Floor Statements

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support and to praise the chairman and the ranking member for their efforts in bringing this bill to fruition this fall, rather than Christmas Eve, as was our experience last year.

There may be some questions as to whether or not it is worth it, to have two committees process a bill of this magnitude, an authorization process and an appropriations process. But in addition to having a second scrub of a $462 billion bill, that double, two-part process also leads to some positive provisions from each mark. Let me just highlight a couple to show you some of the valuable features in this bill.

A couple of years ago, we became concerned about the level of Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance. We increased the amount of coverage from $250,000 to $400,000.

I offered an amendment to pay for the full premium for those troops that go into a combat zone and hazardous duty zones. That did not pass, but we did pass a provision that $150,000 of the increased coverage would be paid for. This bill takes it a step further, as it should.

What we are saying in this bill is that the full $400,000 in life insurance coverage in the combat zone will be paid for in full when you enter the combat zone. This is the least we can do for those who put their lives on the line for our country. The least we can do is to make sure that their family and loved ones should be taken care of in this manner if the worst should happen to them.

Second, nonproliferation is a major concern, big defense risk. In this particular bill, we plussed-up the President's budget for the megaports bill by $15 million, and we added $20 million to the Global Threat Initiative. This additional funding will allow for the installation of additional radiation detectors at the world's major border crossings and ports and help secure and dispose of nuclear material in some of the most vulnerable research reactors around the globe.

Finally, one of the things we did not do was to endorse the authorization for space-based missile defense weapons. I have always had great concerns about the efficacy. This bill says to ballistic defense: Before you undertake this program, make sure it works, what its scope is, what its strategic implications are.

And, finally, we right and timely put in this bill $23.7 billion to reset the capital assets of the Marine Corps and the Army. And this is an illustration of a cost that is going to be staring us in the face for years to come as we try also to fund transformation and modernization.

We will have to pay this expense just to keep standing still, another reason we needed a bill of this magnitude, $462 billion, to defend the country. I commend the leadership of this committee for bringing this bill to fruition.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill, to defend those who defend us. Our young men and women in uniform should not be prey to unscrupulous types who take advantage of their inexperience, in ways that they pay for, and for years thereafter.

Our service members are focused on the mission at hand: defending our nation. In their enthusiasm, and on the eve of their deployments, they should not be subjected to unscrupulous agents who exploit their fears of family members not being provided for, should they be killed or wounded in the line of the duty. They should not be exposed to brokers making promises of big returns on investments, while extracting exorbitant fees up front.

We have worked hard to improve the benefits that our government provides for our troops and their families. We have increased the death gratuity dramatically. We have increased life insurance coverage.

But we can do better.

We can ban the sale of periodic payment plan certificates.

We can clarify the law by making it known that the states have a duty to regulate sales conducted on military bases.

We can ensure that our young men and women in uniform are educated about the benefits the government provides for them and their families, and that they receive clear and comprehensible information about the federally subsidized life insurance available to them.

We can require registration of agents and a registry for complaints about agents so that our service members can see who has had complaints and disciplinary actions.

And Congress can monitor these practices better.

This bill does these things. And while it does not go as far as some of us in the House would like, I believe it is a good place to start. It enables us to stop some of the most damaging practices against those who defend our

I urge support of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, let's make something clear: the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992 directs drug companies to grant discounts on all drugs that are supplied to the Department of Defense, the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Public Health Service, and the Coast Guard. These are significant discounts. On average they lower the cost to the government for pharmaceuticals provided to beneficiaries by 30 to 40 percent. The Department of Defense is able to take advantage of these discounts in its mail order program and in dispensing drugs in its military treatment facilities, hospitals and clinics.

But the pharmaceutical companies have been balking, refusing to grant these discounts to TRICARE beneficiaries. Those are the families of active duty members and families of reservists deployed. TRICARE beneficiaries, wanting to shop, understandably, with their local pharmacy, their local corner drugstore, they have not been able to obtain the advantages of these discounted drug prices.

The Senate has recognized the problem here and has acted to resolve it by simply providing that in the future, after this bill becomes law, the discounted drug provision will apply not just to military treatment facilities, not just to the mail order program, but to TRICARE beneficiaries going to private drugstores. And it should. Can anybody tell me a reason it should not? Can anybody tell me a reason that TRICARE beneficiaries, our military members, shouldn't be able to shop, when necessary, at their local pharmacy?

That is all we are doing here. The Senate approved this 92-0, and we are simply saying here, let us recede to the Senate provision, let us take a law adopted in 1992 and apply it to all aspects of military health care.

This has a couple of collateral benefits in addition to saving money. One is that the House provision, which raises copays for drugs purchased otherwise at military facilities, will not be necessary because we will save enough money here to make it unnecessary. Another is that the Senate provision, harsh I think, which requires mandatory mail order as opposed to local pharmacies, that provision too can be dispensed with because we will save enough money to do so.

This is a win-win-win proposition. There is no reason the House should not take up the logic and policy of the Senate bill and adopt this same provision. Every Member here should vote to instruct our conferees to recede to the Senate on this critical provision. It will save money and make life better for our TRICARE beneficiaries. There is no reason not to do it. There is every reason to do it. I urge its support.

Mr. Chairman, I am an original cosponsor of this bill, along with Mr. Whitfield and Mr. Sweeney. This bill is to prevent the violent practice of slaughtering horses for human consumption. Why are we offering it?

If you have grown up with horses, you know why we are offering it. They are as close to human as any animal you can get. Why are we offering it? Because there are three foreign-owned slaughter houses, just three, in the United States where these horses are slaughtered, various means, jacking them up by their hind legs, slitting their throats.

Why does this practice continue? So that these slaughter houses can keep a steady flow of horse meat to the dinner tables and meat markets, not in the United States, but of Asia and Europe where horse meat is still eaten. Americans do not even eat horse meat.

The Horse Slaughter Prevention Act before us today, if passed into law, will simply end this practice once and for all across the entire United States.

The opponents of this bill have come up with a number of objections, reasons they think it is a bad idea. First of all, they would have us believe that this is a first step down a slippery slope. That next will come cows and then hogs and then chickens and then other animals consumed by Americans.

But the Horse Slaughter Prevention Act does nothing of the kind, and it will not lead in that direction, because horses are unique and distinct. We all know that.

Second, the opponents claim that banning horse slaughter will result in an overpopulation of horses in this country. Once again, this is not true. There are currently three slaughter houses in the United States in two States. In five States, including California, a law banning horse slaughter has been in effect for 7 years. What has been the effect? There have been no effects. There have not been animals that are left derelict. There haven't been animals that are not buried. There have not been too few euthanasias.

Practically speaking, in all five States where this law is already the law of the land, there has been no effect whatsoever.

Each year, about 90,000 horses are slaughtered. So there is no real impact in a country as large as the United States in the disposing of those 90,000 horses by means other than horse meat slaughtering.

Third and finally, our opponents have touted letters from cattlemen and chicken farmers and all sorts of livestock raisers who say they oppose the bill.

We have and we will gladly display to anyone who wants to see it a seven-page memorandum, single spaced, of supporters all over the country who know horses, who love horses; they are horse raisers, horse racers, horse lovers, you name it. Everybody has signed on to this saying it is time we do something like this.

Last year, when it appeared that the Horse Slaughter Prevention Act would never get its day on the House floor, Mr. Sweeney and Mr. Whitfield and I offered an amendment to the House ag appropriations bill to ban Federal funding to facilitate horse slaughter for 1 year. That amendment drew 269 votes in support; 269 Members passed it by a substantial majority. I hope that today my colleagues will remember the vote they cast last year and will see fit to end the brutal practice of killing horses and will vote not only for the bill but against all amendments because they would only debilitate and defeat the bill.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I would like to engage my colleagues and managers of this bill, Mr. Royce and Mr. Lantos, in a colloquy on the issue of India's nuclear testing moratorium.

Section 129 of the Atomic Energy Act provides that, ``No nuclear materials and equipment or sensitive nuclear technology shall be exported to any non-nuclear weapon state that is found by the President to have detonated a nuclear device.'' It is my understanding that section 4(a)(3)(A) of H.R. 5682 waives this restriction for any nuclear test that occurred before July 18, 2005, effectively allowing nuclear cooperation in spite of India's past nuclear tests, but not for any detonation or tests after that day.

Therefore, if India were to do so, continued nuclear cooperation would be in jeopardy. Is that an accurate assessment?

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I thank my colleagues for that clarification. As a further point of clarification, India's prime minister has reported to his parliament that, ``the United States will support an Indian effort to develop a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel to guard against any disruption of supply over the lifetime of India's reactor.'' A sizeable fuel reserve could conceivably minimize the impact of a U.S. decision to cut off fuel supplies should India conduct a nuclear test.

Mr. Royce and Mr. Lantos, is it your understanding that aiding in the development of a fuel reserve is not intended to facilitate a decision by the government of India to resume nuclear testing? I yield to the gentleman.

Finally, would the gentlemen then agree with me that any fuel reserve provided to the Indians for use in safeguarded, civilian nuclear facilities should be sized in a way that maintains continued fuel supply as a deterrent to Indian nuclear testing? I yield to the gentlemen.

I thank Mr. Royce and Mr. Lantos for that clarification and commend you for your excellent work on this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, had it been my decision, I would not have released a report on the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program, and I co- sponsored H. Res. 900 to register my disapproval. For no good reason, H. Res. 900 was not made in order as a substitute amendment.

I have reluctantly decided not to vote for H. Res. 895 for the following reasons. H.R. 895 was written exclusively by Republicans, with no Democratic input, no committee hearings, and no committee mark- up. The resolution was rushed to the floor shortly after being filed under a rule that prohibits amendments of any kind, for one hour's debate, and then a vote up or down. I agree with much of the resolution. I wholeheartedly support ``efforts to identify, track, and pursue suspected foreign terrorists and their financial supporters by tracking money flows and by uncovering terrorists networks here and abroad.''

I have not been briefed on the program, however, and I am no position to find ``that the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program has been conducted in accordance with applicable laws, regulations and Executive Orders, and that appropriate safeguards and reviews have been instituted to protect individual civil liberties, and that Congress has been appropriately informed and consulted for the duration of the Program and will continue its oversight of the Program.'' I hope that is the case, but I have no basis on which to make such a judgment, and I do not think that Members of Congress should hold out such a conclusion if we cannot support it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I can't help but notice the juxtaposition on the estate tax bill that will decrease revenues by $823 billion over its first 10 years of implementation and this bill which comes to us wearing the mantle of fiscal responsibility, but will barely dent the addition to the deficit we just made if that bill becomes law.

Mr. Speaker, I have written and brought to the floor of this House and seen to passage at least two, maybe three, expedited rescission bills back in the 1990s. But I can't bring those bills to this floor today because the Rules Committee won't let me. They shut me out 100 percent. Every amendment I requested was rejected, even though they were serious and substantive amendments.

So I would say to others who were here on previous occasions: Look at this bill carefully because it is not the same bill we have voted upon before.

This bill allows the President a window of 45 days in which to pick items to be rescinded. It allows the President to send five rescission bills for every appropriation bill. Five times 11, there are 11 appropriation bills, equals 55. If we have a President who makes full use of this, we are inviting chaos.

The original bill and the substitute I would have offered provide the President 10 days, which is enough. Furthermore, the more time you give the President, the more apt that the cuts he makes will be for political purposes rather than budgetary purposes. Ten days is enough for a budgetary review.

Secondly, this bill allows the House, us, Congress, to vote up or down. That's it, no amendments, no way that we can cull through the list that the President sends back up here and pick out what is a worthy project and make the case for them.

The original bill which we voted upon before and my substitute allowed a Member to go get 99 others and remove a worthy spending item from the rescission list.

Next, this bill allows the President to strike something called direct spending items. That's budget talk for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, veterans benefits, agriculture benefits, on and on. What we have in this bill is a fast track, an expedited track to passage, summary treatment of things that the President sends up here that are supposed to be turned around in less than 30 days, and that is no way to decide substantive changes in Medicare and Social Security, but that is what this bill provides.

The original bill and my substitute have no mention of Medicare or Social Security direct spending in it. It applied to discretionary spending, as it should.

This bill allows the President to strike targeted tax benefits. So did the original bill. I offered that amendment. But this bill defines targeted tax benefits to mean those with fewer than 100 beneficiaries. That was a targeted tax benefit.

This bill defines the number down to one beneficiary and lets the Ways and Means Committee chairman be the arbiter of that. This is a sham. It is a serious deficiency in this bill, and it distinguishes this bill from the others that have come before it.

This bill allows the President to impose a 90-day impoundment on spending items for which he seeks rescission, but by the track set up in this bill, it will only take 30 days for a rescission to run its course. Why not simply confine the amount of impoundment time to something close to the amount of time it will take to consider a rescission request?

This may seem like a small point, but we are giving a substantial grant of authority to the President. If it is abused or not used in a way that we approve, then we better keep it on tight rein. This bill sunsets in 6 years. We would sunset it in 2 years. Keep it on a

tight rein in case it is abused. It may be a small point, but it could be a major point as well.

There are other things that we would have proposed in amendments that we would offer that would make this bill better. The gentleman just talked about earmarks. We put earmark reforms in our substitute. You will not find the word ``earmark'' anywhere in this bill.

If you are going to do this, and your objective is to take down the deficit, then let's put something in here known to work toward that end, and that is the PAYGO rule. It worked so well for us in the 1990s and can work again for us. Why not use this moving vehicle in the name of fiscal responsibility to pass PAYGO as well as rescission? If we did something like that, you truly would have a bipartisan bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price).

(Mr. PRICE of North Carolina asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Moore).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Will the gentleman suspend?

I will yield you more time.

I simply want to say to my friend from Georgia, if you want transparency as to earmarks, we offered an amendment. The Rules Committee would not make it in order. Our substitute addresses the issue of earmarks. It reinstates the earmark reforms in the Obey bill which is now languishing in conference.

I yield the gentleman 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to address an issue that Mr. Ryan spoke to just a moment ago.

This bill does apply to new direct spending items. Now, there could be some disagreement over what that means, but direct spending is mandatory spending, it is entitlement spending, and under that broad rubric falls Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and veterans benefits.

The reason we are very concerned about broadening the reach to include mandatory programs like that is that these are programs people depend upon; and what this bill essentially does is create a fast track, a 30-day turnaround. The President sends a bill here, we can't amend it in committee, we can't amend it on the floor, we only have an up-or-down vote, we have a limited amount of time for debate. It is a fast track with no substantive input from Congress, and I would hate to see us make an ill-advised change in Social Security or Medicare simply because it got wrapped up with other spending issues and was pushed through here on such a small fast track that we didn't realize the consequences until we woke up a month or two later.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic whip.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown).

(Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, this could be a bipartisan bill. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) has taken the bill that the President sent us, which is a classic case of overreaching, and improved it very much and I commend him for that. But it is not good enough; it is not worthy of passage, in my opinion. If it really was to be a bipartisan bill, if that is what you wanted, why did I get shut out in the Rules Committee?

I came forward with two substitutes, one germane, one nongermane, with various individual amendments, all of them serious substantive things. Sure, we could disagree about them, but I didn't get to the opportunity under the Rules Committee's provision to come here and offer those on the floor of the House.

I think in wrapping up, it is worth showing these charts to everybody again to show the path we are on, which is this path right here: a deficit this year of $300 billion to $350 billion, more than $400 billion last year; intractable, structural deficits. And, as you will see from the costs plotted by CBO, the numbers only get worse here that show the deficit sinking to almost $500 billion in 10 years.

The consequence of that? First of all, the debt ceiling, the legal limit to which we can borrow, we have seen an increase in the debt ceiling in the United States since President Bush came to office under your watch of $3.668 trillion. That is the increase in 5 fiscal years of the debt ceiling of the United States. And the total indebtedness of the United States is shown right here. The statutory debt was $5.9 trillion when President Bush took office. If we continue on the track that we are on now with his budgets, we can expect to have a debt of nearly $11.3 trillion by the year 2011. That is where we are going.

It is hard to avoid the suspicion that this bill today is sort of a diversionary tactic because, by everybody's admission, even its more ardent proponents, this won't even put a dent in the deficit. As I said, we just adopted a bill which could have an impact on revenues over 10 years, when fully implemented, of $823 billion. This will barely, barely amount to a dent in the budget, a deficit addition of that kind.

Now, the gentleman said that I have engaged in acrobatics, as if I weren't serious and sincere about the amendments I am proposing. But I have a problem with giving the President 45 days to pick through appropriation bills, because the wider the window, the more apt he will be to use it for political purposes. I have a problem with having the President send up five bills for every appropriation bill. There are 11 appropriation bills. We could have as many as 55 rescission bills here on the House floor, and then I am sure, as we take up these bills on Christmas Eve, you will be having Members ask: Who came up with these ideas?

I have a problem with direct spending that is reaching too far. If this is an experiment to start with, why not stick to discretionary spending? None of the previous bills have included that.

So for all of these reasons, this could be a much better bill. And I would offer on a motion to recommit my only opportunity a substantial improvement to the bill, and I hope every Member will seriously consider it and will also vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am in its present form.

Mr. Chairman, the motion to recommit concerns entirely the budget process. It is germane and completely germane to the budget process. We add to the bill or would add to the bill the so-called pay- as-you-go provisions which were the law of the land from 1990 to 2002. We reinstate that as a complement to, and it is complementary to, the other powers granted by this bill. It relates to entitlement spending. The bill relates to entitlement spending. So this is well within the ambit of the subject matter of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I offer an alternate motion to recommit, which does not contain the objectionable features.

I am in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, let me just tell you quickly, by laundry- list fashion, the changes that this amendment would add to the bill.

First of all, we have followed the model of similar bills, the bills that were passed by this House in 1993 and 1994. We have gone back to those to create expedited rescission authority.

Secondly, we have prohibited the President or any other officer of the executive branch from using the rescission authority, that power, as a bargaining tool to extract votes on other unrelated legislation.

Number three, we have provided that during the consideration of a rescission request by the President, there is to be a motion to strike; in other words, a provision by which 100 Members of the House could ask for a separate vote on a separate item which they deem worthy, and they could have an opportunity in the well of the House to make the case for this worthy spending item.

Number four, we have limited the number of cancellation proposals that the President can send up to one appropriation bill, which is an entirely sensible change to the bill. Otherwise, under the terms of the bill, the President will be able to send 5 different rescission requests on 11 different appropriations bills, in total 55 bills, which could wreak havoc with the process and in this place. It invites chaos. It is not necessary. It was not in previous bills. It does not need to be in this bill.

Number five, we have reduced the amount of time the President has to propose a cancellation or rescission after signing a bill from 45 days to 10 days. Why is that? We think that 10 days is more than enough. The original bills passed by the House provided only 3 days. We have extended it to 10 days, but 10 days give the President all the time he needs for a budgetary scrub-down of the budget. Forty-five days is apt to cause him to look for political applications as opposed to budgetary applications.

Number six, we have reduced the amount of time that the President can withhold funds, impound funds when he proposes a rescission or cancellation from 90 days, as in the bill, to 30 days and 7 days for emergency spending. We think that is reasonable. That is roughly the time it would take for a rescission to run its course.

Then we think this is extremely important, not just reasonable, but critically important. This is a major experiment. Let us not extend it to entitlement spending. Americans depend upon Social Security and Medicare and veterans benefits. Are we going to take something that important from which people depend and put it on the fast track, the up-or-down vote process that this vote calls for? I would hope not. This particular amendment would put Social Security and Medicare and veterans benefits beyond the reach of the President's rescission power, fast-track rescission powers.

This then defines tax benefits the way we originally defined it. One of the evolutions in the history of this bill was for us to go back and say a lot of money is spent through tax expenditures in the Tax Code. There are a lot of earmarks in the Tax Code, as well as in the appropriation bills. So let us call attention to something called the targeted tax benefits that have fewer than 100 intended beneficiaries, and let us provide as to these earmarks in the tax bill the President will have the same authority. This bill has been changed significantly from 100 beneficiaries to 1 beneficiary, which guts the meaning of that original provision.

Finally, this is an experiment. We are ceding a lot of authority to the President of the United States that the Congress has under Article I of the Constitution. In order to make sure that this authority is not misused or abused or manipulated, we are providing simply that we have a sunset of 2 years. Two full years would mean President Bush would have this authority for 2 fiscal years, but that we would review it and decide whether or not we should go forward with it or make major changes.

These are all serious, substantive amendments. They are not tilted in any direction at all except in the direction of getting a better bill which we can vote upon.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased today to introduce the Deficit Reduction and Effective Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006. The United States is facing structural deficits of $300 billion to $400 billion; a rising mountain of debt, held increasingly by foreign interests; and a $3 trillion tax-cut agenda of measures yet to be renewed or enacted. We have all of this and more, but no effective tools to deal with any of these problems. In fact, this year, for the fourth time since the Budget Act was passed, and for the third time in the last 5 years, Congress has failed to pass a concurrent budget resolution, much less a 5-year plan.

That's why today I am introducing this bill. It contains a package of tools to get the budget crisis under control and help get the budget back in balance.

My legislation reinstates the two-sided Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) rules. It allows reconciliation to be used only to reduce the deficit. My bill provides members with the information they need to review legislation before voting on it. Finally, a well-crafted expedited rescission authority could be a useful budget tool--and I have brought to the floor and voted for versions of that authority in the past when there were other budget enforcement tools in place, as well. That's why my bill includes expedited rescission authority, but addresses the broader budget control issues as well.

Let me review some of the details of my bill. If we are in earnest about bringing down the deficit, we need rules designed to reduce the deficit. Congress created the reconciliation process to make it easier to reduce the deficit by setting up special procedures for hard-to-pass budget cuts, yet this Congress now uses reconciliation to pass legislation that enlarges the deficit. The Republican bill granting the president expedited rescission authority, H.R. 4890, could become an accessory to that outcome. A President with expedited rescission powers could push a big spending bill, call members of Congress when a vote was coming up, solicit their support, and if it was not forthcoming, back up his request with a thinly veiled threat--the rescission of something that members dearly wanted for their districts.

My bill addresses these concerns in several ways. First, it prohibits reconciliation procedures from being used to increase the deficit. Second, it prohibits the President or anyone in the executive branch from wielding rescission threats as a bargaining tool on other legislation.

If we are serious about rooting out wasteful spending--and I think we should be--we need to provide members with adequate time to look over legislation before voting on it. The Republican Rules Committee routinely waives the rules to rush bills to the floor hours or even minutes after bills providing for billions of dollars are finalized. My bill requires that members have copies of a bill to review at least 24 hours prior to a vote, and a full three days for a bill with earmarks, unless two-thirds of the House votes to waive that rule. In addition, my bill contains earmark reform provisions from H. Res. 659, Representative Obey's bill, that will make publicly available relevant details about any earmarks contained in a bill, including who sponsored the provision and who benefits from it.

I am convinced that we can reduce the deficit while protecting vital entitlement programs from expedited rescission authority and the sort of summary changes that fast-track provisions would permit. H.R. 4890 allows the President to propose line-item rescissions even to entitlement programs such as Social Security, veterans' benefits, and Medicare. My bill would protect these programs.

The Deficit Reduction and Effective Legislative Line Item Veto Act of 2006 will put in place these measures we need to address our budget crisis. Merely granting the President expedited rescission authority alone, as H.R. 4890 provides, will do little to require that Congress set budget priorities, put the budget on the path back to balance, and stick to its budget promises.

There are lots of ways to present it, and you have got some ingenious devices there on the table. I found this back-of-the- envelope summary of how much we have increased the debt ceiling of the United States, the legal limit to which this government can borrow, which is set by statute, over the years that George Bush has been President of the United States.

When the Bush administration first came to the Congress back in 2001, with their proposal to do 1 trillion, 800 billion in tax cuts over a 10-year period of time, they told us we could do these tax cuts and still we won't be back here to ask for an increase in the debt ceiling, the legal lending borrowing limit, until 2008.

The next year, June 2002, hat in hand, they were back here at the Congress saying we missed it. We overestimated the surplus. The tax cuts have taken effect. We need a $450 billion increase

in the debt ceiling of the United States.

That was June of 2002. Within a year, May, 2003, they were back, and they were asking this time for a phenomenal sum of money, a $984 billion increase in the debt ceiling of the United States.

If you go back to 1981, just before I first came to Congress, when Mr. Reagan became President of the United States, the entire debt of the United States was less than $984 billion. In 1 year, they needed to raise the debt ceiling by that amount to accommodate the budgets of the Bush administration. Well, that was May of 2003.

Fourteen months later, November 2004, there was another $800 billion increase. And when we passed the supplemental for the budget this year, the supplemental spending bill, there was slipped into it a provision increasing the debt ceiling by $781 billion. And still pending there is another increase. It is hard to believe. Back of the envelope sums it up better than any possible way I could. When they passed the budget resolution in the House this year, it included an additional increase of $653 billion. If you add all of those debt ceiling increases together, you will find that the total amount of debt ceiling increase in the Bush administration comes to $3.7 trillion. $3.7 trillion, that is how much we have had to raise the debt ceiling, the legal borrowing rate of this government, in order to make room for the deficits caused by the Bush administration's budget.

That letter was in February.

Exactly. That simple rule worked better than any budget resolution, any budget rule we enacted during the 1980s and during the 1990s. I was here, involved in the process. I can stand witness to it. PAYGO worked.

But don't take my word for it. Last year, while he was still chairman of the Fed, Alan Greenspan testified before our committee three times, and on each occasion we asked him, What is your assessment of the budget process rules we adopted in the 1990s and let expire in 2002? He said, I was a cynic then. I thought it was a diversionary tactic. But I have to acknowledge that those budget process rules had an enormous impact on the success we achieved, moving the budget from $290 billion in deficits when George Bush left office in 1992 to $236 billion in surplus in the year 2000. PAYGO, he said, works. And he recommended that it be renewed, extended in its old form, affecting both tax cuts and entitlement increases. That was Alan Greenspan saying it accounted for a lot of the success of the budget discipline we displayed in the 1990s.

The bottom line is we charge the tab to our children. We have a deficit today. This fiscal year the deficit will probably be somewhere between 300 and $350 billion. If we adopt additional tax cuts, they will go straight to the bottom line and only make the deficit larger.

Now, the tax cuts envisioned by this estate tax extension will come in the outer years because we are still increasing the exemptions and lowering the rate applicable to decedents' estates right now under old law. This will mean that in the first 10 years that this estate tax provision is fully implemented, the first 10 years when it is fully effective, the cost will be somewhere between 700 and $800 billion in revenues lost or foregone. Seven to $800 billion during that period of time. And that will be a period of time when the baby boomers will be beginning to retire in big numbers and starting to draw Social Security and Medicare, and we all know both of those programs are going to be strained under the load of the baby boomers' retirement.

I have been here for 23 years

No question about it. That is one of the problems you have with the line item veto. It says we need to let the President get involved even more. I voted for an expedited rescission, a line item veto before, here on this House floor. But really I think that Congress itself should turn to its own problems and start addressing those as opposed to going outside the Congress for solutions. We know what the problem is. We do not have a budget resolution this year adopted by both Houses. One of the things we learned in the 1980s and again in the 1990s was that you need a multi-year plan. Typically a 5-year plan. Not just a 1-year budget but a 5-year budget so you can see the implications on the tax side and on the spending side of what everything you are doing does to the bottom line. And we do not have a 5-year budget at this point in time. And the budget process rules like the PAYGO rule and the discretionary spending caps that we adopted in the 1990s no longer apply. The law elapsed. The Republicans allowed it to elapse and did not renew it. And consequently we do not have those disciplines that we had in the 1980s and 1990s that finally brought the deficit to heal and, furthermore, in the year 2000, put it in surplus to the tune of $236 billion. The last full fiscal year of the Clinton administration, that is where it was, $236 billion in the black.

As a matter of fact, our Republican colleagues control the House. They have a majority in the Senate, and, of course, they control the White House. So they cannot escape responsibility for these fiscal results.

Does that mean I get to join the 30-Something Working Group?

Mr. Speaker, I want to call to the attention of the House a milestone in the lives of an all-American family. Fifty years ago, on June 14, 1956, Samuel R. Foster and Jestine Wright were united in a marriage that inspires all of us who know them. Both dedicated their lives to public service as school teachers and administrators. Early in the era of school integration, Sam Foster was selected as principal to start a new school, Northwestern High School in Rock Hill, South Carolina. This was a great challenge for an African-American educator, but Sam rose to the challenge and won the respect of students and parents, white and black. Sam Foster moved from education to elective office and served with distinction in the South Carolina General Assembly. He became known throughout the state for his wisdom and ability and especially for his facility to see all sides of an issue and cut to the essence of an argument. Sam Foster completed his career in public service as a commissioner on the South Carolina Employment Security Commission. All who know the couple well know that Sam Foster has derived much of his wisdom and insight over the years from the counsel of his wife, Jestine.

Two sons were born to Sam and Jestine Foster, Sam and Alan, both of whom have been successful in their own right, bringing further distinction to their parents.

Mr. Speaker, I call the Fosters to the attention of the House because their marriage and family are exemplary and worthy of recognition throughout the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share with my colleagues a stirring story about Sergeant Cedric Caldwell, one of my constituents, from Rock Hill, South Carolina. His story is one example of the brave men and women serving in Iraq.

[From the Herald, May 28, 2006]

Rock Hill Soldier Saved Lives of Comrades in Iraq When Bomb Shredded

Convoy Truck

(By Andrew Dys)

The U.S. Army convoy rolled where death lives.

About 30 miles north of Baghdad. Night in Iraq couldn't

have been darker. Late April, a little more than a month ago.

Rock Hill's ``Corn Dog,'' Sgt. Cedric Caldwell, manned the

front machine gun on one of the convoy escort trucks. A

sergeant from California named Torres was beside him. A

private first class named Squires drove.

The truck looked like America. A black guy, a white guy and

a Hispanic guy.

But Iraq in the night is not like America where so many

spend nights howling about blacks and Hispanics. In Iraq in

Alpha Battery, 3rd Battalion, 321st Field Artillery Regiment,

your brothers who don't look like you are all you've got.

No color matters but the indigo of night and the yellow of

fire and the red of blood.

``All of a sudden, there was a loud explosion, and I fell

down inside the cab on Torres,'' Caldwell remembered.

The truck rolled and tipped over on its top.

``I must have gotten knocked out for a minute,'' Caldwell

said. ``Then all I could see was fire and smoke everywhere.

Except for the picture in my mind. It was just like a

photograph. My wife and my daughter. It's

true. Your life does flash in front of your eyes. I saw it.''

Caldwell saw the hatch opening for the truck and climbed

through as the calls of ``I'm hit! I'm hit'' pierced the

night and cut through the flames.

Caldwell didn't run for the safety of the roadside ditch.

He didn't call for a doctor for himself. He pulled Torres to

safety through the hatch. Then he dragged Torres about 20

meters from the truck so the explosions wouldn't kill him.

The munitions in the truck were blowing up in the fire.

Bullets, shells, shrapnel designed to kill the enemy now

trying to kill them.

``I could still hear screaming,'' Caldwell said.

Putting others' needs first

Again, Caldwell didn't run for safety.

``All I could see was Squires' hand,'' Caldwell said. ``So

I reached in, grabbed on, and pulled him out.''

Squires was burning alive.

``It was like a stunt double in the movies,'' Caldwell

said. ``His whole legs were on fire. I rolled him around to

try and put the fire out, but it didn't work. So I took off

my vest and my shirt and tried to smother the fire.''

Finally, the fire was out, but Squires' clothes were so hot

Squires was still burning. Shirtless, bare-chested in a place

where snipers are the law, Caldwell knelt in the road and

pulled off Squires' clothes. Finally, he got Squires to the

ditch.

Before the medics arrived, Caldwell poured what water he

could find over Squires' wounds.

``I kept telling him he was going to be OK, that he was

going to live,'' Caldwell said. ``He was yelling. I was

yelling. But I wasn't going to let him die. Both of them are

really good soldiers. They would have done the same for me.''

Torres suffered a broken arm and other injuries and is now

back at Fort Bragg, N.C., where all three soldiers are based.

Squires is in intensive care at the Brook Army Medical Center

burn unit in San Antonio, Texas, hospital officials

confirmed.

Caldwell suffered a concussion and has a dent in his

forehead where an ammunition box thumped him. He has shrapnel

in his leg. He has cuts and bums on his face and hands. His

back is covered with an I8-inch burn.

Strong sense of honor, duty

He is a sergeant with responsibility for 14 men. He said

his superiors have put in for a Purple Heart for his wounds

in action and a Combat Action Badge, and either a Bronze Star

or Silver Star for valor.

Caldwell could have come home, too. But he chose to stay in

Iraq.

``My men here need me,'' Caldwell said by telephone this

week.

Caldwell's wife and parents were distraught that he was

injured, but they rejoice he is alive. Maybe even more, they

take pride that Cedric Caldwell did what every man hopes he

would do when an overturned truck is on fire with men

underneath that truck.

Caldwell did not run. He didn't ask for help for himself.

He helped his men.

``He went back,'' said the Rev. Willie Caldwell, the

father. ``I prepared myself when he left that my son could

come back in a pine box. I supported this war then and now. I

believe in freedom. It's not cheap. And then when he was at

the hospital, he saw all those other guys who are hurt worse.

He told me, `Daddy, I need to stay. These guys need to come

home, not me.' ''

Caldwell's wife, Tiffani, is a military child whose parents

are both immigrants from the Caribbean. Her father came from

Jamaica to the Air Force. He served in the first Persian Gulf

War. Her mother came from Barbados to the Army.

Torres came from Mexico, Caldwell said.

Americans gnash their teeth over immigration, ask for

fences to be built or borders to be shuttered, while the sons

and daughters of immigrants or immigrants themselves fight

the wars over freedom.

``Corn Dog'': A local hero

``My best friend is a hero,'' said Travis Canty, who has

been ``like a brother'' with Caldwell since both were little

kids in Rock Hill. It is Canty who spilled the beans that the

nickname ``Corn Dog'' comes from Caldwell eating corn dogs

for lunch during school.

``He didn't run. He didn't hide. He saved those guys,''

Canty said.

Caldwell went first to Kosovo when the war on terror began.

He was home a short while, then spent almost a year in

Afghanistan. A few months with his wife and then Iraq.

Caldwell was home for a few days in January, just missing the

birth of daughter Tiffanie. He saw her, kissed her and his

wife a few times, then went back to Iraq.

And then he cheats death. And still he stays in Iraq.

``I guess my military background prepared me for this,''

Tiffani Caldwell said. ``I haven't cried yet. My husband is

alive. He is a soldier. He'll come home when his deployment

is finished.''

Return to a simpler life

Caldwell's enlistment is up in February. He said he's not

staying in the Army.

``No way, no more Iraq,'' said Williatte, his mother.

``We are done,'' said Tiffani, his wife.

Caldwell plans to come back to Rock Hill with his wife and

daughter. He'll play music in his father's Abiezer Baptist

Church. He wants to be a Realtor.

``I truly believe that without God, me and Torres and

Squires would not have survived,'' Caldwell said.

Caldwell may be right.

Maybe God wanted the black and the Hispanic and the white

guys to live.

But one thing seems to be for sure.

A Rock Hill guy, Northwestern High class of 1998, who

joined the National Guard while still in high school then

leapt into active duty and never left, didn't leave his

brothers to die in the dirt and flame and blood of Iraq.

Monday, on Memorial Day, no monuments will be etched with

the names Torres or Squires on granite.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for his indulgence and for the recognition, and I want to focus on something that has been little discussed in this debate, and that is how much this war is costing us.

Cost is not the ultimate determinant. When we have troops in the field, we should be unstinting in their support. But when the cost runs into hundreds of billions of dollars, it has to be a consideration. The greatest cost, of course, is counted in human lives: 2,514 killed so far, 17,774 wounded so far. The dollar cost is not nearly so precious, but it is substantial.

First, for comparison, here is what the first Persian Gulf War cost us: $61 billion. But our allies contributed $10.6 in kind, $48.4 billion in cash contributions, and so out-of-pocket we were $2.1 billion. That, my friends, is the benefit of having allies.

Now, look at the annual cost of the war we are fighting. Notice that it has increased by almost 100 percent from 2003 when the war itself was fully going on, to this year, 2006, an increase from $51 billion to $104 billion a year, annually.

The next chart then sums up the expenditures year by year, and you can see the bottom line. Thus far through this year, the cost is $318 billion. Thus far. Iraqi Freedom alone is $318 billion. To express that in monthly terms, something the Pentagon calls the ``burn rate,'' the average expenditure per month for the troops we are maintaining there, 130,000 strong, is running at $8.4 billion a month. That is $8.4 billion a month.

Now, we have asked CBO, and CBO itself decided to set up a model to estimate what the outyear cost of this deployment would be, assuming that after this year there is a substantial drawdown to the point where 50,000 troops remain in theater, Afghanistan and Iraq. This covers both. The total cost of this, over a period of 10 years, is $371 billion, assuming a modest increment in our deployment to that theater of 50,000 additional troops. This is CBO speaking.

Now, if you add $371 billion to $318 billion, you get $689 billion. That is what this war could cost us if its goes on at its current level. And we have not reflected in this number the accrued costs we are incurring daily due to the harsh environmental conditions in the desert. The Army says it will cost $24 billion alone over the next 2 years to restore and repair and replace equipment.

Now, as I said, cost is not the ultimate determinant, but it has to be a consideration when it reaches this magnitude. I do not think we can debate the deployment in Iraq in existing troop levels in a vacuum, as if the cost does not matter, as if we had infinite resources. Cost matters if we are ever to balance our budget. Cost matters in meeting other military needs for operations elsewhere in the world, for transformation, and for modernization.

It is too bad we cannot have a full debate where we could express fully all of the grave issues facing us due to the deployment in Iran.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Skelton for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, the mission in Iraq has been plagued from the start by poor intelligence, by poor planning for the post-war, and by disdain for the advice from our allies and even our officials. Ignoring the Army's Chief of Staff, the Secretary of Defense deployed too few troops, failing to foresee the insurgency that followed the war. Many of those deployed were not properly equipped with body armor or armored vehicles, forced to improvise in the field. The troops were assigned duty that they were not trained for. But let me add here they have performed magnificently. They rose to the challenge. They showed they still have that GI genius for field expedience. They improvised.

But the lack of planning and the lack of preparation has cost us dearly; 2,514 Americans have paid the ultimate price: they have died. 17,774 have been seriously wounded.

Since this is the end of the debate, let me go to the bottom line. First of all, let me say the most important cost we have incurred is for the precious lives that were lost, 2,514; 1,774 who were wounded. But the costs also are considerable. They are not a determinant, obviously. We have troops in the field and are unstinting in our support of them. But when the costs run into hundreds of billions of dollars, they have to be considered.

Here is what the cost of the first Persian gulf war was: $61 billion. Of that our allies chipped in in kind $10.6 billion, in cash $48 billion. The total cost to the United States out of pocket was $2.1 billion. That is what happens when you form a real coalition and have allies and do not go it alone.

Here is what happens when you go it alone. This has been the ascending cost of the war in Iraq, Iraqi Freedom: starting out at $51 billion, it rose to $77 billion in 2004, to $87 billion in 2005, and to $100.4 billion this year, the estimated cost. And here is what the cost per month is: $8.4 billion. That is what the current cost works out to. That is a burn rate in Pentagon jargon; $8.4 billion a month is the cost of the war currently.

Finally, adding all of that up, through the year 2006, you can see that the cost of Operation Iraqi Freedom has been $318.5 billion. The cost is not the determinant. We can afford whatever it takes to defend this country. We want to be, as I said, unstinting in support of our troops. But when the cost gets to be $318 billion, $8.4 billion a month, it has to be a consideration. And that is similarly what we are saying tonight.

The President spoke several weeks ago and said that probably his successor in 2010 would be the person who decides whether or not and when American troops would be redeployed. He did not even mention the cost of the current undertaking. It is not just a dollar cost. It is an opportunity cost. For every dollar consumed here is a loss of dollars otherwise that could be spent on modernization and on the transformation of our forces.

Last year when we passed the Defense Authorization Act for 2006, the House and Senate, and the President by signing the bill, enacted a provision that 2006 would be the year of transition, when Iraqi troops would begin to take primary responsibility.

This is simply what we are calling on the President to do, to begin moving us in that direction as we resolved we should have done last year, particularly in view of the cost.

Mr. Speaker, a few months ago this House passed a bill to get tough with illegal immigration. It stiffened sanctions, it increased penalties, and it promulgated a new get-tough approach to illegal immigration.

It lacked, however, one essential, the resources to carry out this new step-up in enforcement that it proposed. The bill took steps to open up the door to State and local law enforcement so that you could have local sheriffs and local law enforcement personnel more involved in criminal alien assistance, but it still left the program proposed woefully underfunded.

Some years ago I called Atlanta, the regional office of the INS, to report what I thought was a serious immigration violation and to ask for an investigation. I was told there were only two investigatory agents in all of South Carolina, and they had to be used for criminal matters, for really serious deportations.

The supplemental that came through this House in March, was passed on March 16 and then went to the Senate, offered a golden opportunity to do something about that shortcoming. The Senate, for its part, seized that opportunity, beefed up enforcement and helped bolt down our borders far better than they are now. The Senate seized the opportunity. Senator Gregg offered an amendment. When the bill was finally finished in the Senate, it added $2.548 billion for border security and for port security in this country, both of which are woefully underresourced at the present time.

The bill, as I said, included $1.9 billion of the $2.5 billion for sealing off and securing our borders far better than they are now. The Bush administration then proposed an additional amendment of $1.9 billion, but insisted that it supplant, not supplement but supplant, the proposal that Senator Gregg had passed by a substantial margin on the Senate floor.

Now, what is in the Bush package we don't oppose. We have, in fact, been proposing more detention beds and more border security agents and more effort there for some time now. So we don't oppose that $1.9 billion. But look at what Senator Gregg put in the bill, which was not pulled out of thin air, basic meat and potatoes, practical requirements that are needed if we are really going to bolt down our borders.

The P3 fleet, which serves as our border security's primary air surveillance, is 40 years old. That is a Lockheed Electra platform, an old turboprop

plane, 20 years beyond the average life of even this type of plane.

Two months ago the entire fleet was grounded due to a safety issue uncovered during a routine inspection. Senator Gregg would have put money here, and emphatically we believe it should be put here. Outdated vehicles, this is a harsh environment, this is a border, roadless terrain that vehicles have to travel. There are nearly 1,700 vehicles, virtually unusable due to the wear and tear of the desert, extreme environments and high use. Senator Gregg's amendment would have put money there.

Lack of sufficient patrol aircraft. We currently detect three out of every 10 boats carrying smugglers. Of the boats detected by patrol aircraft, 75 percent are stopped, apprehended. More aircraft obviously are needed to act on actionable intelligence regarding human and drug smuggling activities.

Finally, armed helicopters. You want to get tough? Only nine out of 150 helicopters are armed, allowing human and drug traffickers to cross our maritime border virtually unimpeded. Armed helicopters could stop 100 percent of the illegal smugglers whom they encounter.

This is what is lacking and missing in this bill. It was there, taken out in conference. As a result, this bill leaves security gaps, serious gaps in our national security and our national borders and ports underfunded. This is a real deficiency and a missed opportunity that unfortunately this conference report did not seize.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my deep concern about the subcommittee's decision to zero out funds for the Mixed Oxide, or MOX, fuel fabrication plant at Savannah River Site in South Carolina. In a nutshell, the MOX fuel plant would take weapons grade plutonium and convert it into fuel usable in commercial reactors.

In 2002, the state of South Carolina, in an arrangement with the Department of Energy and Congress, agreed to allow 34 tons of weapons grade nuclear material for MOX processing be stored at the Savannah River Site. In exchange, the state of South Carolina received assurances that the MOX fuel plant would be completed on schedule. And to be sure, we put in place penalty payments for the Department of Energy if the MOX fuel plant's construction delayed beyond 2011.

In parallel with this U.S. effort, the U.S. and our allies agreed to help fund a MOX facility in Russia, where the Russians would likewise convert 34 tons of their own plutonium into MOX fuel. To nearly everyone, this seemed like a good deal--and in any event, a done deal. In the U.S., we would eliminate the expense and risk of safeguarding weapons usable nuclear fuel. In Russia, we would eliminate the risk that weapons grade nuclear material would fall into terrorist hands. And for the nuclear power industry, we would provide a new source of nuclear fuel.

For four years, we have been told by the Department of Energy that liability concerns for U.S. contractors in Russia were the hold-up for the MOX facility--a problem we believed was resolved last summer. Unfortunately, earlier this year it came to light that there was a more fundamental problem. In February, the Russians informed U.S. officials that they would only move forward with the MOX fuel facility in Russia if the MOX fuel could be used in new so-called fast reactors, which pose proliferation concerns, or if the international community paid for the whole project. This development called into question the nonproliferation benefits that the U.S. might expect from MOX.

I can understand Chairman Hobson's concern about these changes to the MOX fuel program. In fact, I share them. But that does not change the fact that without the MOX program, South Carolina is stuck with 34 tons of weapons grade plutonium with no clear pathway for disposal. When South Carolina agreed to take the Nation's plutonium, it did not do so to become plutonium's final burial place. We only took the plutonium with the promise that a processing facility and ultimate removal would be forthcoming. The penalty payments imposed on the Department of Energy were our ace in the hole to make sure this happened. In the Defense Authorization bill, we even included language attesting to the fact that the South Carolina MOX facility was worth doing on its own, separate of the Russian facility if need be.

We learned of Russia's decision shortly before the Defense Authorization bill was marked up in the Armed Services Committee, and we took sensible steps to account for these new circumstances. What the House Armed Services Committee did is fence the funds sought for the MOX fuel plant, pending a report from the Department of Energy that reaffirms this process as the preferred technology and most cost- effective means for disposing of weapons-grade plutonium. Millions of dollars have been spent in the expectation that the MOX fuel decision was a done deal. An EIS has been prepared. Tons of plutonium have been shipped to South Carolina, based on the iron-clad promise that it would be processed into MOX reactor fuel and shipped out on schedule. The contractor for the project has put together an impressive engineering team, and begun design work. Duke Energy has obtained MOX fuel assemblies from France and loaded the fuel rods in its light water reactor. To cancel this substantial project so precipitously, with no input from the Department of Energy, with no consideration of sunk cost, and with the enormous cost to terminate for convenience does not seem wise or right to me, particularly when we lack an agreed-upon alternative that has been studied and found superior to the MOX fuel option.

I am not dogmatic about MOX; if other treatment options are available and cost effective, I am open to those options. But with over half a billion dollars already invested in the MOX facility, I am wary of scrapping the whole idea and starting over. I understand that Chairman Hobson put $111 million of the MOX cut into exploration of other treatment options at Savannah River Site, and I commend him for that. But I think we should withhold judgment on MOX fuel until we have at least received the report sought by the House Armed Services Committee. I look forward to working with Chairman Hobson and Ranking Member Visclosky either to restore funding or to find an alternative that is mutually agreeable.

Thank you for the opportunity to share my views on this issue of great importance to my state, out country, and our nuclear complex.