votes no. 602 and 603 due to a funeral. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye'' on these votes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to say that I will be voting for H.R. 2691, the fiscal year 2003 Interior Appropriations Conference Report, but doing so with some reluctance. This report includes a provision that keeps the Department of Interior from performing its legal responsibility to conduct a complete accounting of the individual Indian trust. I voted to strike a similar provision in the FY 2003 Interior Appropriations bill, which was stripped from the House-passed bill, and I am disappointed that it has reemerged in the conference report.

I understand the Committee's concern for the Cobell v. Norton class action lawsuit, which has been stalled for years with no satisfactory end in sight. We should certainly take aggressive steps to ensure that this case moves forward. However, I do not believe that Congress should circumvent due process by attaching this rider to the Interior Appropriations bill.

Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that this provision sends a terrible message to Indian country that the Federal Government is not committed to working in close consultation with the tribes on issues such as trust reform, or for that matter, ensuring that they have their day in court.

Mr. Speaker, on October 30, 2003, I missed rollcall vote No. 582. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on this vote, expressing my strong support for H. Con. Res. 291.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and in particular, applaud him for the effort and research and expertise he has developed in this area, as well as our colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Portman). Certainly, the Portman-Cardin legislation that appears unlikely to pass this session of Congress was a bill that advanced these considerations and did so in a more thorough way than the bill before us.

I think it is important to have in perspective, really, what this is all about. Defined benefit pension plans are those retirement savings vehicles made available to employees at the workplace that give them a monthly annuity benefit every month in retirement. It is the retirement cash flow that they cannot outlive. That is what makes pensions so important. That is why, for many of us, we view pensions in the defined benefit context as a superior retirement benefit than the defined contribution 401(k) account where one saves up a little nest egg and hopes it lasts as long as they need it. The defined benefit pension plan guarantees cash flow for life.

Agreeing then on the importance of defined benefit pension plans, it is also important to really look at how we are presently regulating them to determine whether we are doing it in an appropriate way. These are voluntary plans by the employer; and if we do not regulate them correctly, the employers will drop them.

There is reason to believe something is terribly wrong with the existing regulatory system on pension plans because it is estimated by Watson Wyatt, the consulting firm, that 20 percent of defined benefit pension plans, one in five, have been frozen or canceled within the last three years alone.

Now, that is a staggering problem, and I really regret that the administration has not seized on this as an outright emergency in terms of employee benefits. One out of five pension plans frozen in the last 3 years alone. So the economic record is not just jobs lost, it is also those who still have jobs but do not have pensions, and there are hundreds of thousands of them.

One of the reasons causing this problem is the fact that in good times, we do not allow funding, and in bad times, we make them substantially increase the funding of these pension plans. Now, if you are an employer, what sense does that make? Times are good, you have a little cash, and you would like to plus up the pension plan to make sure you have enough in there, but you cannot under the law. On the other hand, in a recession, when you are trying to desperately turn things around, trying to grow your businesses, my colleague, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), just explained we make more money to come out of operations and be put into pension reserving. Not because the plan is about to go under, but that is just what the formula says. Well, that is a dramatically screwed-up format, and it places a government disincentive on employers to continue pension plans. We have to fix that.

Unfortunately, what we have seen out of this administration, in my view, is only a focus on whether or not the reserving is enough relative to immediately liquid liabilities. Out of the Treasury Department come new formulas for increasing funding, making even more volatile the funding situation facing employers. Out of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, we have just seen a single focus. We need more funding because the plans are under water. Well, we have to keep this in perspective.

The Watson Wyatt Research Group has estimated that comparing assets to liabilities, the plans are on average 4 percent under water. Four percent. That is all. And that is measured based upon today's stock market evaluations. Now, if the administration has any confidence at all in its economic plans forecasting growth, forecasting rising stock values, that 4 percent is going to disappear in an instant. That is not a problem. So it is wrong to put this inordinate pressure on employers to increase funding for their liabilities now. It really forces them to do what so many have done, and that is freeze or cancel the plans.

Plans need certainty, and we only provide a little bit of certainty in the legislation before us; 2 years of continuing this interim fix. I wish it had been 5 years. I believe maybe even 7 years might have been appropriate. Two years, in my opinion, falls short of what will be required to give employers some relief. I am not at all sure, even if we pass this, that we are going to stop this trend of canceling the defined benefit plans. But certainly it is better than nothing, and I will be voting for it. It is far short of what we should have done.

More work lies ahead, and I would point to two areas, in particular, that are going to need some attention. The airline industry, in particular, has been battered by terrorism and battered by a recession in the economy. They have also been battered, unfortunately, by the statutory reserving requirements on the pension plans. We should be able to address their unique circumstance. This bill does not do that. I believe they need relief, and was proud to work with my colleague, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp) on bipartisan legislation to get that done.

Other plans, in particular those protecting the retirement interests of older workers, those places of employment that have, on balance, an older-age mix in their place of employment are going to potentially be very heavily hit on pension reform. And without giving them some assurance, I believe we are going to see the freezing of plans accelerate in these industries. Those who most need the protection, those plans with older workers, will be most likely to have the benefits cut or frozen or discontinued all together. We really have not addressed that in this legislation. I believe this is absolutely the fault of the United States Treasury Department under this administration. We deserve more from them than we have received.

I also believe that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation has only looked with a green eyeshade at whether or not plans are solvent. The preceding director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, an individual from my hometown, understood that the PBGC has two missions; one was making certain that the plans were adequately funded, but the other was continuing defined benefit pension plans in the workforce. And that is why some balance is needed. That is why the existing administration needs to incorporate more balance in looking at these issues, so that we look at them over a long time frame and in a way that is compatible with continuing defined benefit pension plans, or even increasing the number in the workforce, because it is that important.

I thank, again, my colleagues for their responsible bipartisan work on this issue. Obviously, we have a lot more heavy lifting to do.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time.

Let us take a look at the fiscal format of this country as we begin the debate on this measure this afternoon. We have seen revenue reestimate after revenue reestimate, all to the growing despair of those of us who care about running this country on a balanced budget, just like America's families run their financial affairs.

We are now looking at an annual deficit in excess of $500 billion. I know the people I represent in North Dakota are really struggling with this request of the President to send $87 billion to Iraq because they know that when we are $500 billion in debt for this year, that this $87 billion to Iraq is all borrowed money. That all falls on the heads of our children. It is important, I think, with that being the financial framework of our country, as we talk about this debate, that we look closely at what has happened to the staggering escalation in costs to this MSA, medical savings account, provision.

I am a member of the Committee on Ways and Means that considered this legislation. The initial proposal was scored by the Congressional Budget Office at $14.3 billion over 10 years. I will submit this score from the Congressional Budget Office as part of the Record in this debate.

When it came before the committee, of course, we had seen the effect of special interests. This had been stretched. It had been inflated. It had grown, and this tax cut at that point in time, the MSA tax cut for the affluent, at that point became a $71.5 billion bill. Because this country was in the red, I opposed this measure in committee. We had not seen anything yet in terms of the ultimate cost of the provision addressed by the gentleman's motion because the very next day there was a rewrite, not one that was accomplished in light of day, in committee of jurisdiction, where we could at least talk about the policy rationale for the further expansion of medical savings accounts; but when this measure came to the floor, many of us were astounded to see that a measure that had been passed out of committee costing $71 billion over 10 years was now slated to cost $174 billion over 10 years.

Somehow, overnight, $100 billion in tax loopholes had been added to this measure. No hearing, no discussion, no committee vote.

So as my friends in North Dakota scratch their heads about the $87 billion Iraq request of the President, they should know that is not the only thing to scratch your head about in Washington: $100 billion added to this MSA tax loophole from committee action to the time of the floor. In contrast to that $87 billion to Iraq, this is going to lose the Treasury $173 billion.

Now, when we look at a $173 billion hit to the revenue of this country, we

ought to think, well, can we afford it? Well, with a $500 billion debt already, I do not think we can afford it. This will be paid for by further driving up the debt of our country. It will be ultimately borne by our children and grandchildren as we leave to them a country so swimming in red ink that it will be hard to figure out how they ever get back to a balanced budget.

Those days of surplus seem so long ago. And the reason we have gone down this terribly steep slope into these incredibly deep deficits is the very shenanigans we see before us. A bill that was $14 billion in cost when it came to the committee came out of committee inflated and stretched to $71 billion. And by the time it came to the floor, a further rewrite, not even in front of the public, not even in front of the committee of jurisdiction, not even with any discussion about the policy underlying the changes, and another $100 billion in tax loopholes is offered, so that now $173 billion in revenue is lost. There is an awful lot that can be done with $103 billion.

As a former State insurance commissioner, I can tell my colleagues that spending this kind of money on medical savings accounts is a very poor investment. Pass this motion, strip this tax windfall out of this provision.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record the estimates of the CBO referred to earlier in my remarks:

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding to me, someone I respect deeply on the Committee on Ways and Means, the gentleman from Louisiana.

The gentleman notes that the money is fully accommodated for in the House budget. What I want to know is what the relationship of the price tag is relative to the deficit. Now, as I understand it, this $173 billion will deepen the deficit. Is that not the gentleman's understanding?

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield for one brief question, is the $87 billion for Iraq requested by the President in the budget, or will that drive the deficit figure even deeper?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Waters) and my colleagues for organizing this very important special order, because I believe the information brought forward in this debate will be of great surprise to most of the people that might happen to listen to this discussion. Certainly, the people I represent in North Dakota, I believe, are largely unaware of the fact that we, essentially, have a disabled veterans tax.

This tax is imposed when you have someone that has earned a military retirement and on the other hand also had a disability payment from service in the military as a result of a service-connected injury resulting in permanent disability. The disabled veterans tax occurs when you have a 100 percent reduction of the retirement benefit by the disability payment receipt.

So let me make it simple. The injured veteran receiving a disability payment would, upon retiring from the military, have their military retirement reduced 100 percent by the amount of the disability payment. Now, if that is not a disabled veterans tax, I do not know what is. And it is completely unacceptable. There is not another classification of Federal employee treated in this fashion. There is

not a civil service employee upon getting their Federal retirement that would have their Federal retirement reduced by their military disability. Only those who have made a career of distinction and honor in serving our military have their retirement reduced 100 percent in the value of the disability benefit received.

We have to change this bill. This is a law that is on the books that is having a pernicious and unfair effect on our veterans. We need to act and we need to act now.

I commend the Republican sponsor of the legislation that wants to address this for bringing this before the Chamber. I am certainly pleased to participate. It ought to be bipartisan, if anything before us should be bipartisan.

Unfortunately, we have seen majority leadership refuse to bring this matter up for a vote. In fact, notwithstanding the very strong support reflected by the number of cosponsors, as reflected by the number of signatures on the discharge petition, we have seen them refuse to allow us for a vote.

Is it not ironic that as we seek to advance this very important relief for our veterans, we are not even allowed a vote on this matter? Our veterans are fighting, have fought, for democracy; our soldiers today are fighting for democracy, and yet when it comes to this important question, the majority leadership is not allowing democracy in this House because they are not allowing us to vote on this proposition.

In order to bust through this deadlock imposed by the majority leadership, we have brought forward a discharge petition which has now been signed by 203 Members of the House, including two Republican Members, all of the Democratic Members and two Republican Members.

I would ask the majority leadership if at least you will not allow us a vote, for goodness sake, discharge your members. Let them vote their conscience by signing a discharge petition and bringing it to the floor over your expressed wishes to the contrary. Let them serve their constituents on this one, not the majority leadership. Let them represent the veterans in their districts that are having their benefits unfairly taxed by the Federal Government.

Finally, if that is too much to ask, if it is too much to ask to bring this to a vote, if it is too much to ask to allow majority leadership to discharge their Members, to sign a discharge petition, then I would say to my friends in the majority, on this one you have to stand with your people irrespective of your leadership. Come up to the well. Sign the discharge petition. You have veterans who are having their retirement benefits reduced and reduced unfairly, reduced for suffering a service-connected disability. This must end.

If your leadership cannot see that, surely you can. And if you have questions about it, all you have to do is ask the veterans organizations so capably representing the veterans in your district. Ask your American Legion commander what he thinks of this matter. Ask the Veterans of Foreign Wars commander what they think of this matter. Ask the Disabled Veterans of America in your district what they think of this matter. That will quickly bring you to the conclusion that it is time for this tax to end. It is time for this House to have some democracy on this question. It is time for us to vote on getting the veterans the relief they need and they so richly deserve.

I thank the gentlewoman for letting me participate in this discussion.

Mr. Speaker, today the House of Representatives addressed H.R. 49, the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act. This bill would make permanent the moratorium on internet access taxes first put into place in the Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA).

When the ITFA was first enacted, it exempted 10 states that already had in place mechanisms for taxing internet access. North Dakota was one of those states.

I have long been opposed to taxing internet access and have consistently voted in favor of the moratorium on internet taxation. All prior extensions of the moratorium, however, have provided for the continuation of the state exemption. H.R. 49, however, would not only make the moratorium permanent, but would also remove the exemption North Dakota and the other nine states have been receiving.

I strongly believe that the internet and the technology it brings with it is one of our country's most important economic engines. This is equally true for North Dakota. The internet has the ability to aid economic development not only in our larger cities, but also in our rural areas.

Because the end of the state exemption will mean the loss of tens of millions of dollars for those states that will be losing their ability to tax internet access, I urge my colleagues to give these states flexibility. Our colleagues in the Senate have done just this by including a 3-year delay. I encourage my colleagues to consider such a mechanism.

Mr. Speaker, it has been 868 days since President Bush and the Republican Party embarked upon their economic plan for our country. During this time, the national debt has increased by $1,163,468,782,425.75.

According to the Web site for the Bureau of Public Debt at the U.S. Department of Treasury, yesterday as of 4:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, the Nation's outstanding debt was $6,803,794,168,784.52.

The interest we will have to pay on this debt, the debt tax, for fiscal year 2003 through the end of August, amounts to $304,978,878,641.11.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the authorization of an automatic cost-of-living (COLA) pay increase for Members of Congress contained within H.R. 2989. It is essential that Members have the opportunity to consider a pay raise independently of funding for important transportation projects in their districts.

I was disappointed with the automatic inclusion of a Congressional pay raise in the bill and I voted against the rule to allow consideration of H.R. 2989 with the inclusion of this provision. Unfortunately, the motion to prevent consideration of the bill failed 235-178. While I did not support the pay raise, I ultimately voted for the bill because it included $5.2 million for transportation projects in North Dakota. I am excited that my State received these funds for important road and transit improvements, but I am also disappointed that I was unable to consider the Congressional pay raise as a measure separate from Department of Transportation funding.

A fiscally responsible Congress should consider the automatic COLA pay increase independently of funding for other programs. It is my hope that Congress will take steps to ensure separate consideration for any increases in the future.