Ander Crenshaw

Mr. CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. And you have heard of the ``bridge to nowhere''? That was about $300 million, and that kind of made its way through the process on to the President's desk. And I think if the President had had a line item veto, he might have said, You know what? I think you ought to take another look at that ``bridge to nowhere.'' And he could have exercised that line item veto. And maybe if that had gone away, then, yes, we would have spent less money, and the deficit would not be as large as it is today, and that is good.

Mr. CRENSHAW. For instance, I would say this: We had a transportation bill last time.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I rise in strong support of this rule so that we can get on with the underlying bill to grant the President line item veto to just be another tool in trying to get a handle on the way we spend money here in Washington. Everybody knows that we are trying to do a better job of controlling spending, and the line item veto would just be another piece of the puzzle, another reform that we ought to put in place to help us toward that goal. Now, first and foremost, we have got to exercise discipline ourselves here in this House. And a lot of people do not realize it, but we have actually done that. The last couple of years we have written a budget in this House where, for instance, last year in the budget, when you take out defense and homeland security, the nonsecurity spending of the United States Government actually went down for the first time in 20 years since Ronald Reagan was President. This year we wrote a budget that freezes nonsecurity spending. And that is a huge step in the right direction. We have also put a rainy day fund in our budget this year to kind of be like most American families, to say if there is an unexpected problem, we will have some money set aside. We are already talking about earmark reform. That is part of some legislation. So now we have got the line item veto. That will give the President the right to say, ``I see something in the spending bill that looks a little bit out of line, and I want to bring it up.'' Now, all that does is add a little bit more oversight, a little bit more accountability, a little bit more transparency into this overall budget process. What is wrong with that? If you really want to get a handle on how we spend money, what is wrong with an additional review? It might even make us here think more thoughtfully about the things that we do and the money that we are spending it on. So I just think that this is part of the puzzle. It is one tool. It is not going to solve the spending problem once and for all, but it certainly is a valuable tool. We all know that government needs money to provide services, but it seems to me right now government needs something more. It needs discipline, and we are providing that, and the line item veto will help with that. The government needs the commitment to make sure that every task of government is completed more efficiently and more effectively than it ever has been before, and the line item veto will help in that regard. We can do more with less around here, and if we pass this line item veto, that will just be another part of the puzzle, another tool in our equipment to get a handle on the way we spend money. The American people deserve no less. So I urge adoption of this rule and adoption of the underlying bill.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Yes, sir.

Mr. CRENSHAW. I know this year there will be a deficit in terms of our overall budget and spending this year.

Mr. CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him for his hard work, working on this legislation. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this and rise to ask my colleagues to vote in favor of this. I cannot help but be a little bit amused when I hear some of the opponents stand up and say that they kind of think this gives too much power to the President. It is like some brand new secret idea that the Republicans dreamed up to give a Republican President more power than he ought to have. I just want to remind everyone this is not a brand new idea. It has been around a good while. People have pointed out that 43 governors in the States around the country have the same or similar kind of power, that we passed legislation like this through the Congress before. In fact, people have said they like it, both Democrats and Republicans. Let me read you what one of the strongest supporters of this legislation, this line item veto, said. He said: ``The fresh air of public accountability will glow through the Federal budget. This law gives the President tools to cut wasteful spending, and even more important, it empowers our citizens, for the exercise of this veto or even the possibility of its exercise will throw a spotlight of public scrutiny onto the darkest corners of the Federal budget.'' Do you know who said that? President Clinton said that when he signed similar legislation in 1996. I could not say it any better. I just urge my colleagues to add this tool to our arsenal. If you are serious about getting a handle on controlling spending, you will vote in favor of this.

Mr. CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, in the days after 9/11, the United States took the last action our enemies thought we would take--we took the fight to them. They believed that our partisan bickering would provide them with the protection they needed to continue to operate. They were wrong. Our armed forces struck hard at the very heart of their operation--disrupting their terrorist network and bringing down their leaders. They are an enemy without borders, and believed they could find sanctuary in any number of countries that would provide safe haven. They operated camps and training grounds half way around the world, far away from any U.S. military presence. Today, we have them on the run. Saddam Hussein has been captured and Zarqawi is dead. In their place stands the very thing our enemies fear the most--democracy. Instead of a fascist dictator is a newly elected Prime Minister, and fear and oppression has been replaced with an emerging economy. However, our enemies continue to fight . . . but why? Does their resolve stem from some military, political or strategic error on our part? To the contrary, it's our doubt that gives them strength. Al Qaeda has declared Iraq as the battleground between democracy and their hatred of our way of life . . . but they know that their war cannot be won on the battlefield. Instead, their war is waged in the minds of every American. By definition terrorism is the spreading fear and doubt through violence . . . and that's what they are trying to do. Since the days immediately following 9/11, solidarity has once again given way to partisanship. Despite our successes, this has given the terrorists the foothold they need. Unlike before 9/11, our forces are at their front door, poised to strike before they can do any more harm. But the terrorists believe the day is well within their grasp where they can resume operations without fear of intervention by the U.S. and our allies. A day when they can tumble a newborn democracy and another one more than 200 years old. If we let this day come and allow the fight to return to our shores, we have not only failed those who lost their lives on 9/11 and the those who died fighting for our freedom, but our families, friends and everything we hold dear. I look forward to the day when our friends in the Middle East can stand on their own. They have already proven to be dedicated allies, but their future and the future of our friendship still hangs in the balance. Some would rather abandon our friends and everything we have accomplished, hoping that this act of good faith will somehow appease a foe proven to be without mercy. But I know our borders and our communities should not be our front lines . . . and in our retreat, this would be the next battleground. It's happened before, and it would happen again. We didn't choose this fight, but we are in it. It is a war of freedom against tyranny. We have to stand together and prove to these killers they can't win. It's our job to keep our nation safe, and we will.

Mr. CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, in the days after 9/11, the United States took the last action that our enemies thought we would take, we took the fight to them. They believed that our partisan bickering would provide them with the protection they needed to continue to operate. But they were dead wrong. Today, we have them on the run. Saddam Hussein has been captured, and Zarqawi is dead. In their place stands the very thing our enemies fear the most, democracy. Instead of a fascist dictator is a newly elected prime minister. And fear and oppression have been replaced with an emerging economy. But our enemies continue to fight. Why is that? Does their resolve stem from some military, political, or strategic error on our part? No. To the contrary, it is our doubt that gives them strength. al Qaeda has declared Iraq as the battleground between democracy and their hatred of our way of life. But they know that their war cannot be won on the battlefield. And I look forward to the day when our friends in the Middle East can stand on their own. They have already proven to be allies, and the future of our friendship still hangs in the balance. Some would rather abandon our friends and everything we have accomplished, hoping this act of good faith would somehow appease a foe proven to be without mercy. But I know our borders and our communities should not be our front lines. It is our job to keep our Nation safe, and we will.

Mr. CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, this is really just a question of whether you solve a problem the right way or you solve it the wrong way. Now, we ought to adopt this amendment, we ought to leave the moratorium in place while the Resources Committee, which has been working on this, having hearings, having testimony, comes up with a comprehensive program to solve this problem and to deal with this issue. This is not the only time or the only place. In fact, it is not the right time, on this appropriation bill, or the right place. It is a complicated issue. You heard that it deals with environmental issues, economic issues, and military issues. It doesn't lend itself to a quick fix. If we don't adopt this amendment, we will end up with a knee-jerk reaction that will allow offshore drilling anytime, anywhere, off any coastline within 3 miles. And that is just terrible public policy. Terrible public policy. So let us be reasonable. Let us let the Resources Committee do their work, and then let's make a decision based on the facts.

Mr. CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I guess as I listened to this, I think it makes it very clear the difference in philosophy of the two parties that have put forth these budgets. Because, on the one hand you have got the Republican budget that takes the money that is available, sets a spending limit, does like every American family has to do, you sit down and you decide how much you are going to be able to spend on the priorities that you set out. And it does just that, it gets a handle on the spending, which is what the American people want. And then it tries to reform some of these areas of the government that need to be reformed. And, thirdly, it says that, look, there are some things we can do like establish a rainy day fund, we can set aside money for emergencies we know we are going to have, and it does those three things. And yet you look on the other side and you see the Democratic alternative. There is no ounce of reform, none whatsoever. There is no real effort to set aside money for true emergencies. I guess the most drastic difference between the budget that I support and the Republicans have offered and the budget that Mr. Spratt has talked about is just that age-old philosophy of you just spend a little more money, you make a little more people happy, but how do you pay for it? Where do you get the money? And you all proudly talk about how you are going to spend more money, but you are not so proud about where the money is coming from because it is like magic money. You don't say we are going to raise taxes. You just do the things you do that automatically increase taxes on the middle class, the folks that you are saying you are going to help by spending more money, and that is just an endless cycle. When I was a kid, I used to watch TV and there was a thing called Bullwinkle and he was a moose, and he had a friend that was named Rocky and he was a squirrel. And Bullwinkle would always say to Rocky, ``Hey, watch me pull a rabbit out of this hat.'' And old Rocky the squirrel said, ``No way. You are not going to be able to pull a rabbit out of the hat.'' And sure enough Bullwinkle would reach into that hat for that elusive rabbit, and he would always pull out something other than a rabbit. One time he pulled out a lion. And I submit to you all that our Democratic colleagues once again are reaching in that hat just like Bullwinkle did; and instead of pulling out the magic money, they are going to pull out a tax increase. It is just the way it goes. So let me just say to everyone, I think we all know we need money to provide services, but right now it seems to me we need something more. We need discipline to rein in spending. We need courage to make the right decisions even when they are hard. And we need a commitment to make sure that every task of government is accomplished more efficiently and more effectively than it ever has been before, because if life is going to change in America, life has got to change here in Washington.

Mr. CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, today I introduced common sense legislation that provides the Forestry Service the flexibility they need to properly manage their assets. This legislation modifies the Florida National Forest Land Management Act in two simple ways, which will provide the Forest Service essential authority to manage the National Forests in Florida effectively. The first provision simply adds an unmanageable tract of land located in Tallahassee, FL to the list of lands the Secretary of Agriculture is currently authorized to sell. This specific property, tract W-1979, is approximately 114 acres of land that has evolved into an unmanageable problem area for the Apalachicola National Forest. Due to the configuration and surrounding development, the vegetation cannot be managed through prescribed fire. Although a very valuable tract from a real estate/commercial aspect, this tract has lost its National Forest character. The sale of this land will allow the Forest Service to purchase other lands located within the Forest that are more manageable and will enhance National Forests in Florida. Secondly, this legislation would allow the Forest Service to use proceeds from the sale of other ``non-green land'' to be used for construction and improvements to Administrative facilities essential to the proper management of the Forest. These ``non-green land'' tracts of land are owned by the Forest Service, but have urban improvements like fairgrounds or sporting complexes and are not conducive to the overall purpose of protecting our National Forests. This legislation would allow the Service to use the proceeds from the sale of improved lands to build critical infrastructure they need to manage the Forests in Florida, while allowing the Forest Service to continue its practice of using receipts from all nondeveloped ``green land'' tracts for the acquisition of other ``green land'' tracts to enhance the National Forests in Florida. By passing this legislation, the Forest Service will have the ability to efficiently and effectively manage our Nation's precious resources.

Mr. CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor 30 young men and women in the United States Navy. On March 23, I attended the Sailor of the Year awards at Naval Station Mayport in my hometown of Jacksonville, Florida. The Sailor of the Year is bestowed upon one young man or woman in each of the naval units stationed at Naval Station Mayport. We all know that it takes courage and dedication to enlist in our armed forces. All of these honorees have made that valiant decision to serve our country. They have successfully navigated the Navy Basic Training Course and have excelled in their chosen rating. However, these men and women were picked today because over the course of the past year, they have gone above and beyond the call of duty and demonstrated great character and resolve. Their command leadership who work with them day in and day out, in peacetime and in wartime have hand selected these honorees because they see a great leadership potential in each one of them. It was my honor to be the guest speaker at their award ceremony, and I wish them the best in their future in the Navy and in life. They make us proud of our men and women in uniform. Thank you and Godspeed. Sailor of the Year Honorees: AD1(AW) Crystal T. Cooper assigned to AIMD Mayport, BM1(SW) Paul Burt assigned to ATG Mayport, HM1 Andrea M. Searcey assigned to BMC Mayport, AE1(AW) Bret F. Stroman assigned to CNL Mayport, IT1(SW) Michael T. Laurie assigned to COMHSLWINGLANT, IS1(SW) Walter J. McKinley assigned to COMUSNAVSO, AO1(AW) Christopher M. Ham assigned to HSL 40, AZ1(AW) Cory S. Benfield assigned to HSL 42, AE1(AW) Christopher B. King assigned to HSL 44, AD1(AW) Christopher N. Howell assigned to HSL 44, AWI(NAC/AW) Spencer G. Wait assigned to HSL 46, AM1(AW) Aristile S. Guidry assigned to HSL 46, AD1(AW) Abraham Tolbert assigned to HSL 48, NC1(SW) Lizzie Martin assigned to HSL 48, AW1(AW/SW) Jason C. Kleinsmkith assigned to HSM Weapons School, CS1(SW/AW) Stephan Jones assigned to NS Mayport, GSM1(SW) Gregory L. Crum assigned to SERMC, CTT1(SW) James C. Woods assigned to the USS Boone, FC1(SW) Christopher D. Weddel assigned to the USS Carney, IT1(SW) Benjamin J. Padgett assigned to the USS Doyle, GSM1(SW) Scot A. Wanser assigned to the USS Halyburton, CTT1(SW) Scott B. Aaron assigned to the USS Hue City, EM1(SW) Adam J. Smyk assigned to the USS McInerney, OS1(SW) Hannabal E. Forbes assigned to USS John L. Hall, EN1(SW) Andrew J. Hochgraver assigned to USS Samuel B. Roberts, TM1(SW) Christopher Moore assigned to the USS R.G. Bradley, EN1(SW) Paul A. Gurrola assigned to the USS Simpson, EM1(SW) Oliver Cummings assigned to the USS Taylor EM1(SW) Timothy Howard assigned to the USS The Sullivans, EM1(SW) Cory Baron assigned to the USS Vicksburg.

Mr. CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this Deficit Reduction Act. It takes another giant step in trying to get our own financial house in order here in Congress, and that is what the American people want. They want us to control the way we spend their dollars. We took a step when we cut taxes, as was pointed out just a minute ago. When you cut taxes across the board and you let people keep more of what they earn, well, guess what is happening? They get to decide whether to spend it, whether they want to save it, whether they want to invest it; and when that happens, the economy begins to grow. We have had 2\1/2\ years of positive growth in the economy. What happened? The deficit has gone down because more money comes into the Treasury when the economy grows. Then last year we took step two. We wrote a budget here in this House that actually reduced nondefense spending by one-half of one percent. That is the first time that has happened since Ronald Reagan was President, and that is another giant step in the right direction. Here we are now, step three. We are looking at deficit reduction. And now we are looking at the areas in our budget that the appropriations process does not even impact. We are talking about the so-called mandatory spending, entitlement spending, the things that are on automatic pilot. That is where more than half of our money goes in this Congress. So we are simply saying for the first time in 7 years, let's begin to get a handle on that. Let's control that part of the budget. Because everybody knows the government needs money to provide services. But what we are saying right now is we need reform. We need discipline to rein in spending. We need courage to make decisions that are difficult at times because we have to live like every American has to live, by setting priorities and tightening our belts. Finally, this is an act that will bring commitment to make sure that every task of government is accomplished more efficiently and more effectively than it ever has been before. That is what this Deficit Reduction Act does, and I urge its passage.

Mr. CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. McHenry), a distinguished member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to make the following point, and that is what we are talking about here is to try to get a handle on the way we spend money. We are going to spend more money next year than we spent last year, more money for all of the programs that you hear people talking about, railing about cuts being made. I want everyone to keep in mind that we will spend more money, but we will not spend a whole lot more money. Only in Washington do you hear people say when you spend more money, but you do not spend as much as you want to spend, you call that a cut. People do not say that in the real world. Keep that in mind. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I might consume. Mr. Speaker, I think the issue here is very simply that our friends on the other said of the aisle just do not like the Budget Reduction Act. They do not want to step in and change the way we do business. They do not want to reform the way we spend money. And so they have opposed that, and now they have a motion to instruct which, if you read it, is pretty much the kitchen sink thrown in to try to tell our conferees this and tell them that. It is kind of a hodge-podge, but basically, they oppose what we are trying to do. But, Mr. Speaker, I think the American people know that we have got to change the way we do business here in Washington. We have got to change the way that we raise money, because it comes from the American people. And we have got to change the way that we spend money, because we are stewards of the American people when we do that. And we have taken some giant steps this year, Mr. Speaker, to change the way we do business here in Washington. We started by lowering taxes across the board. People that pay taxes got tax relief. That lets people keep more of what they earn. And when you let people keep more of what they earn, then they get to decide whether they want to spend it, whether they want to save it, whether they want to invest it. And that is the way you get the economy moving again. And we got the economy moving again. Everybody knows the good news that has come out of our economy. The economy has been growing for the last 10 quarters. More people are able to buy new homes. It is a wonderful time from the standpoint of the financial wherewithal of this country. So we took that step. And then this year, as people sometimes do not understand, we wrote a budget this year, and like a lot of people have to do when they write their budget at home, we had to kind of hold the line on spending. The money that we in this Congress get to spend, we wrote a budget that actually reduced the amount of money we spend in the budget. Except for Defense and except for Homeland Security, spending went down. And we are sticking to that. We are pretty much spending the same amount of money we spent last year. We have not done that since Ronald Reagan was President about 20 years ago. And that is a giant step forward to control the way we spend money. And here we are again now with what we call the Budget Reduction Act. As our chairman said, it is a plan to reform government and to actually save money, because over half of the money we spend here in Washington is kind of on automatic pilot. We do not even get a chance to say how it is being spent or why it is being spent. And right now, with this Budget Reduction Act, we are going to get a handle on that. We are going to reform the way we spend money. And that is what we are trying to do. And so I would urge my colleagues to vote no on this motion to instruct, even though when you read the motion, you are not very clear exactly what it does other than try to confuse the issue, because I am afraid my friends on the other side, if you listen to them talk, they have an answer for everything; spend a little more money. Where do you get the money? You raise taxes. All we are saying is we want to reform the way we spend money, because everybody knows this, and I will conclude with this, Mr. Speaker. Everybody knows that we need money to provide services. But right now, the American people are saying to us, you, the people in Washington making this decision, you need to do a better job of the way you spend money. You need to control spending. And that is what we are trying to do. Sure we need money. But right now, we need the courage up here to make some tough choices, just like every family has to do every year when they sit down and make their budget. They have got to set priorities. They say we cannot do everything. So we have got to make sure that we limit the amount of money we spend. We need a commitment, a commitment by all of us to say, we are going to decide what is important, and we are going to try to do that, but we cannot do everything. Because if we are ever going to change the way we do business, we have got to start right here among ourselves. So once again, I would urge my colleagues to vote no on this motion to instruct. Let the conference begin. Let our Members of the conference committee sit down with the Members of the Senate conference committee, work out any differences they have, but at the end of the day, let us come up with a final plan that will save money for the American people. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hensarling), a member of the Budget Committee.

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to control the time of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle).

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time, and I hope tonight we can all join together and take this historic step toward getting our financial house in order. We took step one when we lowered taxes and let people keep more of what they earn, and millions of Americans benefited from that. When they felt that bump in their paycheck, they could be free to save that money for retirement or they could invest it in the stock market or their small business or they could buy something for the family or make a down payment on a brand new home, and it worked. People went back to work. The economy is moving again. Four million new jobs were created. Tonight, we are taking step two. We are going to get a handle on the way we spend money around here. We are going to reform the way we spend money because that is what we need to do. We have got to tighten our belt just like every family has to do from time to time. We have got to set priorities. We have got to make hard choices because we all know that government needs money to provide services; but it seems to me right now, at this very moment, government needs something more. Government needs discipline to rein in spending. Government needs courage to make the right decisions even when they are hard; and government needs a commitment to reform itself, to reform the way it spends money, to make sure that every task of government is accomplished more efficiently and more effectively than it ever has been before, because if life is going to change in this country, life has to change in Washington. This bill takes a giant step in that direction. I urge your support.

Mr. CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my appreciation for the thousands of emergency personnel who continue to work tirelessly to help the hundreds of thousands of people affected by Hurricane Katrina. The devastation caused by this hurricane is epic and we are only beginning to learn of the total destruction it caused. Yet, in the face of enormous adversity, thousands of Americans put their own lives on the line to help their fellow Americans in need. These individuals worked themselves into exhaustion both mentally and physically. Without their sacrifice, thousands more Americans would have lost their lives from this devastating storm. Mirroring September 11, 2001, local first responders were once again on the front lines. None of us shall soon forget the images of our brave men and women who serve in the United States Coast Guard. This disaster brought a new meaning to the term ``search and rescue.'' Petty Officer Eric Sciubba arrived in New Orleans Monday and said crewmembers found themselves trying rescue techniques never before attempted. Replacing Scuba gear with axes, Americas' ``Coasties'' found themselves chopping through roof tops to reach trapped victims. At one particular house, Petty Officer Sciubba found an invalid woman in even more peril than most in New Orleans. Her feeding tube had stopped working, and Sciubba found her in bed on her home's first floor, with her head barley sticking above water. The helicopter couldn't reach the stranded couple through the back yard, and with the front door locked, Sciubba knew that time was their number one enemy. Finally, the man inside the house was able to get the door unlocked and both individuals were brought to safety. This couple was among the 109 people Petty Officer Sciubba's crew pulled from disaster to safety before returning to Ellington Field on Thursday. And that is just one of the hundreds of incredible rescues made by the Coast Guard. We certainly will not forget the sacrifice made by the tens of thousands of National Guard, many of whom recently returned or are soon being deployed to Iraq, who sacrificed their precious time with family and loved ones to help those in need and return order to a city in chaos. America has faced many challenges in its history and Hurricane Katrina will be written as one of its greatest. Yet once again, this great country will meet and overcome this latest challenge and will triumph in the face of adversity. This great Nation of ours will once again show the world its courage, conviction and will to overcome.

Mr. CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, this morning the President announced some very good economic news: Our economy continues to grow and our deficit continues to shrink. That is good news. Why is that happening? Number one, we gave tax relief to the American people so they can keep more of what they earned, and that has helped create an awful lot of new jobs, and this year we put the brakes on Federal spending when we wrote our budget and passed our spending bills this year. We actually spend less money next year than we did last year. Spending goes down. When we take out homeland security and defense, discretionary spending is reduced. Mr. Speaker, that is what every American family has to do. They write a budget and then they stay within the budget, and we did just that. That is great news for the American taxpayers, that is why the economy continues to grow. That is why interest rates are down. That is why jobs are up and unemployment is down. That economic news is something we have been waiting to hear. When you give tax relief and put the brakes on Federal spending, good news happens and the economy is growing.

Mr. CRENSHAW

Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer my support to H.R. 2863, the Fiscal Year 2006 Defense Appropriations Bill. I commend the Subcommittee Chair, my good friend, Bill Young for tackling many important, yet difficult issues. For the past few years, I have been deeply troubled by the Navy's shipbuilding budgets. Each year when the President's Budget is submitted, the number of ships procured in that year is always lower than the year before, however the amount of ships planned for the out years keeps growing and growing. For example in this year's budget, the Navy had requested 4 new ships for a total amount of $6.2 billion, but believes that they can sustain a shipbuilding budget of $17.7 billion for 12 ships in Fiscal Year 2011. As a man with an investment banking background, I can tell you that you can never rely on the certainty of the out years. I believe this budgeting trend will continue not because the Navy needs fewer ships, but because our shipbuilding programs have become unaffordable. Unless the Navy makes some radical changes to the way they budget and account for new ship construction, our ship numbers will continue to drop. We talk about transformational technologies and weaponry everyday in Congress, we need to begin talking about transformational and innovative accounting. According to a GAO audit published earlier this year, simple business accounting practices such as independent cost estimates and uncertainty analysis could have saved the Navy millions in cost growth from a number of shipbuilding programs, including our most expensive ship, the nuclear aircraft carrier. This Committee on Appropriations has recognized this dangerous trend and the need for change. In addition to doubling the amount of ships procured in Fiscal Year 2006 from 4 to 8, the committee report contains strong language and direction that will hopefully stop cost overruns from draining our future ship resources. I look forward to continuing to work with the Subcommittee Chairman to see if we, on Appropriations, can begin to transform the way this Nation builds and procures ships. We will need innovative thoughts and practices from corporate America. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and its innovative approaches to our national defense.