Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. And I guess the follow-up point would be what caused these inequities and what can or should we do about it? I would say in good part you can lay the blame for the extraordinary pauperization of the middle class of this country to two major areas of policy, probably three: The tax policy of this country, which has heaped more and more burden on middle-income [[Page H6037]] people and lightened the burden on those at the very top and the largest, most profitable corporations. In fact, the Republican budget, which passed the House here, would do away with the corporate alternative minimum tax. That means we go back to the days when a corporation like AT&T, as they did from 1981 to 1985, earned $1.3 billion in profits and not only not paid taxes--we all understand about loopholes and avoidance but-- actually demanded and received a $200 million tax refund for taxes they did not pay. That is other Americans, people who work for wages, went to work every day, paid their taxes, and guess what? Part of their pay check went to give a $200 million tax giveaway to a corporation which had made $1.4 billion in the same years, and now we are being told that is what will take care of the problems of middle-income Americans. The Republican tax break bill repeals the corporate alternative minimum tax, and that will put Americans back to work at higher wages; give me a break.

Mr. DeFAZIO. It is interesting, we had a lot of discussion of health care [[Page H6040]] here last year. We had considerable opposition on the Republican side of the aisle and they said there was no problem with the health care system. It did not need a Federal fix. They did not mention Medicare as being in deep trouble or being bankrupt. They came up with a Contract on America to run for election. There is nothing in there about health care or Medicare. Earlier this year we passed emergency legislation, the rescissions legislation and the emergency spending for disasters. No mention of a disaster impending in Medicare or a need for changes in Medicare. It was only after legislation had been adopted to cut taxes, predominantly for people who earn over $100,000 a year and the largest, most profitable corporations by $350 billion that suddenly we found that we need to reduce Medicare spending by nearly $300 billion. A cynical person would say there was some linkage between the sudden need to reduce Medicare spending and the huge tax giveaways. Of course, that is denied. They want to reduce Medicare by $300 billion in order to improve the program for seniors, the same seniors now who cannot afford prescription drugs, if they can afford the co-payment to go to the doctor and get the prescription. We are going to improve the system with no plan but just by reducing it by $283 billion over the next 7 years.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Just on the education issue which the gentleman raised, we adopted in the last Congress an innovative idea. That is, why not have the schools make direct loans to the students, take out the banks as middle persons. The banks have been getting very high rates of interest for loans that have no risk. The idea is you get interest because of risk. The president of the University of Oregon at the time came, did calculations and he said that for the same amount of Federal money we could give another 600,000 students full entitlement to student loans if we just took the banks and the bank profits out. The Federal Government lends the money through the schools and, you know, the Federal Government knows how to collect money. They know where everybody is. So I am not worried about defaults. But do you know what, the Republican budget wants to do away with direct student loans and put the banks back in the middle. That means take away the loans of 600,000 students so that the banks can make a guaranteed profit on a risk-free loan backed by the Federal Government. That is just one more form of corporate welfare, and that I think segues us back into what is a better vision for a balanced budget. And I would just like to, I have to leave the floor; if I could just lay out a couple thoughts and then I will yield to the gentleman. The idea that we have talked about earlier which is that the largest, most profitable corporations are not carrying their fair share, that foreign corporations are virtually paying no taxes in this country, that the largest gold mining operations in the United States on public lands are foreign owned and paying no taxes to the United States of America. There are estimates that there is $150 to $200 billion a year, credible estimates that come from the far right, the Cato Institute, to the Progressive Policy Institute that say there is about $150 to $200 billion a year of corporate welfare out there. And if we went after just a fraction of that, we would not have to see any of these cuts in order to get to a balanced budget. Just a fraction of those revenues linked to reductions in military spending would move us dramatically in the direction we need to go.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Well, the gentleman knows that in fact the second part of the major part of the plan of the new Republican majority to bring us to a balanced budget after the massive tax break for the wealthy and the large corporations is the increased military spending. It is obviously an absurd formula. You cannot spend another $92 billion over the next 7 years on the military to build weapons that even now the Pentagon said it does not want, it does not need, and have no practical purpose. The House voted this week, with very little exposure to the public. This bill was brought forward under a very restrictive rule and we were allowed one amendment on the B-2 bomber. At $1.5 billion each for bombers which the Pentagon says have no purpose in the post-cold-war world, and yet the House of Representatives voted by a substantial margin, lockstep on the Republican side, followed by a number of Democrats, to build another 10 B-2 bombers at the cost of $1.5 billion each, something the Pentagon said it does not want, does not need, and cannot use, in addition to putting more money into the star wars fantasy. We have spent $36 billion on star wars since Ronald Reagan first unveiled this vision in the early eighties and you know what the net result is of the money on star wars? One faked test over the Pacific Ocean, and the Pentagon admits they faked it. They could not hit the incoming missile. One missile, not a fleet. They put explosives in it, they hit a button, it blew up, and they said look, star wars works. It does not work, and it is a very expensive fantasy.

Mr. DeFAZIO. If the gentleman will yield for a moment, I would like to point out it was the esteemed Speaker of the House of Representatives who said that in fact we cannot raise the minimum wage for the American working people because of our competition with Mexico. Of course, the Speaker supported the North American Free Trade Agreement, which I bitterly opposed and have introduced legislation to repeal. Just to recap on that, we were told it would create jobs in America. We were told that it would help the United States balance of trade, it would stabilize Mexico. Those of us who opposed it said we believe we will export jobs, we believe that we will run a trade deficit with Mexico, and we believe that it will further destabilize Mexico. We were a little bit wrong, because we could not realize that not only would it destabilize Mexico, continue the current corrupt system, that the peso would be devalued and the standard of living would fall by nearly 40 percent for every Mexican worker, but that we would be running already this year, we are headed toward a $20 billion trade deficit with Mexico, which means we will export 400,000 jobs to Mexico this year. We never could have predicted we would have to pay for the privilege of exporting our jobs to Mexico, which is what we are doing today with the bailout of the speculators who were so actively engaged in the Mexican economy and the few billionaires who run the Mexican economy and the corrupt political system they have. U.S. tax dollars are going to bail these people out. We are paying for the privilege of running a trade deficit. The Speaker tells us we cannot raise the minimum wage for the American workers because they have to compete with the Mexican workers, whose salaries just went down by 35 percent. And then on another day he said, ``By the way, the competition is in south China.'' So apparently we have already quickly moved from Mexico, because those people are earning as much as a dollar an hour, and now suddenly the American workers not only have to compete with them, the American workers are not supposed to compete with slave labor in China, or those who are paid at the rate of 20 cents an hour.

Mr. DeFAZIO. You are talking at the top, generally the people in the top will be getting breaks that average up to $40,000 off of their taxes, compared to $500 for a $40,000 a year family. This is not restoring equity to the tax system.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Further under my reserved right to object, Mr. Speaker, I find the gentleman's arguments convincing. I do not detect a partisan bias here. I think the naming of a visitor center or other appropriate memorial would be well taken, and I have swum in the lake myself and had no idea of the name of it. I was told I was swimming in Trinity Lake. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Doolittle] to enable him to explain the legislation. We are particularly curious about whether or not Clair Engle was a Democrat and what the underlying reasons are for this change.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the President's revelation of his new budget last night was actually quite remarkable. Fiscal responsibility has finally penetrated inside the Washington, DC. Beltway. That is, Washington, DC. has finally, the policymakers are now all in agreement that the massive debt which will exceed $5 trillion in the near future, about $17,000 for each and every living American citizen from the tiniest baby to the oldest senior citizen, is a real problem and it must be dealt with. And we have to move toward fiscal responsibility. That is the good news. Apparently, the President was very much affected by his joint appearance with Speaker Gingrich in New Hampshire last weekend, because his proposed budget is Gingrich-Lite, that is, it has the same priorities, the same misplaced priorities as the budget passed in this House 2 months ago, a budget written essentially by Speaker Gingrich and other senior Republicans. The President has adopted those same priorities, the same mistakes and the same peril to average Americans that is inherent in that budget. They both start out balancing the budget by cutting taxes. Does that make sense? If you are in the hole, is the first thing you do to cut your income? No, I do not think so. But that is what the Republican budget, $350 billion slanted heavily toward people earning over $100,000 a year and the largest, most profitable corporations, that is the Republican budget. Now, the President, certainly, it is better. It is only $93 billion in tax cuts, and it is a little more targeted, certainly, to middle- income people. But still it is giving away revenue when you are in the hole. This is not a time for tax cuts, if we are serious about balancing the budget. Now we get to Medicare. The Gingrich Republican budget slashed Medicare by $288 billion. They said, there are problems with Medicare; we have got to fix it. Of course, they do not tell us what the fix is. They just tell us exactly how much we have to reduce benefits in order to fix it, and we will figure out later what it is we are doing. It is a little bit like burning down the village to save it, as we did in Vietnam a couple of decades ago. Now, the President, of course, is only going to reduce Medicare by $125 billion, Gingrich-Lite. But it still is a reduction without a clear plan to deal with the problems of Medicare. Veterans? Gingrich, $9 billion; Gingrich-Lite, the Clinton budget, $6 billion. Corporate agriculture, subsidies for large profitable corporate agriculture undertakings, like Sam Donaldson, a famous commentator, he gets $75,000 a year not to grow sheep on a ranch he does not live on. Is that essential? Well, apparently it is because there are small cuts in the Republican budget, even tinier cuts in Gingrich-Lite, the President's budget. Corporate welfare? They are about the same there, tiny, tiny cuts, an estimated $40 to $50 billion that could easily be recaptured from the largest, most profitable corporations in the world, many of them foreign corporations who operate in this country without paying a cent in taxes except for the FICA taxes on their employees. They move their profits offshore, and they take the money to the bank. The military? We just went through the Department of Defense markup here. We are looking at a massive increase in buildup in the military, a massive increase in buildup in star wars, 10 more B-2 bombers at $1.5 billion each, more than the Pentagon itself requested. They said, Do not buy more B-2 bombers. Transport planes, the Pentagon did not ask for, submarines that the Pentagon did not ask for, an increase, the President asked for an increase in the military of $25 billion over the next 7 years. And the Republican budget, $68 billion on top of the President's $25 billion. Foreign aid, neither of them want to touch foreign aid. That is a little bit too hot of a political potato, even with the new fiscal realities of Washington, DC. There is a better way to get a balanced budget, a much better way. We can do it without touching Medicare. We can do it without slashing veterans' benefits, but we have to go after corporate agriculture big time, like $50 billion cuts in their subsidies. We are going to have to go after corporate welfare and the large, most powerful multinational corporations that do not pay a penny of taxes in this country, we are going to have to ask them to pay their fair share. Takes a little bit of will and guts, probably cuts big into the contributions of both a lot of Democrats and Republicans. But if we do not do that, then we are going to gut programs that are important to Americans instead of going after fairness and equity and a balanced budget that meets the priorities and needs of this country.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, it is sad the gentleman thinks it is ridiculous that there are 15,000 G.I. families today on food stamps, and tens of thousands of others living in dangerous and unsafe conditions in proximity to our military bases, while at the same time we are asking them to deploy overseas into dangerous situations, and forget about their families back home. I do not think that that is a ridiculous amendment. For the gentleman to say it would take 9 months to figure out a program to help lift those 15,000 families and tens of thousands of others above the poverty level and the near poverty level, I believe that the Pentagon that could deploy a rescue mission within 4 hours to Bosnia can figure out a way to compensate our GI's, men and women serving today, to compensate them adequately, so their families are lifted above the poverty level, and they are no longer eligible and dependent upon food stamps and living in substandard conditions. That cannot take 9 months, Mr. Chairman. I do not believe that could take 9 months. It is a specious argument. The priorities on the Republican side were to throw more money at ballistic missile defense, despite the $36 billion spent so far, which has yielded nothing except for one faked successful test over the Pacific Ocean, and to ignore the needs of those tens of thousands of GI's and their families. That is not a proper set of priorities. What is it that is the military might of America, the enlisted men and women, or pie-in-the-sky? I say food on their tables and adequate housing for their families come before pie-in-the-sky.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, they still have not responded to the fact that yesterday the esteemed chairman of the Committee on Rules stood on the floor and said it would be a scandal to go back to the days when Members of the military and their families were on food stamps. Those days never went away. They are still here. We cannot ignore that reality. Yes, I have been critical of the President on a number of things. Yes, his budget was not adequate to lift those families above the poverty level. Does that mean we should stay in the past? The committee only put up 25 percent of the money it estimates, which I believe is a lowball number, is necessary to get those families off food stamps. Which one-quarter of those people are we going to take off food stamps and which three-quarters are we going to leave on food stamps?

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we are hearing a lot about the increase of $600 million over what the Pentagon asked for, but I do not hear the other side responding to the fact that they did not fund the problem we have with 15,000 GI families on food stamps, living below the poverty level, living in unsafe conditions. They are not addressing that problem. The committee dealt with it in a cursory manner. They recognized the problem. They said it should be dealt with. Then they said they could only afford 25 percent of the funds. With this amendment, we could afford more than 100 percent of the funds to bring our GI's and their families up above the poverty level. It is a scandal, when the greatest Nation on Earth has members of its military and their families dependent upon food stamps, and living in unsafe and unwholesome conditions, and then we are going to ask those young men and women to go overseas and forget about the suffering of their families back home, forget about the food stamps, forget about the crummy place they are living.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, how many times is this Congress going to substitute its judgment for the judgment of the professionals at the Pentagon? Yes, there are problems at the Pentagon, but one problem they do not have at the Pentagon is not asking for enough money to accomplish the needed goals to defend this country. We have had scandal after scandal where we have overexpended funds, where we have had cost overruns. This is a case where we have fully funded the request of the Pentagon in the President's budget, $2.9 billion. That is an increase in ballistic missile defense, and we are up to $2.18 billion for theater missile defense. That is up by, that is almost $600 million in a mere 2 fiscal years. The funding is more than adequate. What we are doing here, Mr. Chairman, is adding money into the budget the Pentagon did not ask for, and micromanaging the theater missile defense program, one of the most successful programs in the Pentagon. Do not mess with it.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Remember, Mr. Chairman, the Pentagon asked for $2.9 billion. They asked for full funding plus an increase of 1 percent over inflation for BMD. They got it. They have gotten an increase from $1.65 billion to $2.18 billion in theater missile defense and a 65-percent increase for other TMD programs. They have gotten all they ask for and more. Now the committee wants to add on top of that. This is not needed, according to the Pentagon. We say it is needed to feed the troops and their families. We can prove that by the 15,000 families receiving food stamps. That is a scandal. That is a readiness problem. We should be dealing with that and get our priorities straight.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, in response to the previous speaker, it certainly is not what it was 15 years ago. We have spent $36 billion and the result is one faked missile test over the Pacific. They did not even shoot down that one incoming warhead. They had to blow it up with detonators that were on board. No, it is not what is was 15 years ago. It has wasted $36 billion and now they want to waste more.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Markey].

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of arcane debate in the last hour and a half over BMD and TMD and compliance with treaties. Let us bring the debate back down to Earth for a few minutes. Let us bring the debate back to Earth for a few minutes here and confront some bitter realities. Yesterday during the debate on the rule, the esteemed gentleman from New York, Mr. Solomon, said how it used to be a scandal, referred to the bad old days of equipment shortages and days even when members of the military were forced to be on food stamps. Well, unfortunately we have not banished those bad old days. There are an estimated 8,000 to 15,000 families, no one really knows, currently receiving food stamps who are active duty, full-time members of the military. Now, the committee recognized this was a problem, but the committee only put up one-quarter of the money that was estimated that was needed to take care of this problem. And what I am saying is, we need to get our priorities straight. Do we need a further increase in ballistic missile defense beyond that asked for by the president? The president asked for a 1-year increase, inflation adjusted, of more than 1 percent in ballistic missile defense and fully funded all the requests of the Pentagon for theater missile defense. The committee has gone in and micromanaged the theater missile defense, added more money to ballistic missile defense. And yet after they add $628 million there, they can only find one-quarter of the funds they need to get our young men and women and their families, people serving today full time, enlisted in the military, off of food stamps. That is a scandal. Let me read briefly from the National Military Family Association, a letter they sent to me. [[Page H5952]] ``The system has become unfair to all military families but to those at the lower end of the income scale it can be devastating. The National Military Family Association is fully aware that the costs of creating a VHA minimum floor,'' that is a housing allowance, ``are not inconsequential. What price, however, do we put on a family's safety? How can we ask young service members to deploy at a moment's notice when they know their family will be left to fend for themselves in a run-down trailer park with a history of break-ins and robberies?'' The Pentagon itself, officials are deeply troubled by an increasing number of military families turning to food stamps.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment, as modified.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, in bringing forward the largest budget of the Federal Government, the largest general fund discretionary expenditure of the Federal Government, under a restrictive rule we have got to ask what is the majority afraid of, why is it that they do not want to have the free interplay of the legislative process here on the floor of the House of Representatives? What is it they are trying to protect? Well, Mr. Speaker, I say to my colleagues, you heard earlier from Mrs. Schroeder from Colorado, and you'll hear later from others, there are a number of things they want to protect. They want to protect the procurement process at the Pentagon. You know, it came out that they lost $15 billion in the procurement process over the last 10 years which they can't account for--simple bookkeeping errors. Do you think there is any other segment of the Federal Government where, if there was a $15 billion scandal, that we wouldn't be in full cry on the floor of the House, amendment after amendment, hearings, special investigations, special committees? But hey, the Pentagon just lost $15 billion. So they can't account for it--minor clerical error--and there will be no substantive amendments to overhaul the procurement process at the Pentagon in this bill. They will not be allowed for under this rule. Then there is the little item of the Office of Support Aircraft. In a GAO report that Senator Grassley and I obtained it says that we are probably 50 to 75 percent overbuilt for administrative support aircraft; that is, we are at such a point where every one-star general at the Pentagon, every deputy junior assistant secretary, is taking a helicopter to go to Andrews Air Force base to get on their private jet planes and fly off to routine meetings at extraordinary costs to the Federal taxpayers. The estimates of GAO say we could save $200 million a year from this account and meet the legitimate defense and military requirements of this country. We spent $275,000 to send the Air Force Cadets to Hawaii. That is a scandal.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Today Senator Grassley and I received a very important report from the U.S. General Accounting Office. We asked for an audit of the Office of Support Aircraft of the Department of Defense, and what we received in this audit is shocking. The Department of Defense, which is required to keep administrative aircraft adequate to meet the wartime needs of the United States of America, made use of 48 such aircraft during the Persian Gulf war, maintains over 500 aircraft, 10 times what they used at the height of the Persian Gulf war and, last year they spent $378 million on these support aircraft. There are some notable problems with their use of these aircraft. There is no centralized control. Each and every service determines who and when people will be eligible to use these aircraft. Frequently, one-star generals and lower-ranking civilian officials from the Department of Defense, instead of using their chauffeurs and their automobiles, their limousines and their drivers, to go to Andrews Air Force Base to catch a jet, opt to take a helicopter at the cost of $1,400 to $1,600 an hour. According to the GAO, they save between 5 and 15 minutes instead of spending $30 on a cab. They spend $400 to $1,600 to operate a helicopter. I think it is more for their ego than it is for any support purposes, and that is what the General Accounting Office has found. We also have the fact that we are providing now for the commander in Korea, C-U-S-F-K, as he is called, a four-star general, we are going to provide him with a luxury pallet. That is something which can be inserted into a jet aircraft as this general is required, often, to come back to Washington, DC, to receive orders, and the current $350,000 luxury pallets--I think that most Americans would like to live in a $350,000 house, but this general does not think that a $350,000 luxury pallet is adequate to put in an airplane so he can fly back in comfort to Washington, DC. No, he needs a $750,000 pallet so that this general can fly back and forth to Washington, DC, in extraordinary luxury at probably seven times the average median price of houses for most Members of Congress, $750,000 for a luxury pallet for one general. It is time that the generals in the Pentagon and the civilians in the Pentagon entered into the real world, the world of limitations, the world where you do not go first class-plus when you are not on an urgent mission. And the GAO identifies that most of these missions were not urgent missions. In fact, they also find that not only are these aircraft used to transport generals, as I said, every one-star general in the Pentagon can take a helicopter and then get a private jet any time they want. They do not have to justify it or compare it to commercial rates. They do not even have to compare it to first class rates with a chauffeur- driven limousine. They can just do it, because it is there. And there are no controls. We not only use it indiscriminately for Pentagon brass and for officials at the Pentagon, we are carting around the cadets at our academies to football games and swim meets. We had one football game in Hawaii. The Air Force played the University of Hawaii. The taxpayers of the United States of America spent $270,000 to transport Air Force cadets to the University of Hawaii football game. Now, is that not wonderful? My hometown university, the University of Oregon, went to the Rose Bowl this year, something that only happened once in the last quarter of a century. It is our second time. Nobody asked the State of Oregon to support the students of the University of Oregon or the alumni of the university of Oregon and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to transport them. People made their own way. But no, not when it comes to the Air Force Academy. Was it a particularly important game in Hawaii? Why did we spend $300,000 on transporting? It had something to do the with the fact the game was in Hawaii. They spent a total of $2 million transporting cadets to and from sporting events last year, many times at the cost of $2,000 per student. Those same students could have flown first class and each student could have had a chauffeur-driven limousine and had their meals and hotels paid for, for less than it cost to transport them, and this does not include the cost of the crew on the ground and other incidental costs, wear and tear on the airplane. These are only the actual operating costs of the plane. So it is time the Pentagon came to reality here. I have introduced with Senator Grassley legislation that would reduce the support aircraft to that which is needed, truly needed by the military, 50 percent, save $200 million next year and every year thereafter.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, it is interesting, if you followed the debate, the discussion of the repeal of the War Powers Act, what we have here actually is a partial repeal of the War Powers Act without due deliberation. The committees of jurisdiction, the Committee on International Relations, has held no hearings and has marked up no legislation; the Committee on National Security, which is vitally concerned, has held no hearings and has marked up no legislation. Yet before us suddenly springs full blown a proposal to partially repeal the War Powers Act and to substitute a shadow of the constitutional powers delegated to the Congress by the Constitution. We would be better served if this were an absolute repeal. It would be cleaner, and it would not give anyone the impression that the role of Congress was ``the President shall in every possible instance,'' that is a pretty big loophole, ``consult with,'' does that mean, Congress, who are they? All 435? I am a member of Congress. Would I be consulted with? Would I have an opportunity to represent the people of my district? No. A few people could be selected; one person could be selected. What does it constitute? This is a shadow of the authority that was granted to the Congress by the Constitution. I admit that the War Powers Act is, in fact, effective and at the end of my 5 minutes I will sketch out a fix. But to partially repeal it and instead impose a very weak, prior consultation loophole-ridden provision certainly gives solace to those who believe that the commander in chief, the president, is preeminent. Unfortunately, none of the Framers of the Constitution felt that was a very good idea. If you would refer to James Madison's notes on the Federal Convention, he quotes: Mr. Sharman thought it stood very well. The Executive should be able to repel and not to commence war. ``Make'' better than ``declare,'' the latter narrowing the power to much. Mr. Gerry never expected to hear in the Republic a motion to empower the executive alone to declare war. Mr. Mason was against giving the power of war to the Executive because not safely to be trusted with it; nor to the Senate, because not so constructed as to be entitled to it. He was for clogging rather than facilitating war; but facilitating peace. He preferred ``declare'' to ``make.''. On a motion to insert ``declare'' in place of ``make,'' it was agreed to. That is reserved to the United States Congress, as is the power to raise armies. The gentleman, the esteemed gentleman from Illinois has pointed out, certainly we have the powers of the purse, but once you of deployed troops, secretly, after consultation with one or more Members of Congress, if the opportunity arose and it was convenient for the President, once those troops are on the ground, under hostile fire, is this Congress going to stand up and repeal the funds immediately? No. Member after Member will come to the well and say, we must stand with the Commander in Chief, we must stand behind those troops, no matter how ill-intentioned the initial deployment. This Congress is not going to have anymore guts to cut off the funds than it does to use the implementation of the act and to require that the President submit a report, which has not happened during my time in this Congress. The key here is prior restraint before we get into a shooting war, before we have had casualties, before emotions run high. Prior restraint was in the Senate version of the War Powers Act and, had we adopted the Senate version instead of the more watered-down House version, we would have an effective War Powers Act. We can fix the War Powers Act. We can require prior restraint and require consultation as the Framers of the Constitution intended. It is no surprise that four former Presidents have said, ``Repeal the War Powers Act.'' Of course, every Executive, as the Framers of the Constitution pointed out, is wont to foreign adventures without the restraint of this body, without having to go through a torturous debate before the U.S. Congress on the passing of resolutions. But remember, again, if we are to do this through the appropriations of the powers of the purse, if a President has gone forward and if the Congress, a majority of the elected representatives of the people should say,'' Let us restrain the President, let us bring the troops home,'' the President could veto that resolution and it would require a supermajority of the Congress to exert our constitutional role. Under this act, if we adopt this amendment, this is not a repeal of the War Powers. If we adopt this amendment to the War Powers Act, future Congresses will require a two-thirds majority in order to restrain the President's war-making authority, certainly nothing that the Framers of the Constitution would have envisioned, nor endorsed. There is a fix to War Powers. It is possible. Three modifications: a return to the concept of prior restraint, as was in the original Senate bill, defining in advance those uses of the armed forces in hostilities for which the President needs no prior authorization; a prohibition on any other use of the Armed Forces in hostile situations and on any of the permissible uses lasting longer than 60 days.

Mr. DeFAZIO. A prohibition on any other use of the Armed Forces in hostile situations and on any of the permissible uses lasting longer than 60 days, unless such use is authorized by Congress, and using purse string restrictions to enforce the prohibition; and providing for judicial review. This is key. I am one who has gone to try and defend the constitutional prerogatives of the Congress several times in the last decade. But the courts will not act. We need to give standing so we need to provide for judicial review by conferring standing to bring suit upon Members of Congress in the event of presidential noncompliance and limiting the court's discretionary powers to dismiss such cases. That would fix War Powers. That would reassert the war-making powers amendment to War Powers, not repeal, we will superimpose and put in place a mere shadow of the power of Congress. And, yes, some Members of Congress might be consulted if it is convenient for the president and then we will have a war. I do not believe that that is what the American people want.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor because I heard an extraordinary exchange earlier between the Democratic leader, who justly slammed the Republicans' budget for its cuts in student loans and grants that will add $5,000 to the debt burden of the typical financial aid student graduating from college in future years for families that earn less than $75,000 a year. A Republican freshman rose on the other side to say he would sacrifice for the sake of his daughter, he would take those financial aid cuts for the sake of his daughter. Well, I have got news for him. He earns $133,000 a year as a Member of Congress. He had a successful career as a sportscaster. His daughter does not need help to go to college, but millions of other American kids do who come from families of modest means, and he is stomping on their fingers as they try and reach that first rung of the ladder to climb up to the success that we all strive for in this country. These cuts are cruel and they fall only on families who earn less than $75,000 a year. That is the Republican budget's answer for student financial aid.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, at the end of last week, we got the first quarter's trade numbers for the United States, with its trading partners. The news was grim. We are continuing to pile up record deficits with virtually all of our trading partners around the world. As everybody knows, a little earlier this year, in part those record trade deficits led to a plummeting of the value of the United States dollar versus the yen and the German mark. The dollar has recovered a bit but still is at near post-World War II historic lows. A lot of the responsibility for this has to be put at the doorstep of those who continue to mindlessly follow a trade policy which came to maturity under the leadership of Ronald Reagan in the early 1980's, following the dictates of an economist who has been dead for 200 years, Adam Smith, a man who never saw an airplane, never even saw a steam engine. Yet this man dictates the trade policy of the United States of America. Only two countries in the world follow Adam Smith's trade theories. We are both international basket cases: the United States of America and Great Britain. In fact Great Britain is the only country, major country we are running a trade surplus with. And it is time to revisit and review these policies. You cannot run a trade deficit every year, year after year, any more than you can run a national deficit every year, year after year without having someday to pay the horrible price. We are paying that price today. There was a $160 billion trade deficit last year, according to the Commerce Department. That means we lost 3.2 million American manufacturing jobs. And now the North American Free-Trade Agreement, the latest example of the extension of this disastrous policy, for the first 3 months of this year the United States ran a $3.8 billion trade deficit with Mexico, at the same time that we had to give them $20 billion of our hard-earned money to bail out their economy. And this is considered a success. It is such a success that Speaker Gingrich is calling for an extension of the North American Free-Trade Agreement to other basket case economies in South America and Latin America. I quote: Unequivocally, I strongly favor adding Chile to the North American Free-Trade Agreement and then continuing beyond Chile to step by step expanding our regional commitment because it is good for America and it is going to create more jobs in the United States. Wrong, Mr. Speaker. We are losing jobs today to Mexico, $3.8 billion in 3 months according to our own Commerce Department. That means we lost 76,000 United States manufacturing jobs in 3 months to Mexico. We are headed more toward a loss of 250,000 or 300,000 jobs in 1 year to Mexico, and we are paying $20 billion of taxpayers money for that privilege. And now we want to extend that to Chile and other countries in South and Latin America and we want to do it in such a way that Congress will not be allowed to work its will, will not be allowed a single amendment on the floor of the House. Why would the Speaker of the House of Representatives want to give away the authority to amend a bill on the floor that has such a dramatic impact on the economy of the United States? Yet that is what he is advocating. He wants to give Bill Clinton, our President, a man who he constantly derides authority to bring forward a bill, negotiated in secret, which will extend these disastrous trade policies with no opportunity for amendment on the floor of the House or the Senate. Why is he doing this? Because he is serving the same masters, the same masters that have been dictating the trade policy of this country for 20 years. That is multinational corporations, foreign corporations, and big business. They are doing well. They are doing very well, thank you very much. It just happens to be a disaster for our economy because of the mounting trade deficits. A disaster for American workers because we are exporting their jobs, and now a disaster for the United States Treasury because we are even having to pay Mexico for the privilege of exporting our jobs there. And the Speaker wants to extend that policy because it is such a success. [[Page H5380]] He wants to work hand in glove with the Clinton administration in these efforts. I will do all I can as one Member of this House of Representatives to stop this disastrous policy before it is extended any further, in fact, to repeal the past mistakes we have made, including the North American Free-Trade Agreement.