Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, due to a family medical emergency, I missed rollcall votes 308 through 325, which took place on Friday, Monday, and Tuesday--June 24, 27, and 28, 2005, respectively. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows:

Rollcall votes--308 (Price of Georgia Amendment): ``nay''; 309 (George Miller of California Amendment): ``yea''; 310 (Brown of Ohio Amendment): ``nay''; 311 (Filner of California Amendment): ``yea''; 312 (King of Iowa Amendment): ``yea''; 313 (Hefley of Colorado Amendment): ``yea''; 314 (Hinchey of New York Amendment): ``nay''; 315 (Hayworth of Arizona Amendment No. 14): ``nay''; 316 (Van Hollen of Maryland Amendment): ``yea''; 317 (Paul of Texas Amendment): ``yea''; 318 (DeLauro of Connecticut Amendment): ``nay''; 319 (Hinchey of New York Amendment for DeFazio of Oregon): ``yea''; 320 (Motion to Recommit H.R. 3010): ``yea''; 321 (Passage of H.R. 3010): ``nay''; 322 (Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, as Amended, H. Res. 199): ``yea''; 323 (Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, H. Con. Res. 155): ``yea''; 324 (Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass, as Amended, H.R. 458): ``yea''; and 325 (Ordering the Previous Question, H. Res. 341): ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to enter this personal explanation into the Record at the appropriate location.

Mr. Chairman, due to a family medical emergency, I am departing Washington, DC, at 10:30 a.m. on Friday, June 24th.

As a result, I will miss votes on the amendments to and final passage on H.R. 3010, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006. Upon my return to Washington, I will submit a statement indicating how I would have voted had I been present.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the 100th anniversary of St. Thomas the Apostle Catholic Church located in Long Beach, Mississippi.

In early 1905, Bishop Thomas Heslin of the Natchez Diocese directed the order of St. Vincent de Paul, known as Vincentians, to build a church and religious retreat to fill the needs of the parishioners of Long Beach, Mississippi City, Perkinston and Wiggins. Forty acres of land were acquired on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, and the church was consecrated as St. Thomas the Apostle Catholic Church on July 15, 1905.

As the City of Long Beach grew, so did the mission of the church. In 1915, St. Thomas was designated a parish church by Bishop John Gunn with Father Joseph Hagar serving as the new parish's first pastor. September 3, 1922 marked the first day of school for students of St. Thomas Elementary School, staffed by the Daughters of Charity.

August 17, 1969 marked a tragic day for all of South Mississippi when the Gulf Coast was struck by Hurricane Camille, a category 5 storm and the strongest hurricane to strike the United States in the 20th century. Camille destroyed the original 1905 St. Thomas Church and most other church associated buildings. As the region slowly recovered the church was rebuilt. Bishop Joseph Brunini dedicated the new St. Thomas Church on August 20, 1972.

The Vincentians ceded the parish to the Diocese of Biloxi in the summer of 1993, and Father Louis Lohan was named pastor of the congregation. The church's most recent major addition was the Parish Life Center, which was dedicated in November 2002.

So it is my great honor to congratulate the people of St. Thomas the Apostle Catholic Church on their 100th anniversary.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute and to recognize the outstanding service of Lieutenant Colonel Joseph W. Corrigan, who retires this July after twenty-three years of selfless and dedicated service while working for the United States Army, the Army Corps of Engineers, and Army Legislative Liaison. Lieutenant Colonel Corrigan is a decorated Iraqi Freedom combat veteran who has not only demonstrated his courage in a hostile fire zone but his fervent compassion for people suppressed by years of tyranny and his untiring love of Country as he dedicated over twenty years of voluntary service to our Nation.

Lieutenant Colonel Corrigan began his career as a United States Military Academy graduate, Class of 1982, and was immediately selected to lead our Nation's Sons and Daughters, an honor he accepted with great pride. During his superb career he has met the call of our Nation in both positions of leadership and staff while both he and his family endured the hardships of deployments and separation. As a testament to his professionalism, in 2002 he was awarded the Pace Award as the Department of the Army Staff Officer of the Year.

Recently, Lieutenant Colonel Corrigan proudly served the citizens of our great State

of Mississippi in his capacity as the Deputy Director, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--Mobile Engineer District where he managed all the Corps of Engineer programs for five Southeastern States as well as Central and South America. Lieutenant Colonel Corrigan has spent a major portion of his career with Army Legislative Liaison providing both the Army and Congress with valuable professional insights and advice that have had a direct and positive impact on transforming the Army to meet the current and future requirements of a Nation at War.

Mr. Speaker, as Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Corrigan leaves twenty- three years of Military Service to our Country, I offer not only congratulations on his accomplishments but heartfelt thanks for his selfless service to our great Nation and a wish for his continued success.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

In its present form.

Mr. Speaker, given the nature of this motion, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk read it again.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent, given the gravity of this motion, that the Clerk read the motion again since, apparently, no one on this floor, other than I, know what is in it.

Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about today is a fairly simple thing. The text of the original bill is to give the 50 States the legal authority to, on a state-by-state basis, prevent the desecration of the flag, a symbol of our country. There is something a heck of a lot more serious going on than the desecration of the flag: it is the desecration of our Nation.

In the last 4 years alone, the national debt has increased by $2.1 trillion. We have taken money out of the Social Security trust fund, $632 billion out of that trust fund, and used it to run the country, leaving nothing there but an IOU. Money has been taken out of the Federal Employees Retirement System, now a total of $614 billion.

Mr. Speaker, if any business in America had taken that money out of the employees' trust fund----

Mr. Speaker, the point of order is, why would we take the time to protect the symbol of our country if we will not take the time to protect the financial future of our country as well? That is my point.

Mr. Speaker, what is the procedure to appeal the ruling of the Chair? I would like the ability to speak to that, please.

Mr. Speaker, I am appealing the ruling of the Chair, and I would like to speak to that point.

Mr. Speaker, is that debatable?

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding under the rule passed by the Committee on Rules that the minority is guaranteed a motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, I take it from what just occurred is that I will not be able to offer the amendment to require a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution.

Now, is that the net effect of that vote that just occurred? Because I do have a follow-up.

Mr. Speaker, having read the rule, it said that the minority was to be given a motion to recommit. If that motion to recommit was ruled out of order, does the minority still have the right to offer another motion to recommit?

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the bill in its present form.

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the underlying bill is to prevent the desecration of the flag, the trampling of our flag, the misuse of our flag. The amendment that I have offered is to prevent the wholesale theft and desecration of the Social Security trust fund.

In the past 4 years alone, this Congress, of which I am a part, has taken $632 billion out of the Social Security trust fund that we promised the citizens we would set aside just for Social Security payments and used to run the country.

The President has gone all around the country saying we have a crisis, that by 2017 we will be out of money.

The point of order is to my colleagues, if you think it is wrong to desecrate the flag, I would hope that you would think it is wrong to misspend money taken out of people's wallets that we promised to spend on their Social Security and to protect that money in the Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, in the interests of moving things along, I ask unanimous consent to engage the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) in about a 3-minute colloquy.

Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman from Wisconsin, you have, using the power of the majority, blocked the vote on a constitutional amendment to balance the budget and the constitutional amendment to vote to protect the Social Security trust fund.

Now, I have additional motions at the desk. The next one would be a constitutional amendment to protect the Medicare trust fund. Would it be your intention to object to that as well and prevent a vote on this House floor?

I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would remind the Members of this body that this bill came to the floor waiving all points of order.

The Medicare prescription drug bill that is going to increase the national debt by $1.5 billion came to the floor waiving all points of order.

We have acquired $2.1 billion worth of new debt in just the past 4 years, waiving all points of order.

But if the gentleman is going to insist on not allowing a vote to protect the constitutional amendment to balance the budget, not allowing a vote to protect the Social Security trust fund, and not allowing a vote to protect the Medicare trust fund, I see no further reason other than to point out that I really thought the Republican majority meant it when they passed the Contract with America, that they said they would balance the budget.

I gave you an opportunity to do just that. I hope the Speaker will give us an opportunity in the near future for you guys to live up to your promises.

Madam Speaker, we have a lot to remember on Memorial Day. Today in south Mississippi, four families will be receiving death notices. Every one of those families had a young guardsman over in Iraq who was killed yesterday.

Last Friday, I visited Walter Reed. Five young soldiers were wounded, four of them amputees, every one of them Guardsmen Or Reservists.

Just last week the Committee on Armed Services passed an amendment that would allow Guardsmen and Reservists to buy TRICARE insurance for themselves and their families. Somewhere between the committee, where it passed, and the Committee on Rules, where it failed, it was blocked on a straight party-line vote.

So as we remember Memorial Day, I hope every Guardsman in America will remember the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam), the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Bishop) and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), eight of the nine who never served a day in uniform who voted to see that our Nation's Guardsmen and Reservists cannot buy Federal health insurance.

Mr. Speaker, in South Mississippi this morning, four families of National Guardsmen will be notified that their loved ones died yesterday in Iraq.

Last Friday, as I visited Walter Reed, I had the opportunity to visit five Mississippians, three of whom are amputees, all of whom are National Guardsmen or Reservists.

As the gentlewoman from California just mentioned, over 40 percent of all the people serving in Iraq right now are Guardsmen and Reservists, and a disproportionately high percentage of the deaths and wounds have been received by them.

One way we tried to make it up to them for their supreme sacrifice to our Nation was to see to that those Guardsmen and Reservists who choose to can buy into the TRICARE health care coverage provided by our Nation to every

other member of the Armed Forces, the regular soldier to their right, the regular Marine to their left.

It was brought up in committee, and by a majority vote the Armed Services Committee voted to allow National Guardsmen and Reservists to buy into TRICARE. But somewhere between the committee and the Rules Committee, someone decided that there was mandatory spending involved. So the same Congress that has brought 21 bills to this floor that waived all budgetary rules, no matter how much it ran up the deficit, the same Congress that has added $2.2 trillion to the National debt in just 4 years, that decided Paris Hilton can inherit hundreds of millions of dollars without paying a penny in taxes, decided because there was $5 million mandatory spending, these National Guardsmen could no longer buy into that policy.

So we went to the Rules Committee. We showed the Rules Committee where the National Guard Association, the Military Officers Association of America, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard, the Adjutant Generals of every single State voted unanimously for this amendment. The Reserve Officers Association and the Fleet Reserve Association all endorsed this amendment. And yet the Rules Committee, in a straight party line vote, decided that National Guardsmen and Reservists cannot buy their health care.

The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House, ignored the call of the adjutant general of Illinois and the 12,500 National Guardsmen in his State.

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) ignored the call of his adjutant general and the 20,000 National Guardsmen in Texas.

The gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) ignored the call of his adjutant general and the 10,000 National Guardsmen from Missouri.

The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) ignored the call of his adjutant general and 20,400 National Guardsmen.

The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) ignored the call of 12,000 National Guardsmen. The list goes on.

The bottom line is, if these people are good enough to serve our Nation in Iraq, if they are going to die in disproportionately high numbers, if they are going to lose their limbs in disproportionately high numbers, do you not think this Congress could find the time to debate an amendment that has already passed the Armed Services Committee, and let every Member of this body decide whether or not those Americans who are serving our country in the Guard deserve the opportunity to buy health insurance for themselves and their families?

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the rule.

Committee on Rules

David Dreier, CA--Chairman; Lincoln Diaz-Balart, FL; Doc

Hastings, WA; Pete Sessions, TX; Adam Putnam, FL;

Shelley Moore Capito, WV; Tom Cole, OK; Rob Bishop, UT;

and Phil Gingrey, GA.

Louise McIntosh Slaughter, NY--Ranking Minority Member;

James P. McGovern, MA; Alcee Hastings, FL; and Doris

Matsui.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I had to leave the room briefly. It was my understanding, when I left the room, that the gentleman had mentioned that the bill had passed committee 61 to 1. Is that correct?

Is the gentleman aware that when the bill passed the committee, the amendment that provided TRICARE for every single Guard member and Reservist was a part of that bill?

Okay. I just want the gentleman to know that that 61 to 1 vote included that amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I first want to compliment my chairman, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett). I want to wish him a happy 79th birthday. Many more to come. And I think the gentleman set the proper tone by saying that everything we do is to support the troops.

By and large, this is a very good bill. It could have been better if one amendment had stayed in. But by and large this is a very good bill. And I want to compliment the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett) on taking what was dealt in the beginning of the year, a pretty bad hand, just asking for four ships, and through his good work, through our chairman's good work, through our ranking member's good work, we were able to add, as he said, 2 DDG-51s.

And as far as the taxpayers are concerned, the last ships you get of any run are not only the best ships of that run, but also the most affordable because all of the learning that has gone into building the previous 50 ships go into these, and so these will be the most affordable, most technologically advanced of the DDG-51s.

The first of the LHARs, the replacement for the LHAs, is in this bill. Again, that is very good news for the United States Marine Corps. This is an aviation variant of an existing hull. Again, the savings that we have learned from the first seven hulls will go into this one and make it an outstanding addition to the fleet.

A T-AKE ammunition ship, in addition to the LCS, one Virginia-class submarine, one LPD-17 rounds out what started off to be a pretty bad Navy shipbuilding year and made it considerably better. So I do want to compliment our chairman on this.

Also, I want to compliment the Air Force. You recall at the beginning of the year the Air Force was talking about canceling the C-130J program. That was a very bad mistake on the part of the Air Force. With this committee's prodding, a number of Members, the Air Force has reversed that decision. That is an excellent platform that will continue to be built and is very much needed by our forces. So let me compliment the men and women who serve our Nation.

As I have said before, just today, four notices will be delivered in south Mississippi alone today on the lives of Guardsmen and Reservists who died just yesterday in Iraq. They deserve the very best. And I want to compliment this committee for bringing many of the platforms that they deserve to fruition.

Mr. Chairman, if you were to travel to North Carolina today, you would find the Navy out trying to buy 35,000 acres of land. Once they buy it, they have to get the environmental permits. Once they do that, they are going to bulldoze the woods and build a runway. After they build a runway, they build a firehouse. After they build a firehouse, they build the enlisted barracks. After that, they build the married housing. After that, they will have to have mess halls, a clinic, golf course, tennis courts, swimming pools, all of the things that people in uniform deserve.

They had all of those things. It is called Cecil Field. They had three 8,000-foot runways and a 10,000-foot runway. It had world-class dining facilities, world-class barracks and world-class family housing. It was already paid for by the American taxpayer, and they shut it down in a previous round of BRAC.

If Members need one word, or two words, to tell you why we do not need another round of BRAC, it is Cecil Field.

Right now, the Navy has to have a place to put their F-18E and Fs when they come off the carriers. Cecil Field would have been the perfect place, but no, because it was closed and the property was given away. And before we gave it away, we had to clean it up environmentally at no telling how many billions of dollars.

So before we closed it and gave it away, just to replace it by building it someplace else, maybe we should not make that mistake again. Maybe the people who are given the constitutional responsibility to provide for the common defense, who every 2 years go out and beg for this job, which entails the constitutional responsibility to provide for the common defense, maybe we

ought to make that call and maybe we should not rush into more bad judgments like Cecil Field.

Last year, this House by over a 100-vote margin passed the 2-year delay to BRAC. Now we have even more troops coming home from Korea and Iraq. We have agreed finally to grow the Army and the Marine Corps. Where are we going to put these folks if we are closing bases? And how many more mistakes like Cecil Field are we going to rush into just for the sake of doing something, even if it is wrong?

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

In its present form, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter), in speaking to the Woolsey amendment, described it as a message-sender. This motion to recommit, which is an amendment to the bill, is a message-sender.

This is a message-sender to the Guardsmen and Reservists of this Nation who comprise 38 percent of the total force, and who at this moment comprise 40 percent of the men and women who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. By the way, they provide about that same percentage of the wounded, about the same percentage of the people who come home dead from that war.

See, unlike the regular soldier to their right and the regular Marine to their left, who are guaranteed health care coverage through the TRICARE program, 20 percent of our Guardsmen and Reservists have no health care coverage whatsoever. Coincidentally, about 20 percent of our Guard and Reservists who are called up could not be deployed because they were not medically ready to be deployed. This amendment addresses that.

This amendment would take $185 million out of the fund that is going to fund base closure and apply it to TRICARE for Guard and Reservists to let those people know we appreciate them.

Why is this important? Just today in south Mississippi, five families got the worst message you could ever receive, and that is that their loved one died in Iraq. Every one of them was a Guardsman or Reservist. Last Friday, I visited Walter Reed just like all of you do, but a little bit different from my colleagues, just to see Mississippians. Every one of the five Mississippians that are there are Guardsmen or Reservists. One is a double amputee. The other two have lost one leg. The other two are in wheelchairs and will be for some time. Every one of them is a Guardsman or Reservist.

I have heard in committee that maybe the Guard and Reserve does not deserve this. What could be farther from the truth? There are people who say, Well, we can't afford the money. It is going to be expensive. I am not going to lie about that. When it is fully implemented, it is going to cost $1 billion a year. But I will also remind you that when it is fully implemented, that will amount to one-quarter of 1 percent of the entire DOD budget, one-quarter of 1 percent of the DOD budget so we can tell our Guardsmen, so we can tell our Reservists, and there are really only three types of Guardsmen and Reservists, because I know a bunch of them. There are those that have been to Iraq, there are those that are in Iraq, and there are those that are going to Iraq. That is the only type of Guardsmen and Reservists we have now. That is how much we use them in the force. As a matter of fact, the aviation classification repair unit that is shared in the district of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons) and my own has already been to Iraq and they have been told they are going back.

This is going to become law. It is going to become law. The question is whether the House is going to lead on this or whether we are going to follow, because tomorrow the Senator from South Carolina is going to offer this amendment, and it is going to pass. So

then it goes to conference. One of the arguments that is going to be made is that by this motion to recommit, we are slowing the process down. I would beg to differ. By this motion to recommit, we are stating the House's position that we agree with you, that this is something that is worthwhile to do and we go to conference, we are already in agreement that we are going to provide TRICARE for our Guardsmen and Reservists. I think it is a pretty good idea, but that is just me. But there are a lot of other folks who think this is a good idea.

This motion to recommit has been endorsed by the Military Officers Association of America, by the National Guard Association of America, by the Enlisted Association of the National Guard, a unanimous vote last weekend by the Adjutants General of the 54 States and territories, the Reserve Officers Association, and the Fleet Reserve Association.

Mr. Chairman, we are all going to go to Memorial Day services on Monday. A heck of a lot of people in that crowd are going to be Guardsmen, Reservists and their families. They are going to know how we voted. So you can plan to maybe duck some and hide from some, you can give them some lame excuse that, well, it wasn't what my party wanted, it wasn't what my chairman wanted; or you can look that young person who in the next year might be the father of a child and say, You're a National Guardsman. You're a Reservist. We as a Nation are willing to help you pay for that child.

Who in the next year may have cancer in their family, we are saying, Doggone it, you're serving your country. We're there to help you for that. Or that you have a preexisting condition. We all know how hard it is for someone who has a loved one with a preexisting condition to get insurance. We are telling them we value your service.

On Monday, when you look them in the eye, I hope you will be in a position to say we appreciate your service. You were there for us. And last Wednesday night, I was there for you.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but be moved by what the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) just had to say. It seems with all too much frequency, on a daily basis, either in the local media, the national media, we are learning of young Marines, young National Guardsmen, young members of the Army and Navy who have given their lives in Iraq.

Right now, 40 percent of all the force in Iraq and Afghanistan are Guardsmen or Reservists. That is something that is very different from previous wars. In fact, in the Vietnam War, very few Guardsmen and Reservists were sent over there. In the first Gulf War, there was a substantial call-up. But I do not think at any time in our Nation's recent history have we ever seen so many Guardsmen and Reservists serving. If Members take the time to look at the casualty reports, they will know that not only are 40 percent of the people serving over there Guardsmen and Reservists, but a very high new number of the people who are wounded, a very high number of the people who lose their lives are in the Guard and Reserve.

Last Friday I had the great privilege to visit some Mississippians at Walter Reed. I asked the folks on the floor if I could visit every wounded Mississippian. It might surprise some people to find out of the five soldiers that I was able to visit, every one of them was a Guardsmen or Reservist.

Young William Brooks, a student at Mississippi State University, in a Humvee that ran over a mine, lost both legs. Young Corporal Rice, of Hattiesburg, Mississippi, lost a leg with the Marine Corps Reserve. Specialist Yancy, a reservist in the heating and air conditioning business back home. Young Elliot Smith, who lost a foot with the 115th Mississippi National Guard.

The stories go on. It is not unique to Mississippi. But what is I think a unique burden that is borne by our Guardsmen and Reservists is that unlike their regular counterparts that they serve next to every day, they are not afforded an opportunity to buy into our Nation's health care system.

It is called TRICARE, and it is not free. They do have to pay into the system. They have to pay even more if they want their family covered. But right now, if you are a Guardsman or Reservist, you cannot even buy in. One of the things we found out is that 20 percent of all our Nation's Guardsmen and Reservists do not have health insurance. Twenty percent of our Nation's Guardsmen and Reservists also, coincidentally, were found unfit for duty when they were called up, and it might well be because of this lack of health insurance.

Last week in the House Committee on Armed Services I offered an amendment, along with seven of my Republican colleagues and a number of Democrats, to see to it that TRICARE was extended to every Guardsman and Reservist, not just those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

After a spirited debate and over, by the way the objections of the committee chairman, the ranking member, the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh), by a vote of 32 to 30, the committee decided to extend TRICARE coverage to every single member of our Nation's Guard and Reserve, because we felt like they deserved it.

Sometime between 1 o'clock in the morning when this passed and 6 o'clock Thursday evening, the gentleman from California (Chairman Hunter) informed me right there in the back of the room that there was a budgetary concern about this, that there was some mandatory spending associated with the bill, that the gentleman from Iowa (Chairman Nussle) of the Committee on the Budget was going to raise a point of order.

I would like to remind my colleagues that on 21 occasions already this year, 21 major pieces of legislation came to this floor where they waived every budgetary restraint. Sometimes it was so people like Paris Hilton could inherit tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars without paying any taxes on it. Sometimes it was for things like the prescription drug benefit for seniors, that we were told at the time would cost our Nation $435 billion, but it turns out it is really going to cost $1.2 trillion over the next 10 years. But they waived budgetary rules for that.

The one time they selectively chose to enforce the budgetary rules was over $5 million for a very narrow bracket of National Guardsmen who happen to be Federal employees who are already on FEHBP and who might want to enroll in TRICARE. So the same folks who in the past 4 years have added over $2 trillion to the national debt, giving the wealthiest Americans, the political contributor class of America, enormous

tax breaks, decided that these folks who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, that they do not deserve the opportunity to buy their health care coverage. I think that is wrong.

I went to the Committee on Rules tonight, and as we speak the Committee on Rules is going to vote on this. But I would like to remind the Committee on Rules that since last Thursday, the Reserve Officers Association of the United States, the Military Officer's Association of America, the Adjutants General Association of the United States, which is the Adjutant General of every single State, EANGUS, the National Guard Association, they all have come out in support of this amendment, and I will include their letters of support for the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I am putting the Committee on Rules on notice that it is my intention to offer the motion to recommit should this amendment not be made in order, and that I think it is most appropriate that this amendment that has already passed the House Committee on Armed Services be voted on by every Member of this House.

Reserve Officers

Association of the United States,

Washington, DC, May 24, 2005.

Hon. Gene Taylor,

Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Taylor, I am writing to confirm the

support of the Reserve Officers Association of the important

amendment to the FY 2006 National Defense Authorization Act

that you would like to bring to the House floor.

ROA agrees that TRICARE Reserve Select should be extended

to the drilling population on a cost-share basis.

Mobilization should not be the physical qualification test to

achieve medical readiness, as it puts the cart before the

horse.

The governments own studies have shown that between 20 to

25 percent of our Guardsmen and Reservists are without health

care coverage. Medical readiness is our number one challenge

when Reserve Components are mobilized.

A Reservist is required to meet the same health and

physical fitness standard as is an Active-duty member. Yet

Reservists are the only part-time federal employee not

offered health care coverage.

Better health care benefits will help our recruiting,

readiness and retention efforts. Providing TRICARE health

will help persuade spouses that the Guard and Reserve is a

career and not just a job.

The Reserve Officers Association with its 75 thousand

members thanks you for your support. With the Guard and

Reserves providing 40 percent of the deployed forces, seeking

parity of benefits is a national security issue.

Sincerely,

Robert A. McIntosh,

Major General, USAFR (Retired),

Executive Director.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, the ships we are talking about today are well over 35 years old. If we were to proceed as scheduled, it is still going to take 2 or 3 years to build them. If we delay, we are talking really no telling how long. Quite frankly, the Navy right now is retiring Block I Aegis class cruisers that are less than 20 years old for maintenance problems. If we are going to retire 20-year-old Navy ships, it is only fair that the people who sail side by side with them, the United States Coast Guard, should have their ships replaced as well.

The gentleman from Kentucky has asked some very legitimate questions. I would hope the administration would be forthcoming with the answers to those questions. It is important to know what sort of financial obligations we are undertaking by replacing these vessels. But the bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is we have no choice but to replace these vessels. They are 35 years old, the newest of them. We are sending young people to sea that are half the age of the vessels they sail on. If it was my son, your son, I know we would want better than that.

I encourage you to get the answers that you seek, for the Coast Guard to be forthright with the information that you seek, but at the end of the day it is important that these ships that were built in the 1960s and the early 1970s be replaced as quickly as possible.

Mr. Speaker, not that long ago, my colleague came to the House floor wearing a paper bag on his head because he was ashamed that House Members were spending more money than they had in their accounts down here in the House bank.

I would remind my colleague that since the President's budget of May 9, 2001, our Nation has spent $2.135 trillion that we do not have.

I would also remind my colleagues that buried in this bill, on the very last page of the bill, the second to last paragraph reads: ``If the joint resolution is enacted to raise the debt limit to the level contemplated by this conference agreement, the limit will be increased from $8 trillion 184 billion to $8 trillion 965 billion.'' An increase of $781 billion of new debt.

Now, you have heard a lot of talk about cutting the budget. If we are cutting the budget and cutting the deficit, why does the chairman seek an increase in the debt limit?

I would welcome the chairman to respond to my question because I think it is something that is in the bill and it deserves answering.

Mr. Speaker, I realize that September 11 was a tragic day in America, certainly a wake-up call within the States.

I also remind the Members of this body that in the War of 1812 this building was occupied by a foreign army. So for the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) to say that they could not have foreseen these circumstances taking place, what in the heck is he talking about? This building was occupied and set on fire by a foreign army. And yet the Congress at that time did not try to change the rules so that a minority within a minority could govern.

If we are going to amend the Constitution, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird) is exactly right: someone should offer a constitutional amendment. If we are going to change the law, then someone should offer a change to the law; but let us not through the House rules try to rewrite the Constitution of this Nation.

This Nation has been around for a long time. It is going to be around for a long time, but only if we continue to do things as the Founding Fathers would have wanted us to do them and not some backdoor-approach like this.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, my question to the gentleman concerns the change to the rules that would allow Members to use campaign funds to purchase cell phones. As you know, there is a law that prohibits a Member of Congress from using the resources of their office or their office to solicit campaign funds.

It is my hope that allowing campaign cell phones to be used in a congressional office is not in any way a back-door attempt to allow a Member to use a campaign cell phone from their congressional office or any Federal facility to raise funds to get around this prohibition that currently exists in law.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Just for a clarification, the use of a campaign cell phone in this building?

To solicit campaign funds with a campaign cell phone.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of talk about morality on this House floor and about patriotism.

I want someone to explain to me how it can be moral for a father to stick his kids with his bills. How can it be moral for me to stick my three kids and Charlie Stenholm's beautiful grandson here with $800 billion of new debt? I want to hear how it is patriotic to burden the next generation of Americans with so much debt that they cannot pay for their wars which they will unfortunately have, that they cannot pay for their natural disasters that are going to happen. Please tell me how that is moral or patriotic.

And for God's sake, Mr. Brady, please do not tell me you are paying the bills tonight when you are borrowing $800 billion that you are going to stick your kids with. You are not paying the bill. Your kids are going to pay the bill. And until they pay the bill, we are going to continue to squander $1 billion a day on interest on the national debt.

It gets better, Mr. Brady, because I bet when you got back to Texas you tell them how much you hate foreign aid, and so I am sure you would love to tell the people of Texas that one-third of that billion dollars a day that we spend on interest on the national debt goes to the Communist Chinese, goes to the Japanese, goes to the other countries that now own one-third of our debt. I am sure you are proud of that.

But let me just remind you, Mr. Brady, 3 years ago on this floor, on my son's birthday, you all came down and said you can cut taxes, increase spending, and you were going to pay off the debt. Since that time, you have borrowed $1,786,314,460,700.45. It gets better. Because in that time you have stolen over $600 billion from the Social Security trust fund. Tell me how it is moral for you to steal from the Social Security trust fund, how it is moral to steal from the Medicaid trust fund, how it is moral to steal from the military retirees.

announcement by the speaker pro tempore

Mr. Speaker, probably one of the least known things about the President's budget request over the year is that in June 2001 President Bush presented his defense budget to Congress and in it asked for the authority to conduct a round of base closures in 2003 called the Effective Facilities Initiative.

In September of that year, after the House had refused to act on it, the other body passed by a very small margin the authority for two rounds of base closure. Later, the House conferees worked that down to one round, but in the year 2005. But this May, knowing how close we were coming to it and the fact that our Nation was at war not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, in a much smaller war, but still a war, in Colombia, this body by almost a 100-vote margin voted to delay BRAC for 2 years. There were a lot of good reasons for that.

The President asked for this in June 2001. Our Nation was at peace. We had no troops in Afghanistan or Iraq. We were talking about shrinking the military.

In this bill we are going to vote on shortly, we expand the ranks of the Army by 20,000. We expand the ranks of the Marine Corps by 2,000. Those are both good things.

The President is talking about bringing troops home from Korea and Europe. Where is he going to put them because, by the administration's own admission, they are not talking about closing one base or two bases, they are talking about closing 25 percent of all of the bases in America, not overseas. This base closure commission is about closing bases in America, not Europe or Korea. That is one base out of four.

What further complicates this and what I found interesting is, when I expressed my opposition to this and when I asked the different service secretaries who have come before the House Committee on Armed Services, who tell us repeatedly we have 25 percent overcapacity, name one base you would like to see closed, the Secretary of the Army would not name one base; the Secretary of the Navy could not name one base; the Secretary of the Air Force could not name one base. They cannot name one, yet they keep insisting that they want to close one base out of four.

Mr. Speaker, what happens when a base is closed? Number one, we lose that capability that the taxpayers have paid for forever. America is not getting less populated, it is more populated. It is not less crowded, it is more crowded. When you lose that land, you lose the ability to train there. Every single weapon we have requires more of a stand-off in order to train, not less. Things that used to shoot for yards now shoot for miles. Things that used to shoot for miles now shoot across a continent. We need more land to train. We are talking about bringing troops home, and yet they want to shut down bases.

And there are other unintended consequences. Half of our military retirees, those people who have given our Nation 20 years of their blood, sweat and tears, 20 years away from their families, over half of our Nation's military retirees intentionally chose to retire near a military facility so they could use the base hospital, because they were promised use of that base hospital for the rest of their lives.

They intentionally retired near a commissary because they were promised the use of the commissary for the rest of their life. You know what? They spent 20 years away from their families, being called chief or sergeant or colonel or captain, and they like going back to the base and being called chief or sergeant, colonel or captain.

When you close the base, you close the commissary. When you close the base, much more importantly, you close the base hospital. You have broken the promise of lifetime health care for these military retirees.

So why, when we are at war in Afghanistan, when we are in a war in Iraq? I happen to, unfortunately, have been on the same flight with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) when those two young GI's came home in a coffin from Iraq. Why, when we are asking young Americans to enlist to serve because we want to give them good things?

This body is given the constitutional authority to provide for an Army or a Navy, turn around and give that authority to some handpicked bureaucrats who have already been told, close one base out of four.

In particular, to my friends from Florida, I come from hurricane country. I know what it is like to see houses destroyed. I know what it is like to go to funerals of people who have died in hurricanes. We got lucky this time in Mississippi. You did not. You have had four hurricanes this year.

Why would the President of the United States as Commander in Chief tell the people of Florida he is going to go there and close one base out of four knowing that their economy has already been devastated. Why would he tell his military retirees, who intentionally bought houses in Florida so they could use the hospital, so they could use the commissary: We are sorry. We are going to close the base. We are going to close the hospital. We will close the commissary. You are out of luck.

In a little while, I will offer a motion to defeat the previous question, and it will be very sweet and simple. It will instruct the clerk to put back the language that passed this House by very close to 100 votes, including the vote by the chairman of this committee, that says we are going to delay BRAC. If we are growing the force, which we are, if we are bringing troops home from Europe, if we are bringing them home from Asia, we will need a place to put them. Let us not close bases now and not have a place for them.

Mr. Speaker, there are so many reasons to be against BRAC. The biggest of all is the false notion that it saves the taxpayers money. They predicted great savings. Let me tell you what they did. They shut down bases, and threw Americans out of work. They deprived military retirees of their basic health care. They deprived them of their commissary. But, most importantly of all, we did not sell the bases; we gave them away. Before we gave away bases, this Nation spent $13 billion, with a B, $13 billion cleaning up facilities just to give them away. And then you never get them back.

Go to Cecil Field in Florida. Right now, our Nation is spending tens of millions of dollars buying land in North Carolina. Why? So we can build a runway. What do we need a runway for? For the F-18s to land when they come off the ships. Why did we not send them to another base? Well, we had another base. It was called Cecil Field. It had three 8,000-foot runways. It had a fourth 10,000-foot runway. It had a hospital. It had a commissary. It had places for the troops to live. It had places for the family to live. It had mess halls. It had all the things that a base is supposed to have, but a previous round of BRAC shut it down. So when the F-18s need a place to land when they come off the carriers, we have got to go buy land to make up for what was already given away.

It is very rare in this body where we get a chance to prevent a long- term mistake. Another round of base closures is a long-term mistake. I am giving you the opportunity to do the right thing for your country. In a few minutes, I will offer that.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by complimenting my chairman on the very genteel way he is handling this. He has done a good job with the bill, with one glaring exception. And some mistakes are so bad that they cannot be retrieved, and we need to retrieve this now while we have a chance.

Mr. Speaker, I will be calling for a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to instruct the enrolling clerk to amend the conference report to reinsert language that was in the House-passed bill that would postpone the 2005 round of base closures and realignments until 2007.

As we know, this legislation was included in the original version of the defense authorization bill that passed in this House in May. However, it, like several other provisions, mysteriously disappeared when the bill was in conference.

Mr. Speaker, this is just one of many examples where good legislation and amendments that passed this House just seemed to vaporize behind closed doors. That is a bad way to do business. Tonight, we have a chance to stop that.

Let us do the right thing today. Let us reinsert the provision that passed by very close to 100 votes right now. I think the Members of this House must decide for themselves whether or not they want another round of base closures. As I have said before, when given the opportunity, the service secretaries could not name and would not name one single installation they want closed. Read the Constitution, article I, section 8 says that Congress shall provide for an Army and a Navy. Not the bureaucrats. We decide.

We are going to leave here and go beg for the opportunity to represent a sliver of America. We are going to beg for the opportunity to fulfill congressional obligations. How many of you are going to go out there and say, Please elect me congressman so I can let some bureaucrat make the tough decisions for me. I am not. I want to do my job. I do not trust bureaucrats with my job. I will not vote to allow a group of bureaucrats to shut down bases at a time when we are at war and we are getting ready to bring troops home and we are growing the Army and we are growing the Marines. This does not make sense.

So let me make it perfectly clear. A ``no'' vote on the previous question will not, will not stop consideration of this conference report. A ``no'' vote will allow the House to vote to reinsert the provision that passed this House by almost a 100-vote margin. However, a ``yes'' vote on the previous question will prevent the House from delaying the closing of one base out of every four in America, one base out of every four. I urge a ``no'' vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of this amendment be printed in the Record immediately before the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Later on this week there will be a debate between the two candidates for President. I distinctly remember the incumbent telling me a little over 3\1/2\ years ago that he could increase spending, decrease taxes and pay down the national debt.

Having watched this body for decades have huge annual operating deficits, I did not think it could work. It just did not make sense. It took fiscal restraints, it took some tax increases that I voted against, but it took both of those things to balance the budget. And here he was coming in saying, I am going to spend more, I am collecting less, and I am going to balance the budget.

So on the night of my son's 13 birthday, they passed the President's budget. At that time our Nation was $5,643,283,000,000 in debt and owed over $1 trillion to the Social Security trust fund, and yet he said what we needed to do was spend more and collect less.

In slightly over 3 years the national debt has increased by $1,735,784,685,911. To put that into context, if you went all the way from the American Revolution, the cost of the American Revolution, the cost of the War of 1812, the cost of the Mexican American War, the Civil War, Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, Korea and Vietnam, all the things that happened in those years, all the way up to 1979, our Nation borrowed $1 trillion. In a little over 3 years, our Nation has borrowed $1.7 trillion. Where did it come from?

The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) has done a great job of talking about we borrowed it from the Communist Chinese. By the way, if you are concerned about Taiwan's independence, imagine a scenario where the Chinese are getting ready to invade Taiwan and say, By the way, if you defend Taiwan, we are calling in the note for $160 billion you owe us, plus the note for the other $50 billion you owe to Hong Kong, since we now own them also. So we are calling in the note for over $200 billion if you defend Taiwan. I have got to tell you, I do think that is part of their strategy. I have said that here on the House floor. If you think big deficits are a good idea, then you like borrowing money from the Communist Chinese.

But worse than that, every single American who has a job, from a kid who is working at a snowball stand to Bill Gates, everybody pays at least on

their first $68,000 of income on their Social Security. There was a solemn promise made back during the Reagan Presidency when those taxes were increased that that money would be set aside for no other purpose than paying Social Security benefits.

Right now, our Nation owes the Social Security trust fund $1.6 trillion with no plan to pay it back. The past 3 years, they have stolen an additional $521 billion from the Social Security trust fund.

So if you watch the debates Thursday night, and I hope some television commentator somewhere is watching this, how about a great question: How do you plan to pay back the $1.6 trillion that has been stolen from the Social Security trust fund, including the $521 billion that has been stolen in just over the past 3 years? Because if you do not have a plan to pay it back, then you stole it.

So in order to get about $600 billion in tax breaks, $521 billion stolen from the Social Security trust fund, the rest is borrowed from the Communist Chinese. A heck of a deal.

As a matter of fact, if you take a look at it, for every dollar the American people got back in tax breaks, our Nation has borrowed three. That is a heck of a sound business decision.

So if you have watched the House floor in the past couple of weeks, you know that we have had votes on things like gay marriage, which I opposed. We have had votes on things like burning the flag, which I oppose. We have had a lot of talk of morals; we have had a lot of talk of patriotism.

So let me pose to my Republican friends who vote for most of these things, a moral question: Is it moral for you to spend money that you are going to stick your kids with the bill? What moral father, what moral mother would go out and buy a house or a fancy car and say, I don't care what it costs, because my kids are going to pay for it.

What moral grandparent would go out and buy something and say, I don't care what it costs. My grandkids are going to pay for it.

Right. Talk about patriotism. What patriot would bankrupt the country he loves? That is exactly what has been going on for the last 3 years.

We hear talk about sound economic principles. Really? What is so sound about borrowing $3 for every $1 the citizens got back in tax breaks? New York loan sharks do not charge that kind of interest. Yet it is what we continue to pay.

So I think the questions that I would hope the press will be asking Thursday night are how did we get into this jam and what is your plan, both of you candidates, for getting us out it?

What is my plan? Number one, I think we need a constitutional amendment to protect the trust funds. We have a solemn promise. If we take money out of a person's paycheck and say it is going towards Social Security, then it should go towards nothing but Social Security. If we take money out of a person's paycheck to pay for Medicare, then it should go towards nothing but Medicare. It is pretty simple. If we tell a Federal employee we are going to take money out of their paycheck and set it aside for their retirement, then we ought to do just that.

But what you do not know and probably do not want to hear is that as of this moment this Nation owes you, every Social Security recipient, a total of $1.6 trillion has been taken out of your trust fund. For those of you who paid into Medicare, and every working American has, we owe you $270 billion. If you are a Federal employee, we owe you $622 billion in your retirement fund.

By the way, if a private sector employer had done that, if a private sector employer had dug into his employees' retirement fund for any reason, no matter how good, whether it was to help a crippled child, whether it was to help someone go to college, whether it was to pay a disaster loan, if they borrowed into it for any reason, they would go to jail. Yet the people who run our country continue to do that with absolutely no remorse for what they have done, and, sadder still, with absolutely no plan for paying it back.

So I say to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), I do appreciate the opportunity to be here tonight.

For you House employees, I hate keeping you here tonight. There is one week left in this session. I promise not to do this to you on a regular basis. I think these are things the American public needs to know about. I think this is the time to talk about it.

Mr. Speaker, it is funny how people change. There was a guy who was a Representative from Illinois and he believed in a balanced budget. His name is Dennis Hastert. Back when he was just Member Hastert, he gave great speeches on the House floor about the importance of a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. So whether the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner) is here, whether the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) is here, whether I am here, whether the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham) is here, no matter who is here, the rules are that Congress cannot spend more than they collect in taxes.

The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) he came to the floor back then and said, Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of a Balanced Budget Amendment. ``It is an amazing statistic that interest payments on our national debt were 5 times higher in 1993,'' we are going back a ways, ``than outlays for all education, job training, and employment programs combined. Clearly, until our monstrous'' then ``$4.3 trillion Federal deficit is eliminated, interest payments will continue to eat away at the important initiatives which the government funds. I will not stand by and watch Congress recklessly squander the future of our children and grandchildren. Mr. Chairman, when I served in the Illinois legislature, the fact that we had a balanced budget amendment to our State Constitution enabled us to practice strong fiscal discipline. We must have the same safeguard at the Federal level. The American people have wanted a Balanced Budget Amendment for a long time because they know it is the only way to force Congress to make the tough spending choices.''

That comes out of the Congressional Record March 17, 1994. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) became Speaker in January of 1999, almost 5 years ago. In the 5 years that he has been Speaker, he has not allowed a single vote on a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. We have had a number of votes on amending the American Constitution on things that I voted for, things like preventing gay marriage, things like preventing flag desecration, but not a single vote on what I consider to be the most important issue in America right now, and that is passing a law that whether or not the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), or the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), or the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), or myself, the Speaker, or no matter who sits in our chairs, those people who serve the public will spend no more than they collect in taxes.

I say to the Speaker of the House, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), we have about 1 week left in this session. I, for one, would like the opportunity to vote on a Balanced Budget amendment. You have blocked it for 5 years now. One of the reasons I will never vote for you for Speaker is because what you said as a Member did not translate into what you did as Speaker of the House.

I believe it is important. Almost every State has laws that say, you cannot spend more than you collect in taxes. In my State of Mississippi, city councilmen and county supervisors are held personally liable if they spend more than they collect in taxes. And guess what? They do not spend more than they collect in taxes. We need that sort of responsibility here.

So I say to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), thank you for pointing out the evils of the debt. We have outlined some solutions tonight. We are hoping guys like the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) or whoever the next Speaker is will give us a vote on that. And I am ready to do that, I say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), and I hope he is ready to do that. But at the very least, let us have a vote on it. Let us show the American people who is for a Balanced Budget Amendment and who is not. Quit hiding behind the Speaker of the House who, for 5 years now, has blocked that vote, even though he came to this floor on any number of occasions and said how important it was for our Nation to have that.

Mr. Speaker, just along the lines of the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Tanner), and I am really reminded of it when I see a great American hero sitting across the aisle from us, someone who fought for his country in Vietnam, was an ace, probably has some different views than what we do. But I will say this: I greatly respect the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham), and I greatly respect everyone who has ever served our country. I have enormous respect for all of those fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan tonight.

But I will say this. Those of us who are fortunate enough not to have to fight these wars, ought to at the very least be willing to pay for them right now and not stick those young soldiers and their children with the bill for this war.

That is what is going on. We are just kicking the can. We are asking the kids to fight for us now, and, by the way, when you get home, here is the bill. And if you cannot pay for it, your children and your children's children will pay for it.

Almost every tax on the books, as regrettable as taxes are, almost every tax on the books was put on during wartime. Never in the American history has there been a tax break during a war, never, because every other generation says, we have a challenge we are going to pay for.

This generation needs to step forward as other generations did. And those of us who are fortunate enough not to fight this war ought to at least be willing to pay for it right now.