Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to an old friend and dear colleague. Frank McCloskey and I came to Congress together in 1983, and for all the time that he served here, we sat beside each other on the Committee on Armed Services. I enjoyed him as a person. He became a good friend. I admired him as a colleague. I learned a lot from him.

Frank was plain and unpretentious, but beneath a serious and even studious sort of demeanor, he was passionate about the things that he believed in and dogged in their pursuit. He stayed on top of the issues. We get confronted continually with issue of all sorts.

I will never forget the morning after Reagan made his SDI speech, March 1983. Frank was the one member of the committee then who was probing the Defense Department witnesses about strategic defense. He was skeptical but he was always, always informed and diligent and fair- minded as a critic. Long before Srebrenica, he was troubled, deeply, personally conflicted about the war and current issues in the Balkans, and he was an early advocate and lone supporter of our intervention there. There were those who said it was not feasible, it was not possible or it was not desirable, but in the long run Frank McCloskey's position was vindicated.

Frank McCloskey was not glib. He was not flashy. He was not smooth. He was not, in Sam Rayburn's famous analogy, a show horse, but he was a workhorse. He took his job seriously and never himself. He was never one to preen or pontificate. There was no conceit about him. He was a plain spoken Hoosier who worked hard in the House, worked hard for his constituents, and every election ran hard to hold on to his seat.

Frank was gone from the House before we really knew it, and now he is gone altogether. Naming this post office after him is completely appropriate, though it seems a small gesture. This does give us, however, at least the chance to say to an old colleague whom we greatly respected, well done. Well done for all the years you served here. Well done in all your friendships you have given to us, and also to say to Frank and his family, we have never forgotten you, and this bill proves it.

I hope this post office will also give his constituents, whom he served so well, cause to remember him and all that he did for them. Our hearts go out to his family. We understand their grief. We share their loss, but we hope that they will take solace in hearing his old colleagues here in the House say that the years he spent here were years well spent in service to his country.

While he left here more than 8 years ago, I believe his example still shines among us, as the passage of this resolution will demonstrate.

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Commerce Department released the growth rate for the third quarter. It was good news, welcome news, the kind of news we can all cheer. According to the Commerce Department, the economy grew at a rate of 7.2 percent in the third quarter this year.

Now, we all doubt, the President and all the rest of us, that this pace can be sustained, but we all hope that it signals the start of a strong recovery because, Mr. Speaker, it has been a long time coming.

Most Americans will be surprised to hear it, but this economy officially moved out of recession 2 years ago, November 2001.

And yet for 3 solid years, ever since even the recovery from the recession, the official recovery, the economy has continued to creep along, to scrape bottom.

All together, we have had a net job loss in the private sector since 2001 of 3.2 million jobs; 3.2 million jobs have been lost; 2.6 to 2.7 million of those jobs have been lost in manufacturing, some of the best jobs we have got. And I am afraid some of those jobs are not coming back, even if the economy recovers.

So before anybody hangs out a ``mission accomplished'' banner over this economy, I think it is important we recognize tonight and henceforth that there is a lot left to be done.

Here in a nutshell is what this administration has been able to accomplish, or not accomplish, on its watch with respect to the budget and the economy since January of 2001, things that still cry out for correction, notwithstanding the growth rate that we are experiencing right now.

This chart shows that the private sector has shed 3.2 million jobs. That is the worst job record since the Hoover administration, the Great Depression. Long-term unemployment, that is, people who are unemployed for 6 months or more, has tripled. That is when it really begins to get tough. The growth in the economy over the last 3 years, it has grown, it has not been all recession, but the growth has been 2.1 percent on average for 3 straight years. There is only one administration in history who has a worse record than that, that is George Walker Herbert Bush in the 1990s, early 1990s.

Real business investment, that is investment in productive assets, business assets that generate jobs and generate profits, has fallen 6.6 percent a year, the worst rate for real business investment since the Second World War.

And our other deficit, the so-called balance-the-payments deficit, the trade gap, has also increased by $100 billion over the last 3 years.

Let me just show you in further detail more about what has happened to the economy. Growth during this administration, 2.1 percent for the last 3 years. As I said, to find an administration with a worse record since the beginning of the Truman administration, the end of the Second World War, you only go back to the Bush administration. Every other administration has experienced better growth than that.

The unemployment rate has increased from 6 million people to 8 million people. You can see from this chart what has happened to unemployment. It has gone from 4 percent to as high as 6.5 percent and now rests at around 6.1 percent, persistent unemployment, even though we pulled out of the recession.

Let me make that point more clearly. As I said earlier, the economy pulled out of recession in November of 2001. Now, in all of the postwar recessions since the end of the Second World War, if you measure them in jobs lost and jobs recovered, from peak to peak the length of the business cycle downturn has been about 26, 27 months. And here you see that average recession plotted on this chart. You also see across the bottom the red line which indicates the path of this recession. Typically, in every other recession of nine that have occurred since the end of the Second World War at about the 13th, 14th month, you begin to see the job recovery. We begin to regain the jobs that we have lost in the first 13 months. And by the 25th or 26th month we are back to where we were a couple of years before, the jobs have been restored.

But look what has happened here. In the 13th, 14th, 15th month of this recession, this red line keeps going down. It does not turn up. And this is where we are right now today in November of 2003, barely holding our own, hardly improving at all over the dismal loss of 3.2 million jobs over the last 3 years. That is what is happening to jobs in

our economy. That is why this is a jobless recovery. That is not just a turn of phrase, that is not just some rhetorical creation. This is a jobless and a joyless recovery. That is why the people in this country have not felt the recovery even now officially when we did recover in November of 2001.

Now, one of the concerns that we all have when you look at this 7.2 percent growth rate is that it represents one quarter. You have to ask yourself what does the future hold? We hope that this means that the economy as a whole is beginning to pick up. But we have, I think, reason to be worried about the long-run future, not the next several months, not the next quarter, not the next year, but 3 years from now, 10 years from now, 15 years from now when we look at what it has cost to turn this economy around and in terms of tax cuts.

The Bush administration is sure to credit what has happened to the tax cuts that it has implemented, three different series of tax cuts over the last 3 years, totalling about $3 trillion in all in revenue reduction. And they say that this has been the key factor in turning the economy around. Of course, it has played a significant part, I am sure. But we argued all along that this same level of stimulus could be achieved with a lot less damage to the long-term budget, that you could have short-term stimulus with the right tax cuts and still have long- term balance. And that is where the Bush administration comes up short.

Because you will see that in running the budget, running this economy, in trying to deal with the recession, in putting through ahead of everything else preemptively its series of three tax cuts we have seen here this red line here the most precipitous decline, the most drastic reversal in the fiscal fortunes of the United States since at least the Second World War, maybe since Woodrow Wilson. It has just been a tremendous decrease.

Here in a nutshell is what has happened. In the year 2000, fiscal year 2000, the Government of the United States booked a surplus of $236 billion. That was 4 years ago. Hard to believe, but we had a surplus 4 years ago of $236 billion. Three years ago the Bush administration came to office with an advantage that few administrations in history, none in this country, have enjoyed and that is a budget surplus, big-time surplus. And they had some major decisions to make, but they went first and foremost with their tax cuts.

Their economists looked out over the next 10 years, and they foresaw surpluses totalling $5.6 trillion between 2002 and 2011. In 3 years they have changed that picture from a cumulative surplus of $5.6 trillion to a cumulative deficit of nearly $4 trillion, 3.5 to $4 trillion if you simply assume that what we know to be on the Bush agenda is implemented and carried out over that period of time with respect to prescription drugs, with respect to the war in Iraq, with respect to other tax cuts which it is still calling for.

And when you factor that all in, we see not a surplus of $5.6 trillion but a deficit of 3.5 to $4 trillion. And that is the question we would like to address tonight.

We are pleased, we are excited, we are hopeful to see the 7.8 percent growth rate that the economy racked up in the last quarter. But we have to stand back and ask ourselves at what cost have we come, what long- term damage have we done to the budget in getting here.

Let me show you one little piece of math that everybody can understand. If you take the tax cuts that have been implemented to date and look just at the cumulative cost in terms of revenues lost to date, which is about $860 billion, and you divide that by the jobs that the Treasury Department, the Commerce Department claims have been created during this period of time so that we would have had, they say, 5.2 million jobs lost but for the tax cuts, instead of 3.2 million jobs lost we would have 5 million but for the fact that these tax cuts have actually generated a total of 2 million jobs, divide the cost of the tax cuts through this year by the jobs created, it comes to $3,420,000 per job in terms of revenues lost to the Treasury. That is the situation we want to talk to you about tonight.

Where are we going? The budgets that have been produced here, the deficits that have been generated over the last 3 years have been generated with an attitude almost of indifference to the bottom line as if the deficits being run were not consequential, as if they will be wiped out, which we know they will not. All the forecasts of the deficits we will talk about tonight assume that the economy will be growing at 3 percent and we are still accumulating deficits of 3 to $4 trillion despite that rate of growth. But they, nevertheless, have been incurred without any kind of sense of urgency or consequential effects.

It seems to be that those who are overseeing this budget believe that these numbers are not consequential. We believe, those of us here in this Chamber, those on this side of the aisle, and many in this House, we believe those numbers are consequential and they will affect our future and that once we get this economy up and running and on its feet again, it is going to hit hurdle after hurdle as it has to deal with the fact that these huge deficits are there, record deficits, 3, 4, $500 billion a year.

They will have several different effects on our economy. One is the government itself will have to pay more interest every year, bigger and bigger sums in interest, so eventually we will have to raise taxes to pay just interest. That creates cynicism in the American public because they are paying taxes to their government and seeing nothing in return for it, just interest payments.

And, secondly, when the government goes into the open markets to finance its 4 or $500 billion deficits every year, it crowds out private borrowers and runs up the costs of capital.

What are the consequences in the long run of the policies we have been pursuing for the last 3 years? That is the question we pose tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) to respond to the issues we have just raised.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Berry).

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Ross).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his contribution.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to vigorously support the quality-of-life provisions, the very modest quality-of-life provisions, but important provisions that my good friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin, has included in this bill. I would say that we have worked together to develop many of these proposals. We have winnowed them through several different processes, the personnel subcommittee, the Democratic side of the personnel subcommittee, the House Armed Services Committee.

Go through this bill, $87 billion. It does all manner of things for Iraq and the Iraqi people, the Iraqi army, the Iraqi police force, and ask what it does for our troops. They are the ones who not only won the war, but in the aftermath of the war when there was a real vacuum, through improvisation saved the day. They are the ones who, right now, are the foot troops who are putting Iraq back together. They have been called for hard duty, they have been asked to extend their tours, and the least we can do for them and their families is to show some concern and say thank you, and that is what these provisions do.

First of all, we know that family assistance centers which help Reservists, many of whom have had their tours extended, help their families deal with problems, are underfunded by $50 million. This corrects that deficiency. Secondly, we know, if we have been there, that one of the chief complaints is the inability just to call home and talk to your family. In this era of telecommunications, it is the least we can give our troops, and this bill provides $50 million to help our troops call home and stay in touch with their families. Transportation costs. The biggest complaint in Bosnia, the biggest complaint, you have been to Bosnia, all of you have been to Bosnia, all of you have been to Iraq. The biggest complaint was R&R is great, but if you are at Fort Bragg and happen to live in El Paso, it can cost you an arm and a leg if you are an E-6 or an E-7 to get home. And so this bill provides the money to fly all the way home and get back to your duty station.

Finally, funds are provided for transition assistance for disabled service members. Many of us have been out to Walter Reed. A very affecting piece of testimony was given by General Jack Keane, where he recounted the case of a blind GI who had lost one limb, who cannot be reintegrated back into the Army, but he said, let me tell you something, we're going to see that this GI, wounded as he is, gets reintegrated into society. We're going to help him get to school, we're going to give him a mentor, help him every step of the way. The problem, and I take General Keane at his word, there is no money to provide for that. This bill would provide for that.

These are four modest provisions. The least we can do for our troops is to support this package and help our troops.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

This amendment actually consists of a number of different provisions, all designed to enhance the quality of life of our troops, the men and women in the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan. I do not believe that these brave Americans should be left out of this supplemental.

Read this $87 billion bill, however, and we will find there is very little in it for them. We will find every conceivable benefit for Iraq and Iraqis; but we will find very, very little for our own troops, and these are the ones who won the war in 3 weeks. These are the ones who saved Iraq from catastrophe in postwar chaos. These are the ones who right now are carrying out the reconstruction of Iraq, a thankless job in which they take casualties almost every day.

These provisions that I offer in this amendment would lighten their burdens just a bit, both in Iraq and in Afghanistan, and, to some extent, ease their families' burdens back home. These provisions would say thank you. They have not been able to savor victory because of the chaos that followed the war. It would say to them, we appreciate and understand and are grateful for what you are doing.

The cost, the cost is less than 1 percent of this entire package. Surely we can scrub this package down and provide 1 percent as a way of saying thank you to our troops.

What is in it? Hostile fire pay, imminent danger pay, combat pay. The chairman of this subcommittee, the Subcommittee on Defense, last year raised imminent danger pay and raised family separation pay, to his great credit. Let us make it permanent. Let us take imminent danger pay and raise it up to $250. Add that to family separation pay, and it means every time a father or a mother goes into a field of combat and is faced with shots fired at them every day, if they are in imminent danger, they will get $500. I do not think that is too much to ask.

The Pentagon wanted the increase in imminent danger pay and family separation pay to revert to its prior level. Once again, the Subcommittee on Defense did not stand for that. The Pentagon then said, let us, instead of paying imminent danger pay, have hardship pay, and requested that it be increased up to $600 a month. It is discretionary with the commanders; it has to be approved by the Department of Defense. It would have provided this in lieu of family separation pay or at least in lieu of imminent danger pay. It is a bad idea. But I picked up on the basic idea, if the Pentagon thinks that discretionary pay like this for living in abysmal, miserable conditions ought to be raised to $600 so that the division commander will have at his disposal and use at his discretion with Pentagon approval, then let us do it, and that is what this particular amendment would provide.

Several years ago, provision number three, we set out to say to those enlisted personnel who have families and

live off base, we want you to be able to live off base with your base housing allowance and not have to dig into your own pocket to pay some of the costs. We have gradually, step by step every year, implemented this plan. We simply say here, to ease the burden on the families back home, we are going to implement it all together next year instead of making you wait 2 years.

Family assistance centers. There are lots of Reservists and Guard personnel. You have had them call you. They have called me. They have got problems. They are stressed out. They have businesses they owned and they are finding it hard to operate because a family member has been deployed.

This would provide the family assistance centers who help these folks with money that it is acknowledged they are short of, $48 million short. This would give them $48 million to meet the needs of the Guard and Reserve who call on them frequently.

If you have been to Iraq, you know that the troops, when you meet with them, all tell you that the telephone service is pretty spotty. Some feel that they are being scalped. Some feel that they cannot get to telephone or Internet, not nearly easy enough, in any event. We say to this we want DOD to correct that, and we want to give the troops access to a discounted telephone card, at least up to $50 a month.

Here is one that is really popular. And I think it will probably emerge as part of this bill. But let us say tonight, we give it some recognition on the House floor. I went to Bosnia several years ago, and the biggest complaint I found amongst troops there who had been deployed for longer than they expected was that even though they got R&R in some cases, they would go back to Fort Bragg or somewhere like that, and they would get dropped in and it was on them, it was up to them to get home to El Paso or Fresno, California, wherever it might be.

The proposal is very simple. When we give troops R&R, let us give them a ticket to go all the way and come all the way back. It costs a little money, but it is the least we can do.

We had very affecting testimony before our committee by General Jack Keane, very affecting testimony. He told of going out to Walter Reed and seeing a soldier who was blind and lost one arm. He said we want to provide transition assistance to these soldiers. We provide that transition assistance.

This is a package full of things that have been whittled down. They are good provisions. I know what the gentleman is about to say. I wish I could talk him into accepting this, but if he does not accept it on a point of order, a technicality, I hope he will remember some of these things in conference.

Mr. Chairman, I am flattered. I hope this means we are about to close the deal.

Mr. Chairman, I will take a minute or two, if I could.

As I was saying, General Keane came before our committee and said that he had been to Walter Reed and he met there a young soldier who had lost his eyesight and lost a limb, badly injured. You may have heard this story. He said, ``We cannot put that soldier back in the Army. We would love to do it, and he would love to come back because he has been a good troop. But I tell you what we can do,'' he said, ``we can give him a mentor to help him every step of the way. We can see that he can learn to read braille. We can help him get a college education. We can reintegrate him into civil society again, into the civilian society again.''

But it will cost money to do all of those things. That money is not in this bill. We put $50 million in there so that Jack Keane's vision can become a reality. Good provision.

There are a number of other provisions in there. There is one in particular that I would like to mention, Mr. Chairman, and that is small business loans for Reservists. I am reacting to problems I am hearing from Guard and Reserve people who have left behind small businesses, a dry cleaner in one instance, their wife is trying to run it. They will probably going to need to borrow some money before it is all over with.

Surely, we could put something in the bill somewhere for the SBA to help these folks obtain a loan to keep their business going.

Finally, there is a bill here at the desk which would provide a deduction for Reservists and Guard personnel who travel more than a certain distance to get to their point of duty or for deployment. It is right here at the desk. We ought to take that bill and make those expenses deductible.

Exempts the $6,000 death gratuity from income taxes. This is another idea with bipartisan support. The death gratuity, modest as it is, should not be subject to federal income taxes. My amendment would ensure that it is not.

This amendment provides $50 million to enhance DOD-VA transition programs for disabled service members. At an Armed Services Committee hearing a couple of months ago, General Jack Keane, Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, talked of a serviceman blinded and badly injured in Iraq. He told our committee that the Army was going to take care of the young man, but he was more specific than that. He spoke of mentoring him, of helping him go to college, and providing him with training so that he could reintegrate into civilian life. This is the right thing to do, but it will not be easy or free. My amendment provides resources to help make General Keane's vision a reality for our disabled veterans.

My amendment contains several other provisions, also designed to provide a lift to our troops and their families. Some of these provisions may be subject to points of order, but they are all moves that would directly benefit America's fighting men and women and the families.

My amendment would take the increases (to $250/month) in committee bill and make that higher level permanent. In so doing, the Congress can address an area of real uncertainty that has brought anxiety to many troops; just ask your state's Adjutant General.

This provision would permanently eliminate the $8.10 daily subsistence charge imposed on wounded servicemembers who are hospitalized. I want to take Chairman Bill Young's praiseworthy idea to eliminate the daily subsistence fee and make it the law, rather than a temporary, FY 2004-only, fix.

Requires separate campaign medals for service in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. I believe the men and women who risked their lives to depose Saddam's regime deserve recognition that is distinct from the recognition we rightly award to those who successfully fought the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Directs DOD to provide maximum advance notice to mobilized Guard and Reserve personnel on the timing and duration of their duty.

* * * * *

Provides $25 million for SBA grants for vocational or technical training for reserve-owned small businesses. For the same reason I believe we should offer low-interest loans to distressed Guardsmen and Reservists, my amendment would also fund a modest program of grants to reservists who need them.

Mr. Chairman, some parts of this clearly are germane and applicable, even under the rule that prohibits us from legislating on an appropriations bill. I would say to the chairman, who I have great respect for, this bill should have gone, the $87 billion bill has enough policy in it, enough money in it that it should have gone through the typical two-step process. The authorizing committee should have had a hand in it and we did not. We asked for it and did not have that opportunity.

In light of that, I would ask him to take a broader view of what happens here on the House floor in the appropriations process to acknowledge the fact that we did not get a chance to put it through committee and, therefore, give us a chance to make a little bit of law, which is not very complicated law. Most of this stuff has been around a long time. We whittled down a package of old ideas to deal with inequities and deficiencies and shortcomings in personnel policy. This stuff has been around a long time. It is not complicated. There is no reason we should not be able to add it to an appropriations bill. As my colleague knows from writing many appropriations bills, there are often a lot more complicated authorizations in it than this particular one.

Mr. Chairman, I hope we can accomplish some of this before that bill comes out of committee.

Mr. Speaker, today I am honored and privileged to recognize one of the finest officers in the United States Air Force, recently promoted General T. Michael ``Buzz'' Moseley.

For the past two years, General Moseley has served with distinction in one of the most demanding Air Force positions: Commander, Ninth Air Force, Air Combat Command, which is headquartered in my district in Sumter, South Carolina. In that post he also served as Commander, United States Central Command Air Forces, United States Central Command. During his tenure, he prosecuted two of the most successful air campaigns in modern history, raising the bar for the optimum employment of air and space power in joint armed conflict.

Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, General Moseley took command of U.S. Central Command's air component. In this role, he provided air and space power for the Command's 25-nation area of responsibility that reaches from the Horn of Africa, across Iraq and Afghanistan, to the southern states of the former Soviet Union. At the peak of Operation Enduring Freedom, General Moseley directed over 11,000 combat sorties responsible for destroying over 4,600 Taliban and al Q'aeda targets--in support of our nation's war on terror. When U.S. forces had the terrorist organizations and their supporters on the run, the Central Command's focus shifted to sustaining our efforts to bring relief to the long-oppressed Afghani people. In the initial humanitarian phase, nearly 200 airdrop sorties were flown, delivering 2.4 million daily rations and nearly 1,900 tons of blankets and rice.

Following the successes of Operation Enduring Freedom, General Moseley was called upon to provide General Franks, now the former Commander of U.S. Central Command, with air power guidance and expertise as the planning and preparation intensified for military action that would eventually remove the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein. From logistics to civil engineering, readiness of personnel to sensitive theater engagement with friendly foreign allies, the air component's methodical preparation for Operation Iraqi Freedom was simply spectacular. The logistical train paved the way for the employment of nearly 30,000 air-to-ground weapons and air refueling offloads totaling more than 417 million pounds of fuel--enough to keep a Boeing 737-300 airborne for almost 12 years. As the logistical buildup steadily progressed, civil engineers and contractors were busy executing over 350 million dollars in facility upgrades at our friendly host nations' airfields, bolstering their ability to support the pending wartime taskings.

Employing thoughtful and polished diplomacy, General Moseley negotiated basing rights at 24 Arabian Gulf airfields and overflight rights for the coalition's 1,800 aircraft and over 1,350 cruise missiles, assets that were pivotal to conducting the air campaign on terms favorable to American and Coalition national security interests. At the peak of hostilities against the former Iraqi regime, nearly 55,000 United States Air Force personnel were deployed under General Moseley's control. These preparatory actions led to the successful execution of the coalition's overwhelming effort to free the people of Iraq from the clutches of Saddam Hussein. In overthrowing the regime, aircraft from our Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps was coupled with the air power of our coalition allies from the United Kingdom and Australia to execute the most successful air campaign in history. During the course of the 21-day campaign, General Moseley directed 41,000-plus sorties and was responsible for striking nearly 20,000 Iraqi targets--an astounding feat that is a testament to General Moseley's impeccable combat leadership.

To this day, the outstanding men and women of the United States Central Command Air Forces continue to support Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, promoting and maintaining American interests in the region and reconstructing two pivotal countries where our efforts must not fail. While the majority of our air and space force have returned home from the Middle East and Central Asia, over 17,000 airmen remain deployed. They are serving under the most arduous conditions in Southwest Asia, defending the victories of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. The continued sacrifices of these great Americans carries on our Nation's commitment to the security and prosperity of the region.

I was truly pleased with the President's recent nomination and the United States Senate's confirmation of General Moseley for his fourth star. It is exceptionally well-deserved, and I want to offer my congratulations to him; his wife, Jennie; their son, Greg; and their daughter, Tricia. I am proud to represent my fellow South Carolinians-- citizens who have understood the meaning of sacrifice since the formation and creation of the United States--in thanking General Moseley and his family for their selfless dedication, commitment, and sacrifice.

General Moseley is a credit to both the United States Air Force and the United States of America. I wish him the best of luck in his assignment as Vice Chief of Staff, Headquarters United States Air Force. I am confident of his continued success in his new position and look forward to seeing him back here in our Nation's capital.

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

Mr. Speaker, South Carolina is an unenviable host to one of the largest concentrations of military-generated radioactive waste in our country, if not in the world. There are over 37 million gallons of highly-radioactive waste stored in 49 single-lined tanks at the Savannah River site. This waste contains over 400 million curies of radioactivity and represents potentially the single most hazardous threat to the environment and to the people of South Carolina and Georgia, and for that matter, the whole region because it sits atop the Tuscaloosa aquifer.

There are millions more gallons of this kind of waste stored at DOE sites from upper New York State to Washington State.

Over the years, the Department of Energy has worked with these States, my own State of South Carolina, to develop plans to manage the waste by separating out the highly-radioactive contents, transform it into a glass waste solid, suitable for shipment to a national repository for ultimate disposal, and until then, store it on-site in a special interim storage facility. The remaining waste, the residue containing relatively small amounts of radioactivity, is supposed to be mixed with a special sort of concrete and disposed of on-site.

Recently, the Department of Energy proposed to dispose directly of approximately 20 million additional curies of this high-level radioactive waste right there on-site, at the Savannah River site, which is a major change in plans. This amount of waste on-sight will require about 300 years of oversight and maintenance.

The Department of Energy, DOE, however, ran into a problem with this approach. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires this type of high-level waste to be disposed of at a national repository. So to implement that proposal, the Department decided simply to reclassify the waste. They would not call it high-level waste anymore.

Well, they ran into another problem. The United States District Court ruled that the DOE order reclassifying this waste violated the statutory law, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The four affected States, Idaho, Washington, Oregon and South Carolina, all filed briefs in opposition to DOE's proposal and in effect they prevailed.

South Carolina, along with three other States involved in the district court action, has offered through a joint letter with the other States to the Secretary of Energy to work with the Department of Energy to develop a waste classification strategy that will ensure effective and cost effective and timely disposal of high-level waste in a matter that is consistent with the court decision. We are not trying to hold anybody up. I can assure you that the House Committee on Armed Services, on which I sit, is willing to work with the Department of Energy in next year's authorization process to address this matter in the proper form, with hearings, with questions and with the right kind of legislation.

But instead of engaging in earnest, the Department decided to appeal the district court decision but also to come to Congress with this proposal, to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act to allow DOE to determine how much high-level waste it can reclassify and directly dispose of it at several sites, including the Savannah River site. These provisions were not included in either bill, House or Senate. There were no hearings in either committee, House or Senate. This was to be added to the conference report as an out-of-scope provision.

If enacted, this proposal would allow DOE virtual carte blanche to reclassify high-level radioactive waste. This will create lower standards for storing, lower standards for treating, lower standards for processing these radioactive materials, making it all the more likely that some day a dreaded accident will occur, and we will have irreparable harm done to our ground water, our streams, the Tuscaloosa aquifer, affecting not just South Carolina but Georgia and much of the Southeast.

It should not come as any surprise, therefore, that the attorneys general of all four States have vigorously objected in writing to DOE's legislative proposal. In fact, these AGs have called the changes wholly unnecessary.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, to change a law as important as the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in this manner, at the 11th hour, without hearings, without a full discussion by all the stakeholders as an out- of-scope provision to a conference report, is inappropriate in this case, and is a precedent that we, as a Congress, should not create for future cases.

So I commend the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) for his motion; and I urge every Member of the House on both sides of the aisle to vote to add this instruction to the conferees on the pending bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor a remarkable achievement. In May of this year, the Clemson Tigers men's golf team from my great State of South Carolina won the NCAA Division I golf championship in dramatic fashion, edging out the Oklahoma State Cowboys by two strokes on their own course.

The team was led by Senior D.J. Trahan, the number one ranked college golfer for much of this year, and Sophomore Jack Ferguson, who was ranked in the top 25 for most of the year. Trahan finished 22nd with a four round 299 to become the only Clemson player ever with four top 25 finishes, and Ferguson finished 19th with a team best four round 298. Also anchoring the team were Junior Matt Hendrix, Junior Gregg Jones, and Senior Ben Duncan, who finished tied for 35th, 35th, and 52nd respectively.

My hat goes off to Coach Larry Penley and the entire squad for their remarkable 124-8-3 record this year, and for bringing Clemson their first ever national golf championship. They have made your State very proud. It gives me greater pride to see that every member of the Clemson team makes their home in South Carolina. If this keeps up, we may start to see athletes drinking sweet tea instead of Gatorade.

On top of their golf achievements, I am proud that each of these young men will leave with a Clemson academic degree. With that background, I am sure they will be as successful in life as they have been in golf.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. I greatly respect the chairman of the Subcommittee on Military Personnel, and I am grateful to see he has decided that he should support this resolution. I think it is timely, I think it is in order, and while the gentleman says that the pay level is fair and adequate, I would really argue that even with the increases, for the burdens these soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines bear, in hostile circumstances, this pay increment is really minimal.

Last year, when we did the Iraqi supplemental, providing $79 billion for the war in Iraq and more for Afghanistan in the war against terror, $63 billion was allocated to Iraq. And, naturally, we said with soldiers about to go in harm's way, surely we should increase the minimal amount that is being paid to them right now, which was $100. That is all, $100 a month for family separation pay, and $150 for imminent danger pay. We increased those to $250 for family separation pay and $225 for imminent danger pay, but only for 1 year. Unless we act in the defense authorization bill to make this permanent law, as provided in the Senate authorization mark, then this will expire on September 30. And that would be a terrible calamity.

Nevertheless, the Pentagon this summer issued a reclaimer to the committees in conference indicating that they thought that these two increments were too costly to sustain and recommended that they either be dropped or reduced. They met with a firestorm of protest, including a published statement from me and the ranking member on our committee, that I thought it would be outrageous at this point in time to do it. So tonight we can seal the decision and make it permanent law that these levels of incremental pay will be provided to soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who go in harm's way and are separated from their families. They get all the $475.

The gentleman was saying he was in Iraq, and we all know when we go out in the field and we see these soldiers and sailors and airmen, we realize they do not work 8-hour days. They work 18-hour days, continually. And they never know whether danger might befall. The least we can do to help them is pay the way, particularly in the circumstances they now find themselves, doing duty they were not trained for. And a hard and bitter duty it is, in an inhospitable environment. The least we can do is to provide them this pay settlement.

Let me make one more argument, though, if this were not enough, and that is we can either pay now or pay later. Because if we do not provide these increments and somehow or another help our deployed troops bear the burdens that we have imposed upon them, then we are going to pay for it in terms of recruitment and retention just over the horizon. We are going to be paying big reenlistment bonuses. We will be losing E6 sergeants, with the kind of training we need for years to come. We are going to be risking real damage, long-term damage, particularly to our ground forces.

So it is only smart, not just fair, not just good policy, it is just smart personnel policy to continue these payments at the level that is established now in law and to make it permanent law.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to enter in the Congressional Record a story from The Charlotte Observer about Joe Martin, a friend since college days, who was diagnosed nine years ago with ALS, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Today, Joe says, ``I do not have ALS. I had it.'' Joe wants to change the ``doomsday'' mentality about ALS, and show that people can survive, as he has for the last nine years. Joe, in fact, has not only survived but has published two books, an autobiography and a novel, and is at work on a third.

Many members will remember Rep. Jim Martin, who left Congress to serve as Governor of North Carolina. Joe is Jim Martin's brother. As you will see from the article, Joe Martin and his wife, Joan, are establishing a web page which may be of interest to Members with constituents who have ALS.

[From The Charlotte Observer, July 23, 2003]

Joe Martin Tackles His Next Cause

(By David Perlmutt)

He can't talk, he can't walk, he can't move a single body

part except for a finger, eyes and a few facial muscles, but

Joe Martin is on yet another crusade.

Nine years after he was diagnosed with ALS, amyotrophic

lateral sclerosis, the former bank executive and now novelist

wants to change the thinking about the disease that paralyzed

him and, according to that doomsday thinking, should have

killed him.

These days, he discusses his illness in the past tense.

Martin, 63, is living proof, he says, that people can live--

and don't have to die--with ALS.

``For any practical purpose, I do not have ALS. I had it,''

Martin responded by e-mail. ``* * * My survival is just a

fact, almost a foregone conclusion.''

Soon, he and wife Joan plan to post a new Web site that

takes ``positive'' messages to ALS patients--despite doctors

telling them they will die within two to five years.

``Joe wants people to get information that is positive,

instead of the sad news,'' Joan Martin said. ``It will talk

about living, never about dying. Joe tells people diagnosed

with ALS, `If you have a doctor who talks about dying, get

another doctor.' ''

Martin also plans to go after investment money for

technology he says makes survival an option--for example, the

ventilator, a little larger than a laptop computer, that

helps him breathe and a feeding tube that prevents him from

choking on food. Both have given him renewed hope that he

will live to be an old man.

``I knew all along we needed to change the way the world

sees ALS, but to what?'' he wrote. ``If the world concluded

that only someone with my money and connections could

survive, people with ALS would be more depressed than ever.''

Martin, a force in the past for better race relations, is

the brother of former N.C. Gov. Jim Martin and a retired bank

executive. The ALS Association, he says, argues that many

patients don't have his means and therefore ``we will give

them only palliative care, easing them toward death, then use

them to raise money.

``My passion is to save people from that deathtrap.''

Jerry Dawson, executive director of the Carolinas ALS

Association, said the group's primary mission is: ``To help

people live with ALS and to leave no stone unturned in the

search for a cure.''

It is fighting ALS through research and lobbying Congress

for research money, he said.

Martin was diagnosed in October 1994. The disease kills

nerves controlling arms, legs and muscles used to breathe,

swallow and talk. It has the highest mortality rate among

degenerative neurological disorders.

In 1941, ALS killed baseball legend Lou Gehrig, whose name

is tied to the disease. Patients generally die of respiratory

failure.

Martin believes ALS can do nothing else to him, since the

ventilator helps him breathe.

``He can't fall. He can't choke. He won't starve. And with

a ventilator, he can't stop breathing,'' Joan Martin said.

``. . . His eyes are never affected by ALS. So nothing else

can go wrong with him.''

Martin sees three barriers to survival:

Using Lou Gehrig as an icon of death: ``In the name of a

true American idol, `advocates' use false claims with

impunity . . .,'' he wrote in a recent letter to U.S. Rep.

Mike Bilirakis, R-Fla., who chairs a House health

subcommittee. ``How many people refuse treatment, accepting

that fate?'' The ALS Association's ``commitment to death

as the only remedy'': ``My crusade is to put the ALS

Association on a different track or put them out of

business. They or somebody else can raise more money by

telling the truth, without sacrificing lives.'' Dawson

said the association ``regards its work with people with

ALS . . . to be its most vital mission.''

Technology: ``Technology makes survival possible but not

attractive. Our Web site will encourage such things as

ventilators . . . and headbands that transform brain waves

into words.'' The average life expectancy after diagnosis, he

said, predates new therapies and ``assistive equipment.''

Though silenced, Martin has become a loud advocate for ALS

patients getting the treatment and equipment they need to

prolong life. In 1998, he, his brother and friends raised

more than $3 million to build the Carolinas Neuromuscular/ALS

Center at Carolinas Medical Center.

Dr. Jeffrey Rosenfeld, the center's director and CMC's

chief of neurology, agrees that if Martin's body doesn't

create a new problem--such as an infection--ALS can do little

more to him.

The center, Rosenfeld said, has adopted a philosophy of

aggressively treating symptoms before they become

debilitating . . Martin, he added, bought into that.

``I agree with Joe that if you're aggressive with the

management of the disease, you can most definitely change the

course of the disease,'' he said. ``. . . Joe has opted for

the benefits of every aggressive intervention available.''

Those interventions are available to everyone treated at

the Charlotte center, which pays the cost if the patient

can't. Rosenfeld said: ``At the center, the patients and

needs come first. The financial obligations come second.''

Martin is helped by a rare determination and his support

system at home, Rosenfeld said.

He's shown he can live with ALS. A year ago, he and Joan

traveled overseas, and in December to New York, where they

saw plays. He has written two books, one about living with

the illness, the other a novel. He's writing a second novel;

a computer allows him to type e-mails or faxes by focusing

his eyes on letters.

``What Joe wants to show . . . you can go to the movies,

you can see your grandchildren,'' his wife said. ``You can

live with ALS.''

In the past, Martin has crusaded for causes such as better

schools and race relations. He introduced ``Race Day,''

challenging Charlotteans to invite a person of a different

race to lunch and to live tolerantly.

Martin knows there is still much to be done, but for now he

is focusing on ALS.

Far from declaring victory, he became discouraged and upset

last week by the ALS death of friend Glenn Mason of

Charlotte.

``Glenn faced ALS with courage and thigh-slapping humor. He

was important to changing attitudes about ALS and his death

reminds us we have a long way to go.

``. . . I will accept victory when we make survival a

viable and generally available option.''

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct conferees.

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

I offer this motion simply to ask the House to stand by a bipartisan compromise that we struck last May in marking up the defense authorization bill, the bill we are now sending formally to conference which deals with the development of low-yield nuclear weapons.

Members of the House may have read, they may have heard that the Bush administration is pushing to repeal the so-called ban on low-level nuclear weapons research. They disavow any intention of building such weapons, but they at least seek the flexibility to conduct research in that realm. Let me tell everybody, they basically won that argument. Both the House and the Senate defense authorization bills propose changes to current law that allow the flexibility of research into low- yield nuclear weapons.

The administration said this was a problem, the Department of Energy said it was a problem, existing law, so we have changed it. We have addressed the problem. I was an author of the so-called Spratt-Furse amendment in 1993. I believe that the language of that amendment as it now stands as amended in the committee mark is sensible and a fair compromise. That is what I am asking the House to do, to stand behind it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Skelton), the ranking member on our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Reyes), the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces.

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

Let me take just a minute to explain the state of play and why it is important that the House provisions prevail over the Senate provision. The Senate defense authorization bill repeals these provisions in their entirety, but then backfills the gap with language that requires specific authorization of Congress to move from development into production of low-yield nuclear weapons. This amounts, really, to restating what the law already is, that to do something this significant with respect to a new product money has to be authorized and appropriated.

The House bill is similar in consequence but better, in my opinion, because it makes it absolutely clear that any movement beyond just research will require Congress to change by law the nuclear weapons policy of the United States. The House and Senate both addressed these specific concerns raised by the administration and the weapons labs and the Department of Defense to permit more flexibility in basic research, but our version contains a stronger guarantee that the Congress is going to be a partner in any decision to go beyond the scope.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Tauscher).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a nuclear physicist who understands what is at stake here better than possibly anybody in the House.

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

I thank the gentleman for his comments, and I rise to make one correction. The House bill does have language which we would like to retain. The gist of this motion is let us stand by the House language and reject the Senate language.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

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

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, let me simply put in context why we have this particular provision before us and why we are emphasizing it in this motion to instruct. The Spratt-Furse prohibition on low-yield nuclear weapons was a follow-up to the decision by President Bush, the first President Bush, on September 27, 1991, a historic day.

That day he announced the withdrawal of all land-based tactical nuclear weapons from our overseas bases, particularly those in Europe, and all sea-based tactical nuclear weapons from surface ships, submarines, and naval aircraft. We decided to forgo the development of the follow-on to Lance, a battlefield tactical nuclear missile, and we sent a signal to the world by all of these decisions that we were serious about minimizing the role and possible uses of nuclear weapons early in a conflict and especially for tactical or theater purposes. We said that our arsenal in the future in effect would be a strategic arsenal, a strategic determinant, and we would not use nuclear weapons for tactical and theater purposes anymore, such as the Davy Crockett, to take out tanks or nuclear artillery, rounds, and sea-based mines and things of that kind.

This move away from tactical nuclear weapons prompted the Soviet Union to move in the same direction; and Gorbechev shortly announced the elimination of their warheads, their land-based tactical nuclear missiles, mines, and artillery shells. He announced that he was removing warheads from surface-to-air missiles and removing sea-based tactical nukes on naval aircraft.

Taken together, these steps marked a major step away from tactical nuclear weapons and a step toward global security. The initiative by the first Bush administration helped us persuade Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and Belarus to forswear nuclear weapons after the breakup of the Soviet Union. It also made it easier for the United States and our European allies to convince much of the rest of the world to extend indefinitely the nuclear proliferation treaty, or NPT.

Now, the NPT is not the final, definitive answer to our proliferation concerns, but the world would be a lot riskier place without it. It definitely makes it harder for nations or terrorist groups to obtain nuclear materials and nuclear know-how, and it establishes the authority of the war community to question and inspect the activities of States that are a signatory to this treaty.

I think a return by the United States back to the days of tactical nuclear weapons, especially nuclear weapons designed to be more usable by virtue of low yields, would send a troubling signal, a signal that nuclear weapons just maybe are useful for tactical purposes, battlefield purposes, strategic purposes, and were really just an extension of conventional weapons for the same tactical purposes. It would indicate that we see tactical utility in these weapons, and it would reverse the

step that was taken in 1991. I do not think we need to go down that path.

Now, there are some who will say that we need to do this because we have to have weapons to take on deep, hard targets. The actual numbers are classified, of course, but even if we can improve the ability of our nuclear weapons to burrow in the hard terrain and into geologic formations such as granite, simple physics tells us we are going to come up way short of reaching the underground bunkers that we are really worried about, like those in North Korea.

Some say that we need these new weapons, these low-yield weapons, deeper penetrators, because we need the heat and the gamma rays and the X-rays of a nuclear weapon to destroy the chemical and biological agents that might be stored in deep underground bunkers. But if the fireball and the X-rays and the gamma rays are to reach the bunker, then we need to use, we are told by qualified experts, weapons that are much, much bigger than 5 kilotons; and using even a 5 kiloton weapon has consequences that have to be dealt with, fallout, for example.

Alternatively, if we want to use the pressure and blast of a nuclear weapon to crush a bunker, then we already have weapons to do that job.

Supporters of full repeal also say that our restraint thus far on developing these tactical theater and battlefield nuclear weapons has not really had any effect on nations that are bent upon acquiring them, North Korea being a prominent example, but I am not so sure about that. Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan in a momentous decision all decided to rid their countries of nuclear weapons. Brazil, South Africa, South Korea, and Taiwan have taken similar steps; and numerous countries have signed the NPT.

So before we repeal this long-standing language in the code, we should keep in mind the effects that surround us and also, also I think we should point out what is already in this bill. This bill will reduce the amount of time it takes to resume underground nuclear testing. This bill will call for a review of nuclear weapons for ``bunker-busting'' missions, the so-called Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator. This bill will call for building a brand-new, multi-billion-dollar facility to produce plutonium pits for nuclear weapons. Just the beginning, planning money, but these things that are in here of a still-robust nuclear policy but one that is slanted towards strategic usage and not tactical usage.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the chairman of our committee for his generosity and collegiality in allowing us to reach an agreement on this. I know it is a compromise for him. He has his doubts, and we have our disagreements. But, nevertheless, I appreciate his kindness in doing it.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I have gratitude for the gentleman's agreeing to the amendment. As long as it passes by voice vote, I will not ask for a record vote on final passage.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the newly crowned NCAA Division II Men's Golf Champions, the Francis Marion University Patriots. On May 23, at the Crosswater Golf Club course in Sunriver, Oregon, the Patriots claimed victory in a four-day tournament over 18 of the best golf teams in the country. But, Mr. Speaker, they did not just win. In what can only be described as a true team effort, Francis Marion ran away with the title, ending the tournament with a 3 under par 1,149, which defeated second-place Rollins College by an amazing 14 strokes!

In golf, more so than in other sports, an outstanding team starts with outstanding individuals; and Francis Marion's squad was most definitely a collection of outstanding individuals. The team was led by coach Jonathan Burnett, a native of Florence, South Carolina who just finished his sixth season with the team. The players were anchored by Junior Fredrik Ohlsson from Goteborg, Sweden and Senior Dylan Keylock from Johannesburg, South Africa, who finished fifth and sixth respectively in the individual standings at the National Championship. Also playing key roles on the team were Senior Matt Dura from Sumter, South Carolina, Senior Juan Pablo Bossi from Alta Gracia, Argentina, and Junior Per Hallberg from Ytterby, Sweden, who finished an impressive 14th, 24th, and 44th respectively at the National Championship. Junior Luke Wilcox and Freshmen Adam Hart, Luke Hart, and Battle Hartman also contributed to the team's successes this season.

For their efforts, Ohlsson was chosen to as a first team All American, Dura and Keylock were selected as third team All Americans, and Bossi and Hallberg gained honorable mention recognition. Keylock and Ohlsson also earned Peach Belt Conference All-Conference honors for the second time, and Dura earned Peach Belt Conference All-Tournament Team honors for the second time in three years.

Though these gentlemen excelled on the links, perhaps more impressive was the fact that they simultaneously excelled in the classroom. In addition to their athletic accolades, Ohlsson, Dura, Keylock, and Bossi also earned 2003 academic All-America honors in marketing, management, finance, and business economics respectively. Only two other student athletes from Francis Marion have ever earned both athletic and academic All-America honors in the same year. I am encouraged to know that long after their collegiate golf careers are over, these young men will still be striving as economic leaders in our country. That is truly something worthy of the title ``All American''.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to have the opportunity to speak to you about these extraordinary young men and their extraordinary achievements. It is truly a privilege to represent a state that turns out such talented students.

Mr. Speaker, last month a trusted and respected employee of the Ways and Means Committee named Al Davis died of complications resulting from a tragic traffic accident and I want to offer my sincere condolences to his family and loved ones. Al was a kind, caring, and generous man who was dedicated to the public good--a rare commodity in this body today.

As many of my colleagues have said on many occasions, Al Davis was a tremendous asset to the Democratic Members of the Ways and Means Committee. Moreover, many of my colleagues who are not on the Ways and Means Committee benefited from his expertise--even if they didn't know it as his handiwork. This is because Al was the person behind the summaries and one-pagers that often helped members understand very complex tax and budget legislation. On numerous occasions I needed to consult with Al in order to produce documents that would help me understand arcane budget principles and make sense of Federal budget projections.

As members of the Committee knew, Al was a dedicated public servant who will not soon be forgotten. The Ways and Means Committee and this Congress as a whole will suffer without his presence. Al Davis will truly be missed by all of us.

Mr. Speaker, in 1 minute I want to tell you why this bill, compared to the Senate bill, taxes could be raised, could be raised on enlisted men and women serving in Iraq by as much as $1,000 per child. It is a fact, a shocking fact about this bill.

Let us take an E6, a sergeant, making $29,000. You have to make more than $10,500 in order to qualify for the child tax credit. That leaves him if he is state-side $18,500 times the 15 percent, two child tax credits for his two children.

But let us assume now he goes to Iraq and let us assume he stays 8 months. That means $18,500 of his income, because he is in a combat zone, will not be subject to taxation. It is not taxable income. Therefore, his taxable income is only $9,500. What happens? By going to Iraq, by serving his country for 8 months in a combat zone, his family loses both of the child tax credits.

This is not necessary. The Senate bill worked it out. It was deliberately deleted from the Senate bill, for what reasons I would certainly like the other side to explain.

Let me tell my colleagues one other thing. At this desk is a military tax fairness bill passed by the other body. If we really want to do something for the military, call it up. Because in every respect, the bill at the desk is more liberal, more beneficial to our service men and women. I hope you will answer the charges I have just made, rather than supporting the provisions included in this bill. This is an outrage.

Mr. Speaker, let me explain to the House how under this Republican bill that we have just passed, compared to the Senate bill, taxes can be raised or child tax credits can be denied to many of our service men and women serving in places like Iraq and Iran and Afghanistan.

Let us take for example an E-6, a staff sergeant with two children who makes $29,000. His family will qualify for the full child tax credit, get this, so long as he stays stateside, in the United States. His pay is $29,000. He has to make more than $10,500 to qualify. Subtract the 105 from the 29, you get 18.5; multiply it by 15, he is fully qualified for two child tax credits at $1,000 apiece.

Now let us assume that he is assigned to Iraq, Afghanistan, or a combat zone. His pay while he is in a combat zone is tax-exempt. Let us assume he stays there 8 months. That is two-thirds of the year. Two- thirds of his income is therefore tax-exempt. It is not considered to be taxable income. His taxable income, therefore, is about $9,700, less than the $10,500 threshold. As a consequence, for serving in Iraq, serving in Afghanistan, he loses the two child tax credits.

Is this necessary? Absolutely not. The Senate bill avoided this problem. The language was there in the Senate bill. For some reason that has yet to be explained to these service members, much less the whole House. We do not know why it was dropped; we just know it was dropped.

As a consequence, an E-6, an average serviceman or woman serving in a combat zone, will be denied the benefit of these child tax credits that we are giving other people. Perversely, the longer he stays in the combat zone, the less his entitlement to these two child tax credits. That is absolutely outrageous. We should never have passed this bill; but having passed it, we certainly should pass the motion to instruct.

Maybe Members can say the reason we did that is we had to trim back this child tax credit so we could fit it into the overall bill. But this chart right here shows down in the little blue corner how much of the total cost of this bill is committed or required for the refundability of the child tax credit to apply to families making less than $26,000. There it is right there, $3 billion 48 million.

This represents the additional cost of the bill, all the other provisions that were extraneous, and this is the additional interest. It did not have to be done. There was plenty of room. Will somebody please tell us why we are treating our service members in this manner?

Mr. Speaker, I have the sad duty of informing the House of the death of Tom S. Gettys, who served in the House of Representatives from 1964 to 1974, representing the Fifth District of South Carolina, and served even longer as administrative assistant to Rep. James P. Richards.

On Sunday, Tom Gettys and his wife, Mary Phillips, went a last time together to the First ARP Church in Rock Hill, South Carolina. On Sunday evening, he slipped quietly away, dying in the town he loved, where he had spent his life, much of it serving the people.

The term ``public servant'' is often misapplied, but in the case of Tom Gettys, it is a perfect fit. He was a school principal and coach; right-hand aide to a high-ranking congressman; a naval officer who volunteered for duty and served in the Pacific; a postmaster; a night- school, self-taught lawyer; and for ten years, a Member of Congress.

As congressman, he endeared himself to the people who elected him. If folks in the Fifth District revered Dick Richards and admired Bob Hemphill, they loved Tom Gettys. They loved him because he had an easy- going affinity for all sorts of people, and because he put his constituents first and worked hard for them, and they knew it.

When he was at the top of his form, Tom Gettys retired. He had the good grace not to hang on in Washington to capitalize on his relationships, but instead came back to Rock Hill, hung out his shingle and practiced law. As a young lawyer, I used to run into him checking titles with the rest of us in the clerk of court's office. This was the self-deprecating side of the man that people appreciated. He took his work seriously, but never himself.

I saw this side of Tom Gettys when I was in Washington in the 1970s and walked with him to the House floor. Tom knew the capitol police, the elevator operators, the doorkeepers, all by first name. He told me later that having been a staffer, he knew who ran the House.

I got an even better insight when Tom visited me soon after I was elected. I begged him to sit and talk, but could tell he had something else on his mind, and soon found out what it was. He wanted to go downstairs to the Longworth Cafeteria and speak to Odessa. Odessa ran the breakfast line, and was a spirited soul, full of chatter and advice, which she dished out freely while you decided how you wanted your eggs. Tom seldom came to Capitol Hill without visiting Odessa.

Tom Gettys belonged to the old school, to the era before pollsters, spin-masters, and 30-second spots, and he often told me, it was a good thing. He enjoyed introducing me as the ``second-best looking congressman to represent the 5th District.'' I enjoyed telling him, ``Tom, if good looks had anything to do with being elected to this office, you would have lost to Bate Harvey in 1964.'' He was not some political artifact, crafted to win elections. He was the genuine article--of the people, by the people, for the people. When many of his conservative colleagues voted against Medicare, Tom Gettys stood with his people. He voted for it, and was proud of it.

If he were to give his own farewell, he would tell us that marrying Mary Phillips White surpassed all of his achievements, and Julia and Beth were their crowning glory. He was a doting grandparent and used to say that if he had the chance to come back after dying, he would want come back as one of his grandchildren.

Those of us who learned from Tom Gettys and looked up to him will miss him. We will miss the wisdom he shared with us, and the stories that never grew old. He exemplified what life in a democracy is about. He earned the satisfaction every public servant wants: he left his country better than he found it.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the subject of this Special Order.

Mr. Speaker, we are here tonight to honor Al Davis, a dear friend, who died in the prime of life in a tragic, wholly unnecessary accident. But in his 56 years, he made a huge, if unheralded, contribution to the government of this country. We have lost a close associate, a valuable colleague. The House has lost part of its institutional memory and its analytical ability, particularly in the bramble bush we call tax policy; and the country, the country has lost a genuine, if sometimes critical, patriot.

Before Al became the chief economist for the Committee on Ways and Means, he was the chief economist for the Committee on the Budget; and it was on the Committee on the Budget that I came to know him best.

Mr. Speaker, if I might digress a minute, I would say that from 1969 to 1970 I served as a young officer, Army officer in the Pentagon and interacted with Congress and its staff; and when I came here in 1983 as a Member of Congress, the most striking change I found in the institution was in the staff, Members' staff and committee staff both. The number of staff had increased several fold, and the professional quality has increased even more. And more than I had ever appreciated, I soon found out how the House literally could not function without our staff. Their roles are often off stage. They make, however, those of us on stage look good. They keep the debate moving forward, and they see to it that the House churns out its enormous work product of bills and reports and conference agreements and correspondence and countless other documents.

Even among the excellent staff that is throughout the House on both sides of the aisle, Al Davis stood out. He was noted for two areas of expertise: the Tax Code and Social Security. And in those fields, he had few peers. He was good because he knew what he was doing, believed in what he was doing, and never tired of what he was doing until he got it right.

I often asked Al a question and got a tentative answer. Then, a week later, long after I had forgotten the question I put to him, I got from Al a memo, a fax sheet, a graph, a table, whatever. He then came up and explained it to me meticulously in a way that anybody, me included, can understand; because Al was not just our analyst or our economist, he was our tutor. Not only did Al produce memos that answered the questions we put to him, but he also came forth with memos containing answers to questions we should have raised but did not.

I can remember myself more than once in the well of this House struggling, coping to defend our position, only to have Al appear from the benches back here with a memo he just happened to have written in anticipation of this issue.

He was a Democrat, make no mistake about it, but he did not pull punches for partisan purposes. If one wanted a sophist to help rationalize a poor policy proposal, you did not want Al Davis. On the other hand, if we had the right position, if we were principled, if we faced entrenched opposition, special interests, and found our policy hard to defend, we wanted Al Davis on our side, because he would cut to the core of an issue and bend every effort to help us.

His encyclopedic knowledge, his keen mind, his corporate memory, his sense of principle, his passion for the truth, and his patience in explaining it made Al Davis a joy to work with, a colleague that we cherished, a friend we will never forget.

The House will go on without him, of course, but the debate about taxes will be a little less incisive, the explanations of Social Security will be a little less clear, the arguments against the deficit not quite so compelling without the work of Al Davis behind them.

He served his Congress, this Congress, and his country well, and those of us who worked with him will be inspired for a long time by his example, moved by what he taught us, consoled by his humor, for as long as we serve in the Congress of the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), former chairman of the Committee on the Budget who also worked with Al Davis on the Committee on the Budget.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Lewis), who serves on the Committee on Ways and Means and knew Al in that capacity.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), also a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin), also a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett), also a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks.