Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, in voting against the conference report on H.R. 3108, the Pension Funding Equity Act of 2003, I want to be clear that I voted for the original House version of the bill. When we considered this bill in the House of Representatives, it simply contained a replacement rate for the defunct 30-year Treasury rate used for calculating pension liabilities. Using a rate based on a blend of high-quality corporate bonds, companies with pension plans are expected to realize about $80 billion in appropriate funding relief.

When the other Chamber produced its version of the bill, however, the merits of the

House bill were more than offset by special interest favors for a few airline and steel companies. This version would give automatic waivers to airlines by law, but the relief would only benefit a few companies in these industries. The companies that would not benefit would then be at a competitive disadvantage. Such legislation puts Congress in the position of picking winners and losers.

I was joined by some of my colleagues in communicating to the House leadership and the conferees our concern over the direction the pension legislation was headed. We urged that, at the very least, companies that would benefit by the special provisions should be subject to an application and review process before being approved for relief. We also suggested that if any relief was granted, then it should be reduced in order to leave taxpayers less exposed.

What came out of conference, however, was even worse. The few companies who will benefit from the special provisions included in the legislation will be allowed to forego more of the payments to their pension plans than had been proposed prior to the conference.

These narrow waivers are expected to amount to about $1.6 billion in relief for these few companies. If this measure is necessary to keep these companies going, they must be dangerously close to failure as it is. Forgiving their deficit reduction contributions may only grow the size of their liabilities and delay inevitable failure. I am concerned that there we may be setting taxpayers up for a bailout like that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980s.

I am aware of the need for a replacement for the 30-year Treasury rate, and I support such a replacement. I understand that the broader business community supports this legislation. But I cannot support this conference report because of the special interest provisions included in it. While providing short-term relief for a few companies, this legislation may result in a taxpayer bailout that will hurt all taxpayers and result in much more long-term damage.

Mr. Speaker, as we debate the transportation reauthorization bill today, I think we need to abide by one simple principle: solutions for transportation safety, congestion, and pollution and transit should not be determined by which Members face difficult campaigns or which Members sit on influential committees. These kinds of determinations are being made in H.R. 3550 unless we make some changes to it.

This approach to funding is inconsistent, especially with the stated objectives of the bill, and it results in inequitable distribution of funding between the States.

As we debate the reauthorization, we need to consider solutions that give States discretion and flexibility in the use of funding, financed by their own citizens and highway users.

I have an amendment before the House today that would neither strike nor prevent Members from securing earmarks for their district. What it would do, however, is prevent those States that benefit disproportionately from earmarks from drawing funding away from States that, in spite of a few earmarks, end up faring much worse.

I urge support for this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, growing up in a family of 11 kids, 10 brothers and sisters, I learned the economic principle of scarcity pretty early. We always had enough food, meat and potatoes, to go around but there was rarely enough dessert. Every Sunday, no matter how large the family got, we had one half gallon of ice cream to split amongst us. One particular Sunday, as the ice cream was being scooped by one brother, we always had at least two monitors to make sure each portion was equal, I noticed that my brother made the scoops, the monitors were distracted for a minute, and he carefully slid the half gallon that was supposed to be empty under the kitchen sink. I rushed over there and found that he had left about a quarter of the carton full and he was going to retrieve it later.

I have discovered that things like that happen all the time around here in Congress, in one area in particular, the highway bill, where, instead of leaving a portion at the bottom not to be distributed equally, it is taken right off

the top. The process is called earmarking. It is a process that is getting worse and worse and worse around here.

In 1982, there were a total of 10 earmarks in the highway authorization bill. In 1987, President Reagan vetoed the bill because there were 152 earmarks, something he thought was way out of line. Six years later, there were 500 earmarks in the bill; six years later, 1,800; and now we are up to, I think, just north of 3,000 earmarks in the bill and climbing. What that means is that portions are taken off the top and not distributed to the other States, like Arizona, like Georgia, like Florida, like Texas, like California. For years, we have been shorted from what we ought to receive in the formula.

Let me just give an example. I should say that this is just in the authorization process. We have not even gotten to appropriations this year. There will likely be hundreds, perhaps more than a thousand more transportation earmarks in the appropriation bill. Last year, for example, in the omnibus bill that was passed in December, there were over 600 earmarks relating to transportation, a total of $1.4 billion. That is $1.4 billion that comes off the top, that is not distributed by formula to the States, one of those States being Arizona. Mr. Chairman, we cannot continue to do business like this. We cannot.

My amendment is simple. It simply says that the amount the States received in high-priority programs would be subtracted from their formula totals of the surface transportation program. This prevents the minimum guarantee program from backfilling what comes out. What it does essentially is says that if you want an earmark, that is fine, but that earmark should come out of your own State's formula, not everyone else's.

I am not saying at all that nobody ought to get earmarks. A lot of people complain legitimately that some governors or some State officials do not fund what they ought to fund, that they ignore Republican districts, they ignore Democrat districts and do not spread the money equally around.

This is not saying that Members cannot get earmarks. All it is saying is that you ought to discuss that among your own delegation from your State and decide, do we want to put money here or there or should we give the State more flexibility to spend money on its priorities. That, in essence, is the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, who has the right to close?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

I respect the chairman and the ranking member. I would simply say that we are not potted plants here; and as a Member who is not a potted plant, I know when my State is not being dealt with fairly. My State, the State of Florida, the State of Texas, the State of California, many other donor States are not being dealt with fairly.

I am not saying that no Member should be able to earmark, and so this notion that Members cannot designate projects is not what I am saying. I am simply saying, if you do, then take that out of your own State's formula. Do not take it from other States. If you have the right to earmark, you should not have the right to earmark funds for Arizona to be spent elsewhere.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I come to speak about a very disturbing trend that we have here in Congress that both parties are guilty of perpetuating.

In 1982, in the Surface Transportation Assistance Act, when it was

passed, there were just 10 earmarks with a total value of $385 million. In 1987, the bill contained 157 earmarks; and it grew to $1.4 billion. In 1991, there were 538 earmarks at a cost of $6 billion; in 1998, 1,800 earmarks at a cost of $9 billion. This year, there are 2,300 earmarks in the transportation bill that we will be discussing this week.

When that happens, when there are earmarks, it takes away from the high-priority projects that the States have identified and instead puts money toward low-priority projects that are identified by a specific Member of Congress. That is simply wrong to take money from Arizona or California or Texas from that formula to fund an earmark in West Virginia or Alaska or Minnesota or elsewhere. We need to change this process now, and I urge adoption of an amendment which will do that.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for putting together such a great budget. I also thank the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle) for working so hard to keep spending under control on the nondefense discretionary side.

The talk about what is a cut and what is not is intriguing. I think my kids if they knew how much a cut meant in terms of extra income, they would ask for a cut in their allowance every day. If we look over the last decade and what the Democrats are calling a cut, we have actually increased spending five- and sixfold at times.

So it is not a cut at all. But I just appreciate this budget, the RSC budget, because we are actually doing what we said we would do when we came to Washington. When we came to Washington, we said that we were going to restrain the growth of spending. This budget actually does that. The Democrat budget, the Democrat alternatives, every one of them does not do that. They actually increase spending and increase taxes. So if we really want to restrain growth in government, we have got to actually see some reductions. That is what the RSC budget does. I appreciate the gentleman for bringing it forward. I encourage all of my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, when the savings and loan industry was in the depths of its problems in the 1980s, Congress created a statutory requirement for deficit reduction contributions to be made where these pensions were underfunded. This was renewed in 1987 and actually made more stringent.

Recently, the House has considered H.R. 3108. In fact, it is in conference with the Senate at this time; and there are rumors by the Senate to actually grant waivers for these employment contributions to a couple of airlines and a couple of steel companies. To me, the only thing worse than a bailout of an industry is a bailout of certain segments or certain companies within an industry, and that is exactly what the Senate version of the bill purports to do.

We should not be going this direction. The taxpayers will be put at risk here just like they were with the savings and loan industry, and we should have no part of it; nor should we have any part of actually having government pick winners and losers in the economy, saying that you are favored but you are not. That is far worse than actually bailing out an entire industry.

I urge the House conferees to reject the Senate version and for all conferees to accede to the House version of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I appreciate the chairman of the Committee on Resources for bringing this forward. I had the good fortune to travel to the Marshall Islands a couple of months ago on the CODEL with the Secretary of the Interior and some of my colleagues. We were able to meet with President Note and the elected leaders of many of the surrounding atolls. It was our good fortune to go to Kwajalein, to be able to watch what we are doing there at the Ronald Reagan test site, to see how important our relationship is with the Marshall Islands.

The U.S. nuclear testing program put the people of these remote islands in the front line of the Cold War. For many, many years testing went on. From 1946 to 1958, the U.S. detonated 67 atmospheric nuclear weapons in the Marshall Islands. Most Americans have no idea the contribution that the people of the Marshall Islands have made to our peace and our security. Hopefully, this resolution will go some distance in expressing our gratitude and our appreciation for that relationship. We have an obligation to the people of the atolls that were affected by these tests that we are still carrying through. I was pleased to support the Compact of Free Association, or the extension of it. This is a good start. It represents a good foundation for a continued strong relationship. We ought to appreciate strongly the Marshall Islands for their support for our position in the United Nations. No nation on this Earth, I think, supports us more, more frequently and is with us more than the Republic of the Marshall Islands. For that we should be grateful.

Mr. Speaker, I urge support of this resolution, and I am glad to speak on this topic.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this resolution. I was fortunate to go to Iraq with a couple of my colleagues, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence), the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), and the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Davis) just a few weeks ago, and was able to see firsthand what is going on.

I think there is consensus that Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator and he committed horrific crimes. But the question is whether we are right in ending this regime. I say emphatically I think the Iraqi people back this up, and we did the right thing there. There is still a very difficult security situation there, and the bombings which happened today underlie that.

But what are we to expect? When Saddam Hussein and his followers fled, coalition forces and ordinary Iraqis had to start from scratch to defend the place.

We had a taste of what went on over the past decade in particular. We went to several palaces built during the Oil-For-Food Program. We were told over 70 palaces were built during the 1990s when Saddam Hussein was supposed to use all of the revenue from oil to pay for food and medicines. Seventy palaces, with an estimated cost of over $2 billion, were built while Saddam Hussein's people starved.

We also went into the basement of one of these palaces and saw Uday Hussein's stash of personal belongings: booze, cigars, swords, guns, paintings, all kinds of things, while the people went without medicine. Saddam Hussein and his shallow circle of loyalists were able in part to control Iraqis by depriving them.

We were the first CODEL able to go to the south in Basra, and we were able to see what those people had during that time, particularly the last decade. A lot of them simply were killed by neglect. No money was put into the south. The buildings are falling down, the infrastructure is horrible, and the

people were literally killed. We discovered remains of about 400,000 Iraqis. Over a million are believed to have been killed during that time.

Mr. Speaker, the question here is did we do the right thing. I can tell Members the Iraqi people know we did the right thing. Are we safer today because Saddam Hussein is gone? Yes, emphatically. People all over the world are safer because that madman is gone. I urge support of the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be here, and I appreciate my colleague including me in this Special Order. It was a wonderful trip and a great experience and what a momentous time to be in Iraq, to be there as they were drafting their interim Constitution.

I have had the good fortune over the years of being in two countries when they have been drafting a constitution. I spent time in southern Africa in the country of Namibia in 1990 when they were sitting down after their first elections and drafting their first Constitution; and I was able to see that process firsthand, to see a country draft its first constitution and actually look to the future with hope and optimism. It was a similar experience here, if the gentleman will recall. In Baghdad we were meeting with Ambassador Bremer, and on the coffee table was a copy of the interim constitution that they would approve later that night, with a scratch-out here, a circle here, a white-out here; and it was just amazing to see that. It was appreciated, I think, on a number of levels.

As the gentleman mentioned, we were able to go to Basra, and one thing that strikes you when you go to Basra is the utter neglect that the southern half of Iraq has faced over the years. Saddam Hussein, after the first Gulf War, simply repressed the people in every way possible. The infrastructure of southern Iraq was completely neglected. The streets, the buildings falling apart, because he wanted to punish the people there. And the worst part, obviously, were the killings, mass graves, over 400,000 people already discovered; and it is feared that over a million were killed over the last couple of years by Saddam Hussein. That was striking.

But like the gentleman from Indiana, I felt the optimism of the Iraqi people, particularly in the south, who had undergone a lot over the last couple of years and finally could see forward to a bright future. And that feeling was certainly palpable there as we met with business people and with students and with clerics and others. It was a great opportunity. It is difficult when you are in the north to actually meet with regular Iraqis, because the security situation is so tight; but we had the opportunity in southern Iraq.

With that, I yield back to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, we were told that Saddam Hussein had built some 70 palaces just in the last 10 years during the time of the sanctions for food program, or the oil for food program, where every drop of oil revenue was supposed to be spent for the benefit of the Iraqi people, for food or for medicine. Instead, Saddam Hussein spent an estimated $2 billion building palaces for himself and the people of Iraq surely suffered during that time.

Mr. Speaker, that was an extraordinary meeting, to see, as we were able to do, to talk with the clerics who were repressed so much over the past couple of years. The gentleman had a previous slide there when we were in the C-130 with the troops, and it reminded me of perhaps the most special time in Iraq was being able to meet with the troops at Tallil Air Base. We were able to go to the mess hall, and I was looking for any Arizonans who might be present. It turned out there were a number of them. In fact, I ran into a cousin of mine from my hometown that I did not know was there, and another one from my hometown, and pretty soon there were a dozen or so. The 222nd National Guard unit out of Flagstaff was there and

doing a great job. They had been there about 11 months and obviously were anxious to get home and see their families.

But what struck me was how they felt that they were there for a cause, and that morale was high, despite what some will tell us. It was a very difficult post for them to be in, obviously, very difficult and dangerous circumstances. But they were proud to do it, and they were proud to serve and anxious to see their families and be reunited once again. There were a lot of highlights on the trip and that was certainly one, to meet with the troops. And then we went to Baghdad and were able to meet with other troops from Arizona as well. Arizona is well represented in Iraq, and they are doing a great job; and I was just proud to be associated with them. I yield back.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) for yielding.

Another highlight of the trip, obviously, was meeting, and I believe there is a slide coming up, meeting with some of the former prisoners of war. It was just striking to talk to them and to hear about the repression that they had experienced and to hear about the work they are currently doing to try to reunite family members with others that they have not seen or at least to find the remains of family members who have been missing for so long. A difficult task for them, obviously. But these people have been through a whole lot.

For those who I heard make references earlier today to we went to Iraq, for what, because Saddam had drained the marshes or drained the swamps in Iraq, the reference to Saddam Hussein draining the area where the Marsh Arabs lived and what an ecological and societal disaster that has become, as actual as that is, it pales in comparison to the human lives that were lost: over a million killed, some gassed, weapons of mass destruction used against the Kurds, mass graves found, people buried alive. The stories go on and on and on. It was just trying to hear that.

My colleague has some experience with that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. We often hear about the carnage and bloodshed since the war unofficially ended. The day after we left, there were over 200 killed in a series of bombings in mosques. Just today some 30 people were killed. So those things draw the most attention, as they should, and it is a terrible thing to happen. And our troops, we have lost a number of them. We continue to lose them. It is a very dangerous situation there.

But often overlooked are the positive and good things that are happening. I think that that is one thing that we brought back from our trip. One thing that was pointed out to us is the day, our first day there, the day prior they had set a record for oil output for a day since the war that the oil production is coming back. This is with equipment, obviously, that was neglected and abused during the past decade and is rendered almost unusable; and still, with our engineers and others, they have been able to go in and actually produce record oil output for a day.

Also, electricity we were told that we were actually producing more electricity in Iraq than was being produced not during the war but before the war. So things are happening.

It is much to the credit of our engineers and our individuals who are going over from this country doing contract work and USAID and other groups who are actually doing some very good things for the Iraqi people.

Education, I know that my colleague will want to talk about some of the education work going on, our democracy programs and whatnot. So I will yield for that.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for allowing me to participate. I will say a few words and yield back to my colleague to close.

The thing that struck me after all the experiences we had in Iraq, our last picture there in Baghdad we climbed on the C-130 to fly back to Kuwait and we waited outside of our plane while the ceremony was held where the body of an Estonian soldier who was killed the day before who, I believe, was trying to detonate an explosive on the street and was killed by a sniper as he was there, was placed on our plane. And we flew out with the body of that young soldier in the belly of our plane.

And it was quite a surreal experience to fly over Iraq, to fly over ancient Babylon, the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, the cradle of civilization with the casualty of the latest conflict in our plane.

But it really made me think and ponder back about our time with the Iraqi people and about the experiences that we had where the yearning for freedom is strong; it is in the soul of every man and woman. And as our President has said, freedom is not a gift to the world; it is God's gift to mankind. It is something that is felt by everyone and certainly expressed in the gratitude that was expressed by people touching their heart when they would talk to us, that our country was able in some small way to bring that gift back to them to have them experience that God-given gift of freedom. It was a wonderful experience.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be here. I thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence) for allowing me to participate in this colloquy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to two local associations in my home State of Arizona: the Arizona chapter of the Associated General Contractors and the Arizona Rock Products Association.

Sunshine Acres Children Home, in my home district of Mesa, Arizona, was in desperate need of paved roads and paved emergency roads. These are required and mandated by the city of Mesa. The Associated General Contractors and the Arizona Rock Products Association were able to join forces and donate their expertise, materials,

equipment, and manpower to build these required road improvements, which otherwise the children's home could not afford.

Sunshine Acres Children's Home is often referred to as the Miracle in the Desert. It is a home for children who are separated from their parents who are either unwilling or unable to care for them. For 50 years, Sunshine Acres has survived primarily on private donations. The home does not receive any aid from the Federal, State, or local governments.

I had the distinct honor and privilege of visiting Sunshine Acres this last Christmas. My wife and family toured the campus, met the children and their house parents, and then served Christmas dinner to all the residents. It was a visit I will not soon forget.

Today, the residents of Sunshine Acres are enjoying smooth paved roads, perfect for riding their bicycles, roller blading and playing basketball, all thanks to the generosity and hard work of the Associated General Contractors and Arizona Rock Products Association. These groups deserve recognition and credit for what they have done.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment to H.R. 3752. My amendment holds current funding for commercial space activities within FAA for the next 3 years. Current language of the bill authorizes such sums as necessary for the next 3 years. My amendment specifies $11.8 million authorization level each year for the next 3 years. This is the same level appropriated for 2004.

I believe that by holding funding at current levels Congress will be able to monitor space tourism and other commercial space activities. If demand for these activities does in fact rise over the next couple of years, Congress will be able to revisit the issue as needed.

In a time of large deficits this amendment will show that Congress is getting serious about holding the line on nondefense, nonhomeland security spending.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

I thank the Chairman.

Offered By: Mr. Flake

Amendment No. 2: In section 3(c)(22), in each of the

proposed paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), strike ``such sums as

may be necessary'' and insert ``$11,776,000''.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, what the Flake amendment does, and I listened to the discussion about the merits of the bill, and I am compelled that we do need to do this. This is a good bill. We need to give NASA the flexibility they need to hire good people and retain them. I am not questioning the merits of the bill at all. I am simply saying in this era of big deficits and the spending problem that we have in Congress, we ought to ensure that any new authorization is met with some spending restraint on the other side and we pay for the money we are spending here.

The Flake amendment would require NASA to submit to Congress a plan to offset new spending authorized under this legislation with budget reductions elsewhere in the NASA budget. The Flake amendment gives NASA the flexibility to choose which budget request to target for reduction. We are not telling them how to do it; we are simply saying please match this funding with similar reductions.

The report that NASA must give when they get this money must demonstrate that spending requests for provisions authorized under this legislation are matched with corresponding budget cuts in other specific budget items. Adoption of the Flake amendment gives Congress the opportunity to ensure that new spending authorization for must-have workplace flexibility is met with spending restraints.

The CBO estimates that S. 610 will cost $80 million over the 2004- 2008 period. There has been no indication that the new authorized spending will be prioritized against the spending accounts. While the workforce flexibility afforded to NASA under S. 610 is positive and market-oriented, NASA should identify areas of spending that can be reduced to offset new costs.

In November, Congress passed a $400 billion Medicare bill. The Senate passed the final omnibus package which totaled over $370 billion in spending. That has been signed into law. Two days ago, the CBO announced that we have a $477 billion projected deficit. If you include draws on the trust fund, that brings it all of the way up to just under $700 billion for the coming year. It is time to exercise some fiscal restraint. That is what the Flake amendment is designed to do.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I think it is not unreasonable to ask to go back to the Senate. I think Members agree this flexibility is needed. It is market-oriented. We need to make sure that NASA retains and hires good people.

Many of my colleagues that I have spoken to in the last day on this subject have indicated that they were informed this would not cost anything, this would be totally from NASA's own budget. Yet the CBO estimates that it will cost $80 billion over the next 4 years. If that is the case that it draws only on NASA's budget, if it is the case that it does not cost anything, I would submit that there is no problem here, that it does not increase spending.

So all our amendment says is to the degree it does, if it is going to increase spending and if we are going to have to authorize new spending, it should be matched with spending reductions elsewhere in the budget.

The NASA budget for personnel is $2 billion a year. I do not believe it is unreasonable to ask for those kinds of spending reductions.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman that the personnel costs for NASA are $2 billion per year, with a ``B.'' The costs that CBO projects for this are $80 million.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the sponsor of the bill. There seems to be some confusion as to whether or not this is new authorization for additional spending over and above NASA's personnel costs which have already been approved.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Let me rephrase the question. If NASA takes advantage of the new flexibility given them to the fullest extent, will it have an additional draw on the Treasury or will it be totally within NASA's existing budget?

So the CBO estimates of the cost are simply within NASA's own budget?

With that explanation, I will withdraw the amendment assuming that we are on the same page.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I was regrettably absent from the Chamber today during rollcall votes 2, 3, 4, and 5. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on rollcall 2, ``yea'' on rollcall 3, ``yea'' on rollcall 4, and ``yea'' on rollcall 5.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the omnibus bill that we will be passing later today, and I rise with great reluctance to criticize the bill. This Republican Congress has increased the number of earmarks in bills by about four-fold in just the past couple of years. This is no way to do business.

We speak a great deal and at great length in this House about rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse in the Federal agencies in the way we spend money with the Federal Government. I would suggest that we look no further than the earmarks that we propose in this bill and other spending bills to root out waste, fraud, and abuse.

Most of these earmarks simply benefit one Member, one project. It is typically referred to as pork-barrel spending. We as Republicans have decried this practice for years, and now we seem to have embraced it.

Mr. Speaker, I think we need to turn a different direction and realize that if we want fiscal restraint, if we want to return to balanced budgets, then we have to do something about this kind of spending.