Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution.

I will be frank to say that I think the time lines are too tight, the details are too sketchy; but I recognize this resolution for what it is. It is not a general order or master plan for the redeployment of our troops in Iraq. This is simply a way to frame the debate with the President over how we can most effectively reduce and redeploy the 170,000 troops now on duty in Iraq. We are, after all, in the 5th year of this war.

So far, 3,611 Americans have given their lives, 27,000 have been wounded in action. We have spent $450 billion through May, and continue spending now at a rate of $10 billion a month. Had we the foresight 3 years ago, 4 years ago to see these costs, the War Powers Resolution would not have secured 100 votes in this House.

Opponents of this resolution claim that we are encroaching on the powers of the President as the Commander in Chief. Those who think that should read the resolution and read it carefully.

First of all, it does not call for an immediate withdrawal. It allows 4 months for the reduction in forces to begin. Second, it does not call for withdrawal at all. It calls for a reduction of the

number of troops deployed or transition to a limited mission. Third, it spells out the limited missions. These include force protection, diplomatic protection, pursuit of terrorists, training of Iraqi forces. The resolution, far from interfering, defers to the President, allows the Pentagon to decide just what is the minimum force level for the mission it specifies, provided it justifies its decision.

For the past 3 years, the President has assured us that we would stand down American troops as soon as Iraqi troops stood up. Well, that is essentially what this resolution does; 135 Iraqi battalions have been trained. Many may lack things like logistics to make them freestanding fighting units, but surely this is a capacity we can supply over the next 6 months or even longer through embedded advisers who will remain after April 2008.

This resolution sends the Iraqi troops the message that we are not in their country, Iraq, indefinitely, and that the day is fast approaching when they must take responsibility for the security of their own country.

For the past 2 years the President has told us that benchmarks or milestones have been laid down for the Iraqi government to accomplish. This week we received a progress report on those metrics showing few measurable gains.

So here's our dilemma: Our presence in Iraq, with 170,000 troops, allows the Iraqi government an ability to operate, the freedom of action it would not otherwise enjoy absent our support. But the Iraqi government has exploited that security to avoid doing the very steps that are necessary to its becoming a true government of national reconciliation, which commands the allegiance of all Iraqis.

Yesterday the Deputy Director for Analysis in the Office of National Intelligence told us, ``current political trends are moving the country in a negative direction.'' One way to make Iraqi leaders take the reins of their own government, establish their government, is to announce reduction of our forces in front-line combat troops and their transition to a limited mission and make it clear that our commitment to their country is not open-ended.

Three or 4 months ago, we were told by the administration it was going to undertake a new strategy, a new plan for securing Iraq called a surge, concentrated primarily in Baghdad. We now have the early results from that. We were told we would know in 3 or 4 months. Three or 4 months have passed, and we've only seen casualties increase. There have been some successes, sure, and we're thankful for them. And I hope it succeeds. But we need a new strategy. We do not have one, and this calls for a rethinking of everything. And for these reasons I will vote for this resolution, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 2669 (the College Cost Reduction Act of 2007), a bill that is good for students and good for the Federal budget. Our budget resolution for fiscal year 2008 included reconciliation instructions for the House Committee on Education and Labor to cut its spending by $750 million by 2012, and this bill more than fulfills that target. In fact, this reconciliation bill will reduce the Federal Government's budget

deficit by $2.8 billion over the next 5 years while investing billions of dollars in making college more affordable for millions of students.

One of the first actions of the 110th Congress was to institute a tough pay-as-you-go rule in the House that requires all changes to mandatory spending and revenues to be offset so that they do not lower the budget's bottom line. The rule was necessary to help restore fiscal balance, and it requires Congress to make tough choices about priorities. This bill adheres to the pay-as-you-go rule--with net savings of $2.8 billion over the 2007-2012 period and even greater savings over 2007-2017--while also providing needed improvements in student loans and grant aid.

Like previous reconciliation bills, the College Cost Reduction Act includes some new resources that are more than offset by cuts elsewhere. All of the new resources in the bill will make college more affordable, either by lowering the cost of loans--up-front or through forgiveness after graduation--or by increasing the amount of grant aid available. But none of these resources will increase the deficit: the bill not only complies with our pay-as-you-go rule and the reconciliation directive but actually reduces the deficit by $2.8 billion over the next 5 years.

To pay for these student benefits, the bill reduces the extra subsidies that the government pays to banks. These reductions are similar to those in H.R. 5, which passed the House in January by a bipartisan vote of 356-71, and to the subsidy cuts in the President's 2008 budget proposal. But the student loan business will continue to be an attractive one for banks, which are still guaranteed to receive 95 percent of unpaid principal on any defaulted loan and still receive a subsidy from the Federal Government on each loan they provide.

Madam Speaker, under sections 211 and 320(c) of S. Con. Res. 21, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 2008, I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record a revision to the budget allocations and aggregates for the House Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Education and Labor for fiscal years 2007, 2008, and the period of 2008 through 2012. This revision represents an adjustment to the Committees' budget allocations and aggregates for the purposes of section 302 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, and in response to the bill S. 1701--to provide for the extension of transitional medical assistance, TMA, and the abstinence education program through the end of fiscal year 2007, and for other purposes. Corresponding tables are attached.

Under section 211 of S. Con. Res. 21, this adjustment to the budget allocations and aggregates of the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, and Education and Labor applies while the measure--S. 1701--is under consideration. The adjustments will take effect upon enactment of the measure--S. 1701. For purposes of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, a revised allocation made under section 211 of S. Con. Res. 21 is to be considered as an allocation included in the resolution.

DIRECT SPENDING LEGISLATION--AUTHORIZING COMMITTEE 302(a) ALLOCATIONS FOR RESOLUTION CHANGES

[Fiscal years, in millions of dollars] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2007 2008 2008-2012 Total

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 207(d) of S. Con. Res. 21, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2008, I hereby submit the revised 302(a) allocations for the House Committee on Appropriations for Fiscal Years 2007 and 2008. Section 207(d)(2) directs the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget to adjust the discretionary spending allocations for an Internal Revenue Service tax compliance program integrity initiative as provided in section 207(d)(1)(B) of S. Con. Res. 21.

DISCRETIONARY APPROPRIATIONS: APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE 302(a) ALLOCATION

(In millions of dollars) ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Budget

authority Outlays ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Fiscal Year 2007............................ 950,316 1,029,465 Fiscal Year 2008............................ 953,459 1,028,780 ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me thank both the chairman and the ranking member for this gracious yielding of time but, in addition, for the excellent work they have done on this bill. As they know, there is a bone of contention in the bill where we have had a disagreement. It is called MOX fuel. I think it's a good idea. For some time we've had an understanding with the Russians that they and we would build MOX fuel disposition plants so that we could take weapons grade plutonium and convert it into reactor fuel, burn it and dispose of it so it would no longer be usable for weapons. This bill took the President's request of $333 million and basically cut it in half to 167. But when I sat down with the chairman, he pointed out to me that there were prior-year balances that would augment that amount of money and, all in all, there was a total of $698 million available which would be enough to move the project forward in the next fiscal year. Unfortunately, when we explored those unspent balances, we found that the numbers were a bit out of date, according to the Department of Energy, and that the available funds would add up to only about $326 million, which is about half of what is needed for the project next year.

So I rise simply to say that in conference or somewhere along the way before this finally becomes law, we would like to reengage about the amount of money that is available for the MOX plant. I'm not offering an amendment today. I know it would be defeated. It would also be ingratitude for the work that the chairman and the ranking member have already committed to work with us on this project.

But I do say, number one, I appreciate your efforts and, number two, we'll visit this number in conference with the conferees if at all possible.

There are some other issues here, the H Canyon, there's $85 million taken out of it. It's the only plutonium processing line of its kind we have operative in the country today. That money may render it difficult to operate it through the rest of the year. And there is also a question of where the pit disassembly process will be located. I understand that has been resolved and will be resolved with an amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

Let me thank the chairman and the ranking member for their assistance in this matter and say that we still have some work to do on the adequate amount of money for the MOX fuel plant before the bill is ready.

Madam Speaker, for years, Thomas A. Stallworth was a pillar of Presbyterian College in Clinton, SC, serving as chaplain, professor of religion, soccer coach, dean of students, dean of alumni affairs, and after retirement, as interim director of church relations. He died suddenly on May 14, 2007. I offer for the record the following tribute from John V. Griffith, president of Presbyterian College:

Tom Stallworth: Our Man for All Seasons

God's saints come in interesting sizes and shapes. They are

agents of God's grace in the most unexpected of ways. So it

is with Tom Stallworth.

In the fall of 1951, Tom Stallworth was a freshman at PC

from the south side of Atlanta. As an undergraduate he joined

and loved the PC choir under the direction of Eduard Patte,

was involved in student government, led the Student Christian

Association, enjoyed athletics, belonged to Pi Kappa Alpha

fraternity, was the leader of The Scottish Highlander

Battalion of ROTC, and was enjoyed by his classmates for his

sense of humor, love of life, and humble faith.

After graduating from Columbia Theological Seminary and a

short stint at the First Presbyterian Church of Rome,

Georgia, Dr. Marshall Brown asked Tom to come to the College

to teach for two years. Pete Hay was on leave. Tom retired 36

years later, although the way I look at it, Tom worked at or

for PC for a total of 56 years. He has been PC's man for all

seasons.

In the 1973 yearbook, one of three dedicated to Tom, he

wrote prophetic words, which I have come to see as

autobiographical . . . ``There is an ingredient in and of

this community which few miss. It's not obvious. Many take

some time to see it. You may not even want to look for

awhile. They do not leave the way they came. Look them up

three, five, ten years from now. Won't we all be surprised?

They will have a plus; it will show!''

Tom's plus showed. In him we saw much of what the College

seeks to nurture in the hearts and minds of those who pass

our way: a man for God, a man for God's people, and a man for

Madam Speaker, I am transmitting a status report on the current levels of on-budget spending and revenues for fiscal years 2007 and 2008 and for the 5-year period of fiscal years 2008 through 2012. This report is necessary to facilitate the application of sections 302 and 311 of the Congressional Budget Act and sections 204, 206 and 207 of S. Con. Res. 21, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2008.

The term ``current level'' refers to the amounts of spending and revenues estimated for each fiscal year based on laws enacted or awaiting the President's signature. The first table in the report compares the current levels of total budget authority, outlays, and revenues with the aggregate levels set by S. Con. Res. 21. This comparison is needed to enforce section 311(a) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the budget resolution's aggregate levels.

The second table compares the current levels of discretionary appropriations for fiscal years 2007 and 2008 with the ``section 302(b)'' suballocations of discretionary budget authority and outlays among Appropriations subcommittees. The comparison is needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act because the point of order under that section applies to measures that would breach the applicable section 302(b) suballocation.

The third table compares the current levels of budget authority and outlays for each authorizing committee with the ``section 302(a)'' allocations made under S. Con. Res. 21 for fiscal years 2007 and 2008 and fiscal years 2008 through 2012. This comparison is needed to enforce section 302(f) of the Budget Act, which creates a point of order against measures that would breach the section 302(a) allocation of new budget authority for the committee that reported the measure.

The fourth table gives the current level for fiscal years 2009 and 2010 for accounts identified for advance appropriations under section 206 of S. Con. Res. 21. This list is needed to enforce section 206 of the budget resolution, which creates a point of order against appropriation bills that contain advance appropriations that: (i) Are not identified in the statement of managers; or (ii) would cause the aggregate amount of such appropriations to exceed the level specified in the resolution.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 207(f) of S. Con. Res. 21, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2008, I hereby submit for printing in the Congressional Record revised 302(a) allocations for the House Committee on Appropriations for fiscal years 2007 and 2008. I am also providing current law mandatory allocations for informational purposes only.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 409, I call up the conference report on the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 21) setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2008 and including the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2007 and 2009 through 2012.

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

This budget resolution which we present today did not come easily. It comes from months of hard work, hearings, and negotiations. The end product is a good budget, not perfect, I will admit. Not complete but worthy of support. Indeed, it requires our support if we do not want the process to fail again, as it did last year when no concurrent resolution was passed and only two of 11 appropriation bills were enacted.

This budget moves us to balance over the next 5 years. Along the way, it posts smaller deficits than the President's budget. It adheres to the pay-as-you-go principle and contains no new

mandatory spending that is not paid for, and it funds ``program integrity initiatives'' to root out wasteful spending, fraud, and tax evasion.

Within this framework, our budget does more for veterans' health care, more for children's health care, and more for education. Here in a nutshell are the basics of this budget:

This budget comes to balance in 5 years and runs a surplus of $41 billion in the year 2012. Contrast that with the President's budget, which remains always in deficit. This budget allocates $954 billion to discretionary spending, or about $75 billion more than this year, of which about $50 billion is for national defense. This total includes $450 billion for nondefense discretionary, or about $23 billion more than this year.

This budget not only abides by the PAYGO principles, it extends them, establishing a Senate PAYGO rule and calling for statutory PAYGO as well.

The concurrent resolution before us, like the House resolution, sets defense spending at levels the President requested, though it targets resources to the troops and conventional forces. It provides more for homeland security than the administration requested, and it funds the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. So it is strong on defense, internal and external.

This budget does all of the above, and I would emphasize this, it does all of the above without raising taxes. The tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 all remain in force, unaffected in any way by this resolution. As originally written and enacted, most of the tax cuts expire on December 31, 2010. In our budget resolution, we separated out the middle income tax cuts and made it the policy of our resolution to extend those tax cuts when they expire.

In this concurrent resolution, we go even further. We install a trigger that facilitates the extension of these tax cuts so long as the House waives its PAYGO rule and so long as the tax cuts extended do not exceed 80 percent of the surplus projected by OMB for the year 2012.

This budget's basic objective is to get back to balance. That is the bottom line. In such a budget, we can't have everything we want, but we do believe that some promises should be kept above all others, for example, the promises we've made to our veterans. This resolution increases funding for veterans health care in 2008 by $6.7 billion, 18.3 percent above the current year.

We also do not believe that children's health care and education should be sidetracked while we seek to work out ways to balance the budget. This budget accommodates an increase of $50 billion to expand the Childrens Health Insurance Program, so-called SCHIP, and cover millions of uninsured children. This budget also provides $4.6 billion over current services for education, job training and employment services. That includes more money for No Child Left Behind, for special education and student loans.

Lacking any other arguments, our friends from across the aisle, our Republican adversaries, will claim that this budget resolution raises taxes, as they have repeatedly and wrongly. Let me answer that claim emphatically. This budget does not raise taxes by one penny. Period. Not by one penny.

On the contrary, the 2008 budget resolution accommodates the extension of the middle income tax cuts, pays for a 1-year patch to prevent the AMT from coming down on middle income taxpayers, and calls for reform of the AMT, consistent with PAYGO principles, to save middle income taxpayers from this stealthy tax.

This budget is fiscally sound, a solid framework, is balanced from the top line to the bottom, and I urge support for it.

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

Mr. Speaker, before yielding to the majority leader, let me set the record straight with respect to revenue flows.

If you look in the Congressional Budget Office projections of revenues in the budget, you will see that for the period 2008 through 2012, cumulative revenues are projected to be $15.3 trillion. If you subtract 176 for that to account for the agreement we've made with the Senate, which will facilitate the adoption and extension of the middle income tax cuts adopted between 2001 and 2003, then our number for total revenues, according to CBO is $14.828 trillion. The President's budget, total revenues are $14.826 trillion. We are $14.828 trillion, the President is $14.826 trillion; $2 billion difference. This is the biggest tax increase in history? Give me a break.

And how about the Republican's own revenue stream. You start from the same baseline. They have to use CBO numbers too. $15.3 trillion. Deduct from that $447 billion, which they have in tax cuts during that period of time, the baseline number for them becomes $14.556 trillion. That is a difference of $272 billion over 5 years, less than $50 billion a year over that period of time. This is absurd. This has gone on and on and on, as the speeches claim, and we will refute it every time it's raised today.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland, the distinguished majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel), the distinguished chairman of our caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).

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

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire of the Chair how much time is left and who has the right to close?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3\1/2\ minutes.

We can't have this debate without having a few charts on the floor, and it always bears reminding what's happened over the last 6 years because it is truly a fiscal phenomenon.

When President Bush came to office in 2001, he had an advantage that few Presidents in recent history have enjoyed, a budget in surplus. I'm talking big-time surplus, $5.6 trillion by his estimate, over the next 10 years, $5.6 trillion. That was the year 2001. In the previous year, a Clinton year, we ran a surplus of $236 billion.

By the year 2004, under the stewardship of this administration and this Congress, because Republicans controlled the House, controlled the Senate and controlled the White House, under their stewardship, the $5.6 trillion surplus was converted to a $2.8 trillion deficit, enormous swing of $8 trillion in the wrong direction, and that $236 billion surplus in the year 2004 became a deficit of $412 billion.

Incredible, but that is what we have had for the last 6 years. That's the record over the last 6 years which cannot be denied. Here it is right here.

As a consequence of the deficits that have been run, this simple little chart that I bring down here again and again, because it bears reminding everybody what's happened over the last 6 years, shows that when Bush came into office we had a debt of $5.7 trillion. The debt today is over $8 trillion, $8.8 trillion. That means there's been an increase in the national debt of $3.1 trillion, and if we continue upon the fiscal path that this administration has taken, by the time they leave office the debt of the United States will be $90.6 trillion.

Look at the accumulation of debt over this 8-year period of time. We've never seen anything like it. These are the people who would criticize what we are doing.

Now, there has been a lot of talk about tax increases. Let me show you this little chart here, because it shows graphically, and emphatically, something called debt service. The increase in the interest on the national debt that has to be paid, talk about entitlement reform, this is the one true entitlement. It's obligatory, it has to be paid. Interest on the national debt has increased from about $156 billion a couple of years ago to $256 billion, and it's on its way north to $300 billion in a short period of time. This is a debt tax.

Yes, you may have cut taxes in 2001 and 2003, but, because you have borrowed to make up for the loss of revenues and added to the debt of the United States, you, we, our children and their children, will be paying this debt for years to come, and compare this huge mountain of debt service, interest on the national debt, to other priorities.

Education, the light blue block; veterans health care, the green block; Homeland Security, the blue block, all of them are dwarfed by interest on the national debt. So here is the debt tax that you have left us owing, left our children owing, left generations to come owing.

This is the debt tax that will have to be paid because it simply cannot be cut. That's what we are struggling with today because of the fiscal management of this government over the last 6 years.

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

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

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

I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this is a good budget. I would be the first to say it is not a perfect budget, but I would be the first to argue that it is worthy of our support.

Indeed, I think it requires our support if we don't want to see the budget process fail abjectly once again, as it did last year under Republican control when no concurrent budget resolution was ever enacted, passed, and only two of 11 appropriation bills were passed.

The bottom line, this budget moves us to balance over the next 5 years. Along the way, it posts smaller deficits than the President proposes, it adheres to the pay-as-you-go principle, which is the rule of this House, contains no new mandatory spending that is not paid for, and it funds five program integrity initiatives to root out wasteful spending and fraud and tax evasion.

Within this framework, it does more for veterans health care, far more, more for children's health care, far

more, and more for education, lots more.

Here in a nutshell are the basics of the budget: This budget runs to surplus of $41 billion in the year 2012. Contrast that with the President's budget which is always in deficit. This budget not only abides by pay-as-you-go principles, it enhances them by establishing a new Senate PAYGO rule and calling for reinstatement of the statutory PAYGO rule as well. This budget does all of the above, I will say this emphatically one last time, does all of the above without raising taxes.

The tax cuts that were enacted in 2001 and 2003 remain in full force and effect, unaffected in any way by this budget resolution. As enacted and originally written, most of these tax cuts expire on December 31, 2010, and that has nothing to do with our budget resolution.

But in our budget resolution, we identified all of the middle income tax cuts, many of which we supported at the time passed, and we made it the policy of our resolution to extend these tax cuts when they expire.

In this concurrent resolution, we go even further. We install a trigger that will facilitate the extension of these tax cuts so long as, number one, the House waives PAYGO; and, number two, the tax cuts extended do not exceed 80 percent of the surplus projected by OMB by the year 2012.

This concurrent resolution in other respects sets defense spending levels that the President requested. Why is spending so high? It contains $145 billion in supplemental expenditures.

And let me say one thing about the argument one of the leaders of the other party made on the House floor just a few minutes ago about the amount of debt that is being added to the national debt. What we are talking about is taking a big battleship and turning it around slowly. We have inherited the basics of this budget. Much of the spending that we are carrying forward was dictated over the last 6 years. The same for the revenue flow of the budget we are undertaking. It is going to take time to turn this big battleship around. But as we do, the best we can do is, number one, have a concurrent budget resolution with the binding effect of budget law for the first time in a long time; and, secondly, this concurrent resolution which will put us back on the path to a balanced budget.

For those for whom a balanced budget is something of a moral imperative because of the debt we are leaving our children, the right vote today, the only vote today is the vote for this budget resolution, and I commend it to every Member of this House, Democrat and Republican, and urge their support.

Mr. Speaker, I speak for myself, as the chairman of the Budget Committee, and for Mr. Ryan, as the ranking member, expressing our appreciation to our staff, who have done a marvelous job on both sides of the aisle in working together on this budget resolution that ultimately prevailed today.

I place into the Record the names of the staffers who have been key participants in the effort on our side of the aisle.

House Budget Committee Staff

Tom Kahn

Sarah Abernathy

Ellen Balis

Arthur Burris

Linda Bywaters

Barbara Chow

Marsha Douglas

Stephen Elmore

Chuck Fant

Jose Guillen

Jennifer Hanson-Kilbride

Chris Long

Sheila McDowell

Richard Magee

Diana Meredith

Mark Middaugh

Gail Millar

Morna Miller

Namrata Mujumdar

Ifeoma Okwuje

Kimberly Overbeek

Kitty Richards

Diane Rogers

Scott Russell

Nicole Silver

Naomi Stem

Meaghan Strickland

Lisa Venus

Greg Waring

Andrea Weathers

Jason Weller

Leadership Staff

Ed Lorenzen

Wendell Primus

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during consideration of H.R. 1427, pursuant to House Resolution 404, the Chair may reduce to 2 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting under clause 6 of rule XVIII and clauses 8 and 9 of rule XX.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.

If you listen to our friends on the other side of the aisle talk about ballistic missile defense, you'd never know that we have spent in today's money at least $125 billion since the days of Spartan and Sprint in the 1970s. This bill continues spending, continues that trend at a very robust level.

Sure, it does provide for cuts of $764 million, but it leaves in the bill $9.5 billion, and I would challenge the gentleman to find any other system in this bill which is funded at a level more robust than $9.5 billion. I don't think he will find it.

This bill provides, with the $9.5 billion, for the Patriot system, a PAC-3 system, a theater system, a tactical system, vitally important, provides $1.4 billion. That's $500 million more than the current year. It will buy Patriot PAC-3s for two additional battalions.

Aegis BMD, the Aegis cruiser, the adoption of the Aegis BMD by the Aegis cruiser, $1.1 million. That's an increase of $78 million over the current year over the budget request.

The ground-based midcourse interceptor, which shows the most near- term promise for becoming a truly ballistic missile defense intercept system,

$2.3 billion for the GMD. It will buy 10 GMD interceptors to be placed either at Ft. Greeley, Vandenberg or maybe in Europe.

The THAAD is finally achieving its promise. It's our best tactical theater system. The THAAD is funded at $858.2 million. That's enough to buy two additional THAAD firing units.

The kinetic energy interceptor, our boost phase system, is funded at $177 million. It's in its earliest phases, but it looks like the most promising technology for boost-phase intercept.

Multiple kill vehicles, yet they're cut by $42 million, but that leaves $223 million for a new technology.

Space tracking and surveillance, they're cut, cut by $75 million, but that's because we are going to launch two satellites and then see what they can do. And if they do what they're supposed to do, if they meet their specifications, we will launch about seven more, but we're not going to buy and launch those seven more until we know what the two demonstrate what they can achieve.

That's a sensible cut, as are all of these cuts. They are very discriminating cuts. The airborne laser is a good example. This system has been cut by $250 million to $300 million. That's enough money to maintain the system as a technology demonstrator, which is the likely course that this system is going to run anyway.

It has missed numerous milestones for development purposes. They are not throwing the system away. They are going to convert it from something that's likely to be put in the force in the near term to something that we can extract the technology from and then decide whether we want to go further with it.

But you have to ask yourself if this system, which is missing its milestones and looks like it cannot attain the promises that were initially made for it, is costing $500 million a year, shouldn't we consider some small cut in it in order to place the money elsewhere?

These are discriminating cuts. They leave the program robustly funded. This amendment should be defeated.

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for this opportunity to say something on behalf of my constituent, John Reid Justice of South Carolina, my good friend, my constituent, my trusted counselor, whenever we had or I had any questions or any issues about criminal justice, because he was the expert.

Madam Speaker, John Justice was almost elected to Congress himself. But in the middle of his campaign, he did what duty called him to do. He was in the National Guard, he took 2 weeks out for summer camp, and never quite caught up. But for that, he might have been here sponsoring legislation like the very bill before us which is named after him.

But providence had a better role for John Justice. He became a prosecutor. We call them solicitors in South Carolina, not district attorneys. He became a solicitor for nearly 30 years, and he became a model solicitor. Others looked to him, admired him, and followed his example. The better part of

his professional life, he was the prosecutor in the Sixth Judicial Circuit of South Carolina. He was, as I said, a model prosecutor, so much so that the National District Attorneys Association elected him, from Chester, South Carolina, as president not long ago, just before he died.

In addition, he was a model prosecutor. If you could have seen his funeral, you would understand when I say the entire law enforcement community in South Carolina turned out to pay honor to this splendid fellow. He would have been proud to know that this bill bears his name, particularly because of its substance, not just because of the honor, but because of the substance of the bill. He would be proud to know that he was having some part in helping young lawyers afford the crushing burden of student loans.

So on behalf of the friends of John Justice, who knew him well and practiced with him, on behalf of his family, on behalf of all those who worked with him, I want to thank the committee for naming this bill after him and for honoring him in this very special way.

I urge support for the bill.

Madam Speaker, when Mendel Davis came to Congress, he had some big shoes to fill. His namesake and predecessor, Mendel Rivers, had chaired the House Armed Services Committee at a time when committee chairmen were powerful, and he had ruled the roost. He had secured for Charleston military installations, ranging from the Navy Yard, home port to surface ships and submarines, to Charleston Air Force Base, which boasted the first of the C-5As.

After Mendel Rivers died, Mendel Davis ran an impressive race, won a special election, and obtained a seat on the Science Committee and then on the House Armed Services Committee. He served there effectively and with distinction, and had he served long enough, he would have matched his namesake in influence and output.

Mendel Davis served ten years and never quite matched Mendel Rivers' seniority, but he worked every bit as hard, if not harder, for his constituents. From his seat on Armed Services, Mendel Davis never forgot where he came from or who sent him here, and he cared for his constituency. He helped bring the USS Yorktown to Patriot's Point, and with Senator Hollings' help, he helped fund and keep in place all that Mendel Rivers had brought to Charleston.

I came to Congress shortly after Mendel Davis had left, but I found that everyone who knew him remembered him and highly respected him. I did not see him often, but always enjoyed the opportunities we did encounter. Like all of his friends and acquaintances, I will long remember him and his great service to our country and to the House. His wife, Jane, and all his family have my deepest sympathy.

Mr. Speaker, it is my sad responsibility as the dean of the South Carolina delegation to advise the House of the death of a former Member, Representative Mendel Davis, who passed away after several years of respiratory problems this weekend.

I would now like to yield to the gentleman from Charleston, South Carolina, Mr. Henry Brown, who holds his seat, to say a word of respect and remembrance.