Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I represent the farmers and ranchers and small woodland owners whose voice is not heard here and have been ignored in some of the previous debate by other Members. These commodity programs flow to a favored few. Now, certainly some of them are producing crops that are vital to feed our Nation. Others are producing surplus cotton and other crops and getting subsidized for that. It is an extraordinarily market-distorting thing. Now, usually that side of the aisle is arguing for markets, but in this case they are arguing for market-distorting subsidies. Many of the same people who are arguing against this amendment were gung ho for the Freedom to Farm bill a number of years ago. I voted against it. I thought it might lead to some of these problems. It has led to a record increase in commodity supports. And even if this amendment is adopted, there will still be $101 billion going to the commodity support programs. Now, who does it go to, and who would be hurt under this amendment? Well, under this amendment, actually 70 percent of the farmers, those who seem to be ignored in the debate on that side and by a few on this side, that is dairy, ranchers, fruit and vegetables, I have a lot of those, I have some dairy, have a few ranchers, do not have peanut, sugar, tobacco, and then we have trees, those are my small wood-lot owners, people who practice forestry, people who are waiting in line now to get this conservation money because of problems we have in recovering our salmon runs in the Pacific Northwest. They are lined up. They are not getting the money, even with the increase in this bill. I appreciate the modest increase in the bill, but more is needed. And this money will benefit this 70 percent of the people who are pretty much left out of this bill. Now, there is another 30 percent. And under this amendment, 27 percent of them, almost all of them, will be held harmless. But my colleagues are right, the top 3 percent, the people who get the largest subsidies in this country, the ones we read about and hear about on TV, some of them are even TV commentators, they will get a cut. That is right, they will get a cut. But they will still get subsidies, very substantial subsidies, and we will spread this needed money elsewhere. How needed is it? Well, if we refer to this chart, we see, in fact, it is quite needed. Right now we are funding conservation at this level. This is the demand. We are not matching supply and demand. I wish this side of the aisle, which is always for markets, would help us better match supply and demand. Here is the demand. Here is the supply. Now, true, this bill, the base bill, would actually help a little bit. It still does not meet the demand and the backlog. And even if we get this amendment, we will not quite match supply and demand. There is an extraordinary unmet demand out there, demand that flows to those other 70 percent of the farmers, small farmers, truly small farmers, who I represent, who are left out of this bill. So we are talking about hundreds of billions of dollars in this bill; but we are leaving out millions of farmers, small farms, dairy, small wood-lot, row crops, fruit and vegetable folks they represent. So let us put an end to the rhetoric of saying this is not for farmers, this money will not go to farmers, it will put new controls. It is a voluntary program, a program that people are lined up to get into in my State; and the USDA simply says there is not enough money, come back next year, the year after, or the year after. We need that funding now. We need these increases. In fact, we need even more than will be provided under this amendment.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the House needs to move forward and quickly with a thoughtful and comprehensive transportation and infrastructure security package. It should not be just limited to aviation. There are other areas of vulnerability that go to other modes of transportation, whether they are transportation moving people or cargo, our pipelines, our dams, generating facilities, nuclear plants, a whole host of things. For now the major focus is on aviation, and we are coming close to some agreement, but there is one vital issue still in disagreement on this package. There are a number of smaller items, but one in particular, and that is, who should be the front-line providers of aviation security at the airport? There is a whole host of places we need security. There is what is called the backside or the airside of the airport. Access to the airplanes where people, things, contraband, could be smuggled on board, or weapons, that needs to be tightened up dramatically. Thirty-eight percent of the security breaches registered by the FAA in the last 2 years related to screening at airports. Now, this is extraordinarily variable across the United States. Some airports, my little airport in Eugene, the screeners there do a very good job. They are very upset with me because of pushing for federalization and standardization of this, but other airports are a disaster, and we cannot allow those disastrous breaches and problems to continue. With whom do we want to continue the current system of private contracting? We already have, documented for decades, problems with the private contracting firms. Most recently, and outrageously, we have aviation safeguards at Miami International Airport, where the manager was falsifying background checks. The company was fined more than $110,000, put on 5 years probation. The manager was sentenced to 5 years in Federal prison, and guess what, they are still providing the security screening at Miami International Airport. Then we have Argenbright Security, which does Boston, Newark and Washington. That company paid a $1.2 million fine for doctoring records and allowing convicted felons to work at the Philadelphia airport but Miami international officials said they were satisfied with the company's work. That is the status quo. Those are the most outrageous examples. Then we have the common examples, the fact that 90 percent of the screening personnel in the United States, unlike at my little home airport, where people stay in their jobs for years, 90 percent have less than 6 months experience because these are at all the major airports, the lowest paid entry level positions into the airport. We had testimony to that effect almost 2 years ago, when the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Lipinski) and I first proposed making these into Federal law enforcement positions where the people would be well paid, well trained, and we know they would be subjected to a thorough background check by the Federal Government, not by some private firm that sometimes has falsified those documents. The turnover at Boston Logan Airport among screeners last year, 207 percent; Houston, 237 percent; Atlanta, 375 percent; St. Louis, 416 percent. The screener of the year 2 years ago named by the private security companies came from St. Louis. He came before our committee and said, you know, Congressman, I am really lucky. I love this job and I can afford to do it. I said, well, what do you mean you can afford to do it? He said, well, I do not have to live on the income they pay. Nobody could live on that income. He said, I have got outside sources of income. I own some rental properties and I have got a little bit of other income so I can do the job. But everybody else, they look at it as a way to work up to McDonald's or Burger King, or maybe even really the top of the scale, cleaning the airplanes. This is not right. These people are the front line. They should be like INS, like Customs, and yes, like agriculture, where they are uniformed Federal law enforcement personnel with the right to question and detain people who might present a threat. We know they are professionally trained, they are paid well and we get rid of this turnover and the problems with the background screening. This is the major item in contention. We cannot be blinded. I have actually had colleagues say you know what we should do, we should privatize this, and I said guess what, it has been privatized, it has been supervised by the FAA although the new rules for screening companies were delayed for about 6 years. Not because of just bureaucratic intransigence at the FAA, but because the security companies, the airlines, the Air Transport Association, and many others designed to delay those rules for years because they knew the new system would be more expensive and would be a little bit better than what we have today, but would still not be as good as a uniform, Federalized system. That is where we need to go to assure the traveling public, and then we have to look at all the other issues that relate to aviation and other modes of transportation.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Madam Chairman, I have worked for more than a decade to reorient federal budget priorities so they better reflect the needs and wants of average Americans. I have also been a vocal advocate for taking a serious look at the spending priorities within the Department of Defense (DOD). I have regularly drafted legislation and amendments to force the Pentagon to reevaluate and justify how it spends taxpayer money. We demand accountability from all other federal agencies. We should demand no less of the DOD. After all, the $343 billion authorized in this legislation represents one of every two dollars in discretionary spending that can be appropriated by Congress. There are clearly significant flaws with H.R. 2586. While the basic needs of many of our young men and women in uniform have not been met, this legislation provides tens of billions of dollars to fund weapons systems that are of dubious necessity, over-budget, behind schedule, and fail to meet performance requirements. For example, at G.I. Joe's in Eugene, Oregon, I met a dad who was buying a waterproof bag for his son in the Marines. He told me his son was issued an expensive radio without any waterproof protection. All the Pentagon supplied was a plastic garbage bag. The legislation provides around $8 billion for an ill-defined, unworkable national missile defense system. This represents more than a 50 percent increase over current spending levels. American taxpayers have already generously provided more than $60 billion over the last two decades to develop this system with little to show for it. Even if the system could be made to work consistently, it doesn't address the most significant threat our nation faces. As I've said in debates over NMD in past years, given our awesome retaliatory power, one of the least likely threats confronting the U.S. is an intercontinental missile with a return address. In those previous debates, I went on to raise concerns about the money NMD was diverting from our preparation for more likely attacks by terrorists with primitive delivery systems like rental trucks, freighters, or even suitcases. The legislation continues to fund the development of three new fighter jets when one should do, and continues to fund an oversized nuclear stockpile. I am concerned that the spending priorities reflected in this bill are oriented to fighting the last war, not meeting the threats our nation faces today. That said, I am going to support this legislation. I do not make this decision lightly. The world changed on September 11, 2001. The terrorist strikes on U.S. soil have created a sense of urgency to guarantee our troops are adequately supplied and supported in order to respond and defend our country. Some of the funds in this legislation and the emergency package approved by Congress last week will go to make sure our men and women in uniform have everything they need to deal with the current crisis. However, I fully intend to revisit the spending priorities of the Pentagon next year and look forward to reviewing Secretary Rumsfeld's plans for retooling our nation's military to more adequately meet the threats of today. But, that critical debate can wait for another day. In this time of crisis, I will vote in favor of this legislation in order to stand firmly behind our young men and women in uniform who may soon be put in harm's way.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the House of Representatives passed a $15 billion airline bailout bill with not one penny in that bill for enhanced aviation security; no mandate for a change in aviation security. The administration tells us we will have to wait till October 1 to get their recommendations. It has been 14 years since I introduced my first bill to enhance screening at airports and checking of baggage. Many other Members introduced bills before I did, but for years, we have been thwarted by the Air Transport Association and member airlines, and they gave us the system we have today, a mish-mash of private security firms, some of whom are on probation for violating the rules, one whose manager is in jail, still providing security at our airports, lowest bidding firms for screening, uncoordinated local, State or Port Authority police on the airside. It is time to put the Federal Government in charge of airport security.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, last Friday night, Congress rushed through a $15 billion airline bailout, and I am not going to revisit all of the problems with that legislation here this morning, with one exception. That legislation failed to allocate one cent toward additional airline security or mandate an iota of change in a system that we know has failed. Now, the failings of aviation security were well documented before the terrorist attack. I introduced my first bill to enhance screening at airports and checking of baggage in 1987. Many other Members of Congress have introduced legislation in those intervening 15 years and even before that, but they were always opposed by the Air Transport Association acting on behalf of a number of their member airlines successfully and even in those few cases where we were able to mandate enhanced measures such as credentialing and standards for training and background checks for the screening companies. The ATA and member airlines and the private security industry itself fought tooth and nail to delay the implementation of those regulations for 5 years. Amazingly, on the floor on Friday night, some of my colleagues on that side of the aisle said we need to privatize the system that failed us. It took them so long to get out these regulations. It took so long because the private industry, the private security companies fought it. There was not one single airline passenger in there objecting to these regulations, raising concerns, threatening to sue and making comments, except favorable comments, on these improvements. In 1996, Ms. Hallett, the head of the Air Transport Association, in testimony to the White House commission said it has been suggested by some that we must radically alter our Nation's air transportation system in order to make it secure from terrorism. Based upon our understanding of the threat presented, this is not the case. The measured and deliberate steps to enhance security which we have put forward are responsive to the need. They then began to fight the recommendations of that commission. It has always been driven by costs. We had the best system of security you could get by pinching pennies and always, always hiring the lowest bidder to provide the screening at the airports. A year and a half ago in a hearing I said, and this is what I think has prevailed among the American public for a long time, I have got to tell you, when I am flying, I doubt that I could ever find one person in the plane who would say, gee, I would be really upset if I had to pay one-half of 1 percent more for my ticket to know that the person who screened me was not convicted of various felonies and at high risk of allowing something to happen on this plane. It is just extraordinary to me that we would let this system continue in this way, the lowest bidder. Tragically, we have. In fact, last week, amazingly, after the tragedy, the CEO of Alaska Airlines told me directly in response to my suggestion that we levy a $3 surcharge on tickets for security, he said no one would ever fly again if I was successful in getting that $3 security surcharge. He said there is only one thing people respond to, quote, ``people do not respond to anything other than total price.'' I guess he probably flew out here on his own executive jet, and he was not too worried about security. That is how out of touch this industry is. Then last week at Miami International, a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms agent acting on his own, having notified authorities, attempted to smuggle at one time on his person three knives through security. He was successful. He even stopped and said to the people, is there anything wrong here, did something go off? And they said, oh, go, go, go. So he had given them an extra chance to ask him some questions. Now, this same firm had been fined $110,000 in fines and restitution for failing to do background checks on at least 22 employees and then lying about it to Federal regulators, sentenced to 2 years' probation, but they are still providing security at that airport; and their manager was sentenced to 5 years in Federal prison, and they are still providing security at MIA. This is the system we get with privatization. Security at airports needs to be and is a legitimate function of the Federal Government of the United States, a security function, a law enforcement function. We should no longer resist that on some sort of ideological bias or an attempt to buy security on the cheap. The administration has convened a task force on kind of a slow timeline; they are proposing to come forward on October 1. We know what we need to do. Let us not delay another day. I am amazed that this body rejected my motion last Friday night to begin the federalization process now to begin to put firms like this one in Miami International convicted of violating the law and leave them in charge. We need to take charge and make flying safer.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).

Mr. DeFAZIO. I am in its present form, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute and 15 seconds. This does two simple things. I know we are going to hear, ``The Senate didn't include this. We can't do it.'' We can do it. We are the United States House of Representatives. We are the House of the people. We can add these simple provisions, these necessary provisions to this bill and the Senate, when they come back to town on Monday, can add them and we still beat the deadline the airlines have said they have of Wednesday. It does two things: One, it says any airline that takes billions, or hundreds of millions, of dollars under this bill will have to carry the health insurance of employees they lay off for 18 months. I do not think that is too much to ask. That is the first provision. The second provision says, and the airline CEOs who seem to be getting a lot here tonight agree with this, they said in committee they think screening should be federalized immediately; they just do not want to pay for it. I remove the provision that paid for it, so we would just in this bill federalize the screening, as the airline CEOs, the security experts, the FAA, all the experts say we need to do to get control. Knives were taken through by a BATF agent in Miami this week, this week, were smuggled through. The screening is still not working. We need Federal control. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, we do not have to act in haste tonight with legislation that will bequest billions to a favored few and vague promises of future help to hundreds of thousands of others. We could work deliberately over the weekend, if we so chose, to create a shared burden and benefit. The 100,000 workers have already lost their jobs. They have been thrown into the so-called safety net, but they will get maybe something in the future. For the tens of thousands of people in related businesses, travel agents, car agencies, hotels, maybe we will do something in the future. Regional airlines, they get crumbs. Now, there are no new security provisions in this bill. That is why people are not flying. If we do not put in security provisions tonight or tomorrow or over the weekend, people are not going to come back. This says, ``The money we appropriated last week, we know the President will spend some of it on future security enhancements.'' That is not going to bring people back. It is not going to give them the assurances they need. But do not worry, the CEOs will be limited to last year's salary, $10 million, $15 million, $20 million, or $30 million. Mr. Speaker, this is not the best we can do. We all know that. We have just been denied time for additional debate. Where are Members going tonight? It is a little late to catch a plane. Why can we not extend the debate? Why can we not stay here and work this weekend? Why can we not have a better bill? Why do the 100,000 people who have already been laid off and do not have health insurance have to wait for the week after or the week after, or maybe Thanksgiving? Why? Do not just give them empty promises. I know the airline CEOs have a crisis, but let us help the people, too.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the House extend the time for debate on each side. We have more than 30 people on this side who would like to speak, and under this rule, those Members will be limited to 30 seconds or less. I ask unanimous consent that we extend the time on both sides of the aisle. I am sure there are people on that side of the aisle who would like to speak at more length on this important legislation. I would suggest at least an additional 15 minutes on either side of the aisle for the debate.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, here we have before us a bill that will cost the taxpayers of America more than $20 billion. There will be 1 hour of debate. No amendments will be allowed. Even if this bill passes, 100,000 people in jobs directly related to the airline industry will lose their jobs. We have heard that from the CEOs who essentially wrote this bill. They are still going to fire or lay off 100,000 people. There is not one penny in this bill of accommodation for those people, for their insurance, for their mortgage, or anything else. Not one penny. There are tens of thousands of other people who work in related businesses: travel agents, car rental agencies, hotels. The list is endless. There is not one penny for those people of assistance in this bill. Not an emergency disaster declaration. No help with their payments to the bank. Not one penny. And then we go to our local airports. Millions of dollars a day are being spent by our local airports to beef up security. There is not one penny in this bill for them either. So 100,000 workers, related workers, all the other governments in America that are incurring costs, not one cent in this bill. Even more distressing than that is the fact that the inadequate security measures that prevailed before this tragedy continue to prevail and under this bill will not be improved. This bill does not specify that we will federalize airport security, which we have heard from virtually every expert, we have even heard it from the airline CEOs, they just say they are not willing to pay for it, and they say the American public will not pay for it. They say the American public will not tolerate a $3 tax for airline security. That is incredible. They are so out of touch. But they are so much in touch that they got everything they wanted in this bill, but everybody else is excluded. This bill does not do the things we need to do today. It might be hard to write a good bill by tonight, but we can stay here this weekend and write a bill. If this is a crisis, why are the Republicans running out of town? Why are they pushing us out of here? Why are they limiting debate? And why are they not allowing a single amendment?

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. DeFAZIO. At this point, hopefully, we will get a chance to rebut those untrue words in future debate.

Mr. DeFAZIO. But what my question is, since he made an assertion about the Democratic leaders, which I know and others know to be untrue, and about the points we are making on the floor, that these issues were not raised in the negotiations, is there some objection that I could lodge against such an untrue statement on the floor of the House?

Mr. DeFAZIO. Well, then, if the gentleman made a statement that was untrue about the position of the Democratic leaders and basically directly casting aspersion on them by saying that they did not raise the issues raised by many Members here on the floor in those discussions, and we know that they did, is there a process under which I could have his words taken down or reviewed?

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of personal privilege on the previous statement of the gentleman. If I could state that, or I could ask to have his words taken down, if you would give me a moment.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the senseless human tragedy caused by the craven terrorist acts of September 11, 2001 weigh heavily on our minds and will do so for days, months, and years to come. Many have said our Nation will never be the same. I agree. Our Nation is stronger, more united, more proud than possibly any time in our history. The outpouring of grief and support both here and around the world has been comforting. The terrorists may have collapsed our buildings, but in response, we are building a stronger America. America is based on a Constitution and our laws. Under Section 2(c)(3) of the War Powers Act, the President already has the ability to use the military to respond to an attack upon our country and our Armed Forces. Nothing in the resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Act. The President has authority to respond against those who perpetrated the acts on September 11. Under the resolution of force pending today, Congress will reserve the right to review the President's plans and actions. But make no mistake, this Congress will stand behind our young men and women in uniform who may be put in harm's way and we will stand with President Bush as Commander in Chief. I hope and pray the President will use the awesome force of the United States with great deliberation and wisdom.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the senseless human tragedy caused by the craven terrorist acts of September 11, 2001, weigh heavily on our minds and will do so for many days, months, and years to come. Many have said our Nation will never be the same. I agree. Our Nation is stronger, more united, and prouder than possibly at any time in our history. The outpouring of grief and offers of assistance, both here and abroad, have been comforting. The terrorists may have collapsed our buildings; but in response, we are building a stronger America. Our thoughts are with those who have lost loved ones and with those whose loved ones are still missing. Our thoughts are with those who have undertaken the difficult, dangerous, and heroic task of rescuing and treating the wounded and recovering the bodies of those who were killed. As the gravity of the situation sinks in, our thoughts have also turned to those responsible for these atrocities. Our Nation must take action against those responsible, including those who provide safe havens and financial support for terrorists. U.S. actions to exact justice must be deliberate, decisive, and effective. However, the United States must be careful not to indiscriminately attack civilian populations in other nations, which will only further the cause of the terrorists and perpetuate a cycle of violence. Decisions on war and peace are the most profound decisions Members of Congress can ever be required to make. This is the second time in my career I have been confronted by such a decision, something I hoped would never come. In our desire to show support for the President, we must be careful not to cede our constitutional duties now or set a precedent for doing so in the future. Article I section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the authority ``to declare war.'' This right was recognized by the earliest leaders of our Nation. In 1793, President Washington, when considering how to protect inhabitants of the American frontier, instructed his administration that ``no offensive expedition of importance can be undertaken until after Congress have deliberated upon the subject, and authorized such a measure.'' In 1801, President Thomas Jefferson sent a small squadron of frigates to the Mediterranean to protect against possible attacks by the Barbary pirates. He told Congress that he was ``unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense.'' It further noted that it was up to Congress to authorize ``measures of offense also.'' I believe maintaining this solemn congressional prerogative to send our young men and women into battle is critical to protecting the delicate balance of power between the legislative and executive branches. This balance of power was carefully crafted by our founders in Philadelphia more than 2 centuries ago and has allowed the United States to remain one of the most stable and enduring democracies in the world. There was a time when such a power was threatened. Congress enacted the War Powers Resolution of 1973 in response to the military activities of successive Presidents while waging war in Korea and Vietnam. The War Powers Resolution reaffirmed the prerogative of the legislative branch under the Constitution to commit our Armed Forces to hostilities and declare war. I had strong reservations about earlier drafts of the proposed resolution that authorized the use of force in an unprecedented, open- ended manner, far beyond that necessary to respond to the terrorist acts on our people, even far beyond that ceded to FDR in World War II. This is not a partisan issue for me. I would have opposed similar resolution language under a President of my own party. This is an institutional concern for me. The earlier drafts ceded too much authority to the executive branch. In fact, one of the earlier drafts had provisions nearly identical to the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which had led to the unaccountable use of U.S. military forces in Vietnam. But it is important to recognize that President Bush already has the authority to respond to the attacks. The War Powers Resolution in section 2(c) recognizes the constitutional power of the President as Commander in Chief to introduce U.S. Armed Forces into hostile situations under certain circumstances. Section 2(c) says the President can introduce U.S. Armed Forces into hostile situations pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory obligations or, in this case, a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States territories, possessions or its Armed Forces. Two of those conditions have been met. The President has the authority he needs to respond to the current crisis without setting the precedent of ceding additional war power authority. Given his existing authority to respond in the event of an attack upon the United States or Armed Forces, we must be careful in granting further or ceding further constitutional powers. The use of force resolution before us today is not exactly as I would have written it. However, for the most part, it restates the authority I already believe was granted to the President under section 2(c)(3) of the War Powers Resolution. The reference in the resolution to section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution I believe creates a little confusion, but it is my reading of the resolution that nothing in this act supersedes congressional authority under the War Powers Resolution and the President will still be bound by the reporting and consultation requirements. Congress will reserve the right to review those actions, as it should be under the Constitution. Make no mistake, Congress will stand united behind our young men and women who may well be put soon in harm's way, and the President of the United States as Commander in Chief. We pray that he uses the awesome power of the United States with great deliberateness and with wisdom.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, it is a bit unusual on this floor, which usually reverberates with debate, but I would like to begin by asking for a brief moment of silence for the victims, their families, those still risking their lives to attempt to rescue survivors. Our first responsibility is to the police, fire, and EMTs still risking their lives for rescue and recovery efforts. I have been assured by the administration that all necessary and available resources have been sent to their support. I further understand that all the resources of our combined law enforcement and intelligence agencies, along with those of our allies around the world, have been brought to bear to track down these terrorist mass murderers to their roots. I am confident that the United States of America will be obdurate in exacting justice from those responsible. We each need to do what we can in our own way and for our own part. For my part, I am determined that the improvements in aviation security, which I have advocated for more than a decade, will no longer be turned aside by cost concerns of the airlines. We can afford, and Americans are willing to pay, not only for an improved system of aviation security, but also to assure that our law enforcement, our intelligence agencies, and our military have the resources necessary to respond to this act and credibly deter future acts of mass terrorism against our people. We will be secure within our borders in the United States of America, and we will not cower within our borders, either.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, it all depends upon how we define a surplus, and for quite a few years around here I was one of the Members who advocated that we should not be including the excess taxes charged to Social Security or to people for Social Security, FICA taxes, as part of the so-called surplus, spending it and replacing it with IOUs. In fact, I found considerable support over the last few years on the Republican side of the aisle on this issue, which I found encouraging. In fact, the House Republicans have voted nearly unanimously seven times, seven times since 1999, to protect both the Social Security and Medicare surpluses by creating a lock box. We put it in a lock box, not once, not twice, seven times, seven padlocks, many different combinations. Social Security and Medicare trust fund surpluses are safe. They would be reserved to pay the benefits in the future. In fact, as recently as July 11th, House majority leader, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), said we must understand that it is inviolate, you might have trouble following this but I will get to the point, to intrude either against Social Security or Medicare, and if that means foregoing or, as it were, paying for tax cuts then we will do that. He said he wasn't going to spend the money, and in fact, they might forego tax cuts in order to not break into the lock box. Good news. Well, that was July 11. It is now September. How much things have changed. The new Congressional Budget Office estimates, the Congressional Budget Office is headed by a Republican appointee, says that the surplus for the next nine years is 2.2 trillion, T, trillion, not billion, not million, trillion dollars less than projected last May. Remember the rosy scenario, oh, pass the tax cuts today and do not worry about it, there will be so much money, be floating in money, we can still maintain the integrity of the lock box, Social Security, Medicare and we can increase military spending and we can do all these things and there will still be surplus. In fact, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Ballenger) that preceded me in the well talked about the surplus. The surplus he talked about is the Social Security trust fund. It is raised through an unfair, flat, regressive tax capped at $80,000 a year income. So the rich people are not putting in a penny over the little bit they pay on their first $80,000 of income. Most working families are paying more in Social Security taxes than they are in income taxes to the Federal Government. In fact, many working Americans are not getting back a rebate because of that fact, but they do not mind too much because they know their money is going in the lock box created. Now, what is in the lock box? Oops, well, not much money. There is something in here, though. Good, I owe you $9 billion, signed Secretary Paul O'Neill, Secretary of the Treasury for George Bush, President of the United States. So it seems that they are going back on their promise, are they not? We were going to have a lock box. They made a great show of voting on the lock box in the Clinton administration, but now with the Bush administration all things are changed. It really doesn't matter whether we spend the Social Security surplus, that money intended for the trust fund for future retirees, today because the administration changed. Nothing else changed. We had all those votes to create the lock box, but suddenly the lock box isn't so important anymore, not as important as tax cuts. Make no mistake, the tax cuts are the thing that are putting us in the hole. The Federal Government is borrowing, borrowing the money to send out those rebate checks which are against this year's estimated surplus which does not exist but is calculated on your last year's income. Follow that? Okay. What it means is cash the check quickly. It might bounce soon. So this is the bizarre situation we find ourselves in. The Republican majority after touting lock boxes and saving Social Security and Medicare for so long, in their rush to please their wealthy benefactors and pass a massive $2 trillion tax cut, particularly heavily oriented to those who earn over $273,000 a year and estates over $5 billion, they have already frittered away the surplus, and things look even more bleak for the future. They are depositing IOUs back into the Social Security trust fund, spending the money today, now that it is time to talk about the possibility of, oh, my God, now they are in panic, some people are pointing this out, mindless, across-the-board cuts. First, let us jack up the military spending by 10 percent, then we will cut it by 3 percent and we might get back to putting something in the lock box. I doubt it. It is fuzzy math.