George Nethercutt

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. I was going to say this is a 30-year-old system. This was begun about 30 years ago, and Congressman White made mention of it a moment ago. This is a courageous step. Without being too self-serving here, this is a courageous step to tackle this monster program and try to get our arms around it and fix it, because it is broken. When the private sector is only growing at about 4 percent a year, and have reduced actually a little over 1 percent last year, but yet the Federal system grows at 10\1/2\ percent a year, it is not working. And I think we in the Congress, this reformed Congress have stood up and said this can be a better system, and that is what we do have is a better Medicare system. It will give my mom and your parents and Jack and his family a greater range of choices. What is wrong with that? That is a good system, a good system change. As the gentleman from Washington [Mr. White] says, senior citizens who want to stay on the existing system can do so. And that should give everybody in this country of senior citizen age a great satisfaction, that they can either keep what they have, or get something better. We think it is a better Medicare system. One other quick point. In 1993, President Clinton made mention about his tax increases, that they were too much. They affected directly the senior citizen population that the critics of Medicare reform and preservation are arguing so hard to protect. Mr. Clinton raised, and the Democrat Congress increased the tax rate from 50 percent to 85 percent on Social Security benefits for individuals with incomes in excess of $34,000 and couples in excess of $44,000. This reconciliation bill repeals that tax increase. So, I do not agree with anybody who says that we are not trying to protect senior citizens in this tax bill, not only through Medicare reform and preservation, but through the repeal of the Clinton and Democrat Congress tax increases.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. This is a huge, huge Government. As appropriators looked at the breadth and scope of the Federal Government, it was astounding how many programs and agencies within agencies within agencies we fund. I think what the American people have to realize is that it is not the Government's money that funds these programs, it is the taxpayers' money. It is their money, and my money and everybody else who writes a check on April 15th and sends it to Washington and trusts us in the Congress to do what is right with their money. So we hear discussion about, well, we do not want to give any kind of a tax cut. What those critics are saying, and the party on the other side is saying is, we want to keep all that tax money that the taxpayers send us because we want to spend it, and the Government wants to spend it and not let the American people spend it. The majority leaders made statements, and all of us have made statements over the past months saying how can the Government decided how best decide to spend our money? Is that not something that we can decide as citizens better than the Federal Government? That is what we are trying to do is have a recognition, and we need to have a recognition that it is the taxpayers' money that we are dealing with here. And if we feel we do not want to take more of their money, then I think that is to the taxpayers' best interest and we all have to understand that, especially the critics of this balanced budget concept.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for your leadership in trying to meet the goals of this Republican Congress, and that is to balance this Federal budget. That is the overriding concern that I think all of us have as we look at the fiscal responsibility that we exercise here and the fiscal responsibility that the Federal Government needs to exercise. I spoke with a constituent today who communicated with me after watching the debate on the reconciliation bill today. His name is Rich Kuling. He made a comment to me after watching this debate, he quoted Aristotle, and he said, ``It is not ignorance, but false knowledge that is the greatest impediment to human progress.'' We are seeing a lot of that today, as we listen to the debate on this issue of reconciliation and the rhetoric of the critics of balancing the Federal budget. The gentleman is right. I hear from my constituents on a daily basis, several hundred letters a day, just like all Members do in the Washington delegation. They see, ``Keep going. Be true to your promises and your commitments that got you elected, and balance this Federal budget, not only for our generation, mine, but for my parents' generation and for my children's generation.'' So it is just a simple fact that we need to keep in mind as we look at the debate and the issue-by-issue examination of the reconciliation bill. Is it a perfect bill? Probably not. But certainly the overriding purpose is perfect, and that is to balance this Federal budget.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 2126, the 1996 Department of Defense appropriations bill. As a member of the subcommittee and committee which crafted this bipartisan bill, I believe it represents a revitalization of our national security by this Congress. I want to address a misleading argument that is often made in media reports and in this Chamber. Some people try to criticize this bill by claiming it funds items that the Pentagon didn't even ask for. In fact, as a part of the executive branch, the Department of Defense is asked to confirm the unlikely by saying that the Federal Government can provide for our defense needs with President Clinton's budget plan. The Department of Defense did not ask for everything it needs, even after 10 straight years of cuts, because the President's budget was simply insufficient. The modest increases in defense spending provided by the House budget resolution will help bridge the gap between America's military goals and commitments and the money the administration budgeted for defense. Many of the big-ticket purchases in this bill have received a lot of discussion, but I want to draw attention to some of the less noticeable needs that are met by this bill. This bill funds a critical Army need for trucks to replace 2\1/2\-ton trucks that are an average of 25 years old. Would you trust your life in wartime to a 1970 vehicle? Our Army troops are forced to do just that by the administration budget. This bill increases procurement of equipment for the Reserve Component Automation System. This system will increase readiness by enabling the Army Reserve and National Guard to respond to a crisis in substantially less time than the current, manual process. This bill helps replace gas-guzzling, air-polluting engines in Air National Guard and Air Reserve tanker refuelers that are expected to be used until the year 2020. In the long run, these engine upgrades will make our refuelers more efficient, cleaner, and more cost-efficient. The list of items goes on and on: improved laser systems for the Army Reserve, C-9 cargo door repairs for the Navy Reserve, and auxiliary power units for Air Force KC-135's. This bill funds many items the Pentagon needs and was not allowed to request because, although President Clinton's defense budget was not part of a plan to balance the budget, the defense budget was supposed to continue to shrink drastically. I support this bill because it is the bipartisan product of a committee that did a good job of using available funds to provide for many of the real needs of the Department of Defense. Adequately providing for the national security and vital interests of the United States is one of the most important things this Congress and this Government can do. I urge my colleagues to vote for this important bill.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I was not recorded on rollcall vote No. 631. The Record should reflect that I would have voted ``aye.'' amendment offered by mr. markey

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Well, that task force, I think, is a very import one because we passed the appropriations bill just last week, but we have the so-called farm bill. Every 5 years as the gentleman knows, we reauthorize farm programs and farm policy in this country, which includes food stamps and Women, Infants, and Children funding as well as commodity supports and price supports and other programs within the Department of Agriculture. Our task force is mobilized to the point where we are bringing a diverse range of views to the Committee on Agriculture as it formulates a 1995 ag bill, a farm bill for the next 5 or 7 years. So we want to have input as nonmembers of the Committee on Agriculture to that committee and let you all know and others know that agriculture, whatever the particular aspect may be, is very important, and we want to have a voice in the formulation and preparation of the ag bill. We will be meeting periodically in this House of Representatives. We will be holding public meetings throughout our respective districts across the country to have input from the farmer and the banker and the local community person who depends on agriculture to make sure that the Committee on Agriculture is clearly aware of our views and America's views on what a farm bill should look like in 1995 and beyond. At a time where we are feeling tremendous budget pressure on agriculture, I think we need to have that extra input, and I am very thankful to all the Members who are part of this ag task force as we form these various opinion discussions and have a chance to have input into the process. We have not had that before to the extent that we will this year, and I thank you and Chairman Roberts and everybody else, Speaker Gingrich as well, who cares very deeply about agriculture, and so that we have a strong agriculture policy. I think that, in a changing world, we want to be sure that we use good judgment as we form a new farm bill in 1995 that affects millions of people across this country.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much not only for yielding but for his participation as a Member of the Task Force on Agriculture that Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Roberts, the chairman of the Ag Committee have approved as something that is vitally important to the agriculture industry in this country. You have been very involved in this task force, Mr. LaHood, and I really appreciate your input and your advice and your good counsel. There is no question but that agriculture is extremely important not only to my State and my district, but these United States of America. We, I think, are many times in this country too easily swayed to say that all farmers are wealthy and that they do not need any assistance or participation with the U.S. Government; that is just not the truth. Agriculture has gotten a bad rap over the years, and we are here, I think, representing our respective districts to try to bring some perspective on the issue of what agriculture does for America, and what the government can do to assist in a partnership with agriculture to make America more successful. We do have a wonderful task force, about 33 Members, freshmen and others, who are not from the Committee on Agriculture but are from agriculture-producing districts that care about agriculture, and that care about rural America. And that is really what agriculture is about, not only to America as a whole and the exports that agriculture brings to this country and the benefits of exports, but the benefits to rural America. And that is really the middle part of this country and really all parts of the Nation, especially the Northwest, which I am happy to represent and proud to represent. I am from the 5th district of Washington, as you know, and we have a tremendous wheat market there. We have oats and barley, we have apples and cherries and about every agriculture product we can imagine. We export about 90 percent of our agriculture products that are grown in my district, so programs that enhance exports and assist in the balance of trade in America are very helpful not only in my district but the rest of the country. There are a couple of programs that I think are worthy of discussion tonight for just a few minutes, and I am not going to take too long. The Export Enhancement Program is a program that was developed in 1985 as part of the farm bill, which was a vehicle for enabling American agriculture to compete with foreign governments who assist their farm sectors in reaching worldwide markets. As I said, 90 percent or so of the wheat that goes from Washington State is exported, and it results in millions and millions of dollars to the balance of trade. It provides 30,000-some-odd jobs in our State and it affects exports in virtually every State in the United States of America. The Export Enhancement Program is a vehicle for America to compete with foreign governments where they are unfairly competing in the world market for ag sales. In 1980, you may remember President Carter imposed the embargo on the Soviet Union. That was devastating to agriculture because it took away by unilateral action of our country the ability to sell in foreign countries like the Soviet Union. As a result, our market share in the Soviet Union, the former Soviet Union, and other countries throughout the world has suffered. The Export Enhancement Program, which was developed in 1985 tries to remedy this imbalance and this inequity. This year, as we passed the Agriculture appropriations bill just last week, we provided $800 million in assistance for all agricultural commodities that are eligible for Export Enhancement protection and that is going to help farmers and rural America, and it is going to help the American economy. Those are the kinds of programs that I think get distorted in the media and get distorted in the debate on this House floor, and that is unjustified. The Export Enhancement Program is a minimal way that the Federal Government can assist agriculture in the United States. We have to have our American farmers able to compete in these world markets not only by Export Enhancement Assistance by the government, but in the area of research. Most small farmers and cooperatives of farmers are unable to garner the support and the financial commitment to conduct the very extensive research that needs to be done so that we can compete in markets like China and Japan and Australia and other places. The U.S. Government has a role in providing research funds, and we are doing that in this agriculture appropriations bill. We also want to make sure we promote our markets worldwide. Other countries promote their products in America and throughout the rest of the world. Our country should do the same. There is a minimal amount of money in the agriculture appropriations bill to do that, so I think we all have to be aware and take a part of the education requirements that we have to make sure America understands the importance of agriculture. It is not a sexy subject or an exciting subject, but it is a very vital subject that is very, very important to millions of Americans around this country. I want to thank you for allowing me to have a chance to talk a little bit about the export enhancement program. I want all the Members to remember that particular program and support it. The Market Promotion Program is a good, wise use of American tax dollars, and ag research is very, very important to allow our farmers to compete in worldwide markets.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time. Mr. Chairman, it is fascinating that the proponents of this amendment, all from the northeast part of the United States, do not understand what we in the West do to help them sit in that restaurant and eat the food that is produced in this country and we do it because we export it overseas. A lot of our farmers in the West are potato growers, are apple growers, pea and lentil growers, and wheat growers. The proponents of this amendment ought to come out to Washington State and see what we export overseas because Washington exports over 1 billion dollars' worth of agriculture products and those exports generate about $3 billion in economic activity and about 30,000 jobs in this country. We benefit New Jersey and New York by the fact that we are able to export our goods overseas. We have to compete with the European Union who subsidizes their wine growers in this country to the tune of $89 million. We have to have this kind of assistance to be fair to the jobs and the economy of the Northwest. Vote ``no'' on this amendment.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in strong opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts. In addition to preserving the health of our forests, the timber sale program at the Forest Service is a net revenue generator for the Federal Government and our local communities. Last year, the agency produced net revenues of $214 million and returned over $280 million to the local counties where our national forests are located. This occurred while funding levels for timber sales have fallen almost 30 percent over the past 5 years. Similarly, road construction funding has been cut by 38 percent over the last 5 years. The condition of Forest Service roads have severely declined over the last decade. Reduced funding has and will continue to allow roads to deteriorate beyond what can be repaired by routine maintenance. Major reconstruction is the only way to restore these roads to safe conditions. The Forest Service currently has a $440 million backlog in road construction needs. The funds appropriated by the subcommittee are essential for allowing the agency to meet watershed protection and analysis requirements. For the sake of our economy and our rural communities, the time has come to reverse the trend of reduced funding for roads and timber sales.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this moratorium amendment. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a temporary solution that in my judgment is detrimental to the mining industry in America. We can agree that mining reform is overdue. We can agree with that. And as the gentleman from California [Mr. Calvert] mentioned earlier, we have H.R. 1518 that is in the process of being prepared which will address the objections sought to be imposed by this amendment. I believe this amendment will discourage mining in America. We can have all the anecdotal information or examples in the world of egregious overreaching, but in fact this mining law has worked over the years, and it is very important, I think, that we keep something in place to make sure that we do not discourage mining and send it to foreign shores. I was one who opposed the elimination of the Bureau of Mines in my own subcommittee. We lost that battle, but we have cut back in mining throughout this country to the point where there is a disincentive, I think, to even get involved in the mining industry, to provide some jobs and assistance to America. Interim steps have a way of becoming permanent, and I fear that this particular moratorium amendment will do just that. What we do not want to do is discourage mining in this country. We do not want to send mining operations overseas and be dependent on foreign companies for the production of minerals that we use in this country. This amendment will result in such foreign dependence, and it should be opposed and overridden.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the kind remarks. I am happy to stand before this House today in support of H.R. 1977, the fiscal year 1996 Interior Appropriations Act. I am a new member of the Subcommittee on Interior. I am a new Member of Congress. I was very pleased to work closely with the chairman, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Regula], and certainly the Members of the minority party to craft this legislation in the fairest way possible. I believe we still have further to go in reducing the size and scope of this Federal Government, but this bill represents a significant first step, I believe, in the right direction in cutting back on unnecessary waste and duplication within the Federal Government. This bill is about a billion and a half dollars below last year's level of funding. I recognize the difficulty that the chairman had and our subcommittee and committee had in meeting the needs of the Nation with this reduction. But I certainly want to compliment him and the rest of the leadership for allowing such an open process as we go through this very important bill. I personally had some problems supporting one aspect of the bill regarding the Bureau of Mines. I wanted to keep it open, and we decided not to in the committee. But I was encouraged to offer an amendment in both the subcommittee and the full committee by the chairman and others, and we had a full hearing. I thank the chairman for his forbearance in working with us on that amendment. I also want to thank the committee for working with me and other Members from the West on programs that are of particular importance to our region. This bill continues funding for the operation of our national parks, our forests, our pubic lands and refuges, and it maintains our forest health programs and provides a modest increase for the timber sales program. This increase comes after a drop in sales targets by about 60 percent over the last 5 fiscal years. This slight increase will begin to put our timber communities back to work without damaging the environment. The bill eliminates the National Biological Service, an agency that is unauthorized and is really unnecessary at this time. Critical NBS functions will be continued at the Geological Survey while private property rights will be fully preserved. This bill funds the arts and culture at a more fiscally responsible level, a level that all of us should support at this time of the fiscal responsibility that we must exercise. I urge all Members to support this bill. It is a good bill. It is a fair bill. Let us work hard to pass it.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the committee for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1158, the emergency supplemental appropriations bill. This conference report provides important emergency funds for Federal disasters, and for the second time this session, Republicans have fully paid for emergency appropriations through corresponding offsets. As has already been mentioned today, included in H.R. 1158 is a provision that will prevent future national disasters. The emergency timber salvage amendment directs the Forest our national forests to the maximum extent feasible. We, in the West, know that the health of our forests has declined drastically because of prohibitions against salvage logging, thinning and controlled burns. In the summer of 1994, more than 67,000 wildfires burned almost 4 million acres of forest and rangeland. 26 firefighters lost their lives fighting these fires. In the month of August alone, a partial list of Federal expenses came to $7.8 million per day. The emergency salvage amendment is a provision that will go a long way toward preventing future forest fires by improving the health of our forests today, and being sensitive to environmental concerns. Most importantly, it will help small timber companies and rural communities. I urge all Members to support this supplemental appropriations bill.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, we have many tough choices to make during the next several weeks and Republicans have been the first to come forward and face these challenges. But we need to take great care in reducing those programs that have had such a profound effect on our rural communities over the last 60 years. America's rural communities are fading examples of American history--neighbor helping neighbor, family helping family. We cannot turn back 60 years of farm programs overnight and expect our rural communities to survive. Farm communities can survive through tax and regulatory relief, farm program reform and better trade policy reform. Remember, farm programs have declined an average of 9 percent each year since 1985--a reduction of over $15 billion. If all other Federal programs had taken the same budget reductions during this period, our budget would balance. Assaults on agriculture are not productive, so I challenge my colleagues to roll up our sleeves and learn how important farming is to America.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Hilleary amendment. The American people already know about term limits. They are watching us closely to see if our actions speak as loud as our words. Twenty-two States have term limits, with more surely to follow. My election to this body is a direct result of my recognizing the right of the people of the State of Washington to enact term limits. That is the beauty of this amendment. It respects the decision in my State to limit terms. The Hilleary amendment is carefully drafted to embody the spirit of the Contract With America, and the spirit of the freshman class. We freshman have come to Washington to change the status quo to be different than our predecessors. As the new majority party, we have the ability now to make it easier for future generations to serve in this body. The Hilleary amendment provides for a uniform upper limit of 12 years of service, but it also allows States to create their own more restrictive limits or keep the ones they already have. The Contract With America calls for change in the way we do business in Congress and a reduction in the size and scope of the Federal Government. This amendment accomplishes both goals. It allows a regular, reasonable turnover in the membership of Congress. It will assure that new people with new energy and new ideas contribute to better government. And, it will demonstrate to the American public that States' rights are not ignored by Congress. I urge my colleagues to remember the mandate of election day 1994. Vote ``yes'' on the Hilleary amendment.

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as the Representative of the fifth District of Washington in strong support of the Inglis amendment. In 1992 the voters in my State spoke loud and clear on term limits. They passed an amendment to impose 6 year term limits on the House and 12 years on the Senate. The voters of Washington State were not alone. Since 1990, 22 States have passed term limits. Fifteen of them were for the limits of the Inglis amendment: 6 years and 12 years. The Inglis amendment not only reflects the will of my constituents and the American people, it returns the House of Representatives to the role the Founding Fathers intended: ``the peoples House.'' Six years provides us enough time to come to this great body, pass laws on behalf of our constituents and then return home to live under those laws. Mr. Chairman, I am personally committed to respecting the will of my constituents and the voters of Washington. I encourage my colleagues to respect their constituents and return this body to the American people by joining me in support of the Inglis amendment.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support for term limitations which this body will take up in the very near future. Term limits will assure that new people with new energy and new ideas will come to serve in this body and serve the American people. Term limits will assure the intent that the Founding Fathers had of having people from the various districts come to this city and this body and serve with distinction the cause of good government and make a contribution to politics and good government, not to have a career here. Term limits will encourage more people to serve in this body, to serve in Congress and run for Congress. Term limits will eliminate the automatic election advantage that incumbents have that perpetuates their existence. Let us follow the example of Abraham Lincoln and the example of many States in this country which have adopted term limits. Abraham Lincoln served one term. Let us follow his example and enact term limits this year.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to rise in opposition to the Yates amendment and in support of the Taylor amendment. This is a common sense solution to a very difficult problem that we face out west. I wish that every Member of this body could come through the Copper Butte area of my State and my district and see the devastation of the forest fires that occurred last summer. You would see the timber rotting in the forest and you would see the necessity for this emergency measure. It is an emergency measure. This is an expedited treatment of the environmental laws and an expedited treatment of an ability to get in and salvage timber that is dying and diseased in the forest, and it is absolutely necessary to protect the areas of my district. It will provide jobs, it will provide money to the Treasury, and it will provide a common sense environmentally sensitive solution to this very grave problem. I ask the support of this body to oppose the Yates amendment and support the Taylor amendment.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Fox] for yielding to me, for this opportunity to speak about the family nutrition block grant. Mr. Speaker, the reason my colleagues and I are here on the floor tonight is to make the case for the hard choices that we are compelled to make in order to bring the Federal budget in balance, and this is why we continue to supply essential services to our constitutes in need. As my friend just said here on the floor, it is a little disconcerting when those who oppose any reform in the existing programs label those programs, the plan for reform by the Republican Congress, as hurting children, or hurting women who are pregnant, or hurting older Americans. It is simply not true, and it is unfair to them, and it is unfair to this body. Why are we delving into such a sensitive area? The reason is simple. We have a national debt of over $4.7 trillion. The interest on the debt alone exceeds the defense budget for this year, which is by September we will have to raise possibly the debt ceiling again most likely in excess of the $5 trillion mark. In a place where we use the term ``crisis'' quite freely, our gargantuan debt represents the greatest crisis that we face as a Nation, not only us as adults, but our children in future generations. My colleagues across the aisle have been enormously critical of our efforts to combine programs into block grants and to get rid of the cost of the Federal bureaucracy that administers them. They raise the specter of increased malnutrition among the Nation's poor. Nothing could be further from the truth. What we are doing by creating a family nutrition block grant is to simply combine funding for the WIC program, the child and adult care food program, the summer food program and the homeless children nutrition program. We are cutting out the middlemen, in this case Federal bureaucrats, and getting more money to those families and children in need. Let us call this the stop feeding the bureaucrats measure. In other words, we will save money by being more efficient in the distribution of Federal funds by moving it closer to those people whom the programs serve. In fact, based on the CBO projections, Congressional Budget Office projections for funding for the current programs, the programs grouped in the family nutrition block grant will increase, and listen to this, by an average of 3 percent a year for the next 5 years. Where is the money going? We have mandated that all of the funding available in the block grant go to low income families, and 80 percent of that money must go to women and children currently served by the WIC program. Women, infants and children will be fine under this program by the Republican majority. Furthermore, no more than 5 percent can be spent by the States on administrative costs, so I say, Mr. Speaker, let us not be fooled by the rhetoric that comes forth on a daily basis. It is a public relations effort to resist sensible reform. This will work. It is going to be good for women. It is going to be good for children. We will all be better off in the years ahead. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 889, the Department of Defense emergency supplemental appropriations bill and H.R. 845, the companion recission bill. I certainly commend Chairman Livingston and Chairman Young for reporting out an emergency supplemental that is fully paid for without burdening the Nation with any new taxes. The have worked very diligently to bring this bill to the floor today, despite the fact that the administration submitted its request to us only 16 days ago on February 6. At present, the full readiness of our Armed Forces is in jeopardy. Our troops have been engaged in an excessive number of unplanned and unbudgeted operations around the world, resulting in the deployment of 100,000 American troops within the past 4 months with nearly 50,000 troops remaining deployed today. This situation has forced our military leaders to pay operations by transferring money from other defense accounts. The training moneys which were used for these foreign operations must now be replenished. If they are not and if this bill is not enacted before the end of March, just 37 days from now, our men and women in uniform will suffer from a drastic cutback in supplies and training. Let me share with my colleagues just a few of the consequences of inaction on this bill would have: All U.S.-based Army units would have to stop most major training by May 31; four Navy carrier airwings would be forced to stand down and 500 aircraft would be grounded; and flight hours in the Air Force would be cut in half. The next time a hot spot such as Bosnia or Korea or Kuwait flares up and the President orders our troops abroad on a mission, our troops will be less prepared for possible combat than they should be or will be using equipment that is below par. Despite the urgency of this supplemental, the committee at the behest of the Speaker has fully offset all $3.2 billion of additional spending in the bill through specific recissions. This is a significant departure from previous committee practice, where the cost of emergency supplementals was enacted because it was in the national interest to do so. Like many of my new colleagues in the freshman class, I was elected to cut government spending and maintain a strong national defense. This bill does both things. We are now charged as Members of Congress with making hard choices that set priorities on spending scarce Federal dollars. We must decide which programs of lower priority must be cut in order to pay for the objectives of policy we enact into law. The recissions the committee has recommended are fair. The end result will be less government spending. We have no greater priority in this body then to those American men and women in uniform who risk their lives each day to protect our borders and our vital interests abroad. We also have, in light of the passage by this House of a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, an obligation to offset all increased spending, emergency or otherwise, and we are doing so in this bill. Mr. Chairman, the choice is simple. We must pass this supplemental to keep our promise to the men and women of our Armed Forces, and in our current national financial condition, we must pay for it to keep our promise to the men and women of our Nation. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Florida for yielding me the time. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule to accompany H.R. 2, the Line-Item Veto Act. Today, we take up the third plank of the Contract With America, having passed overwhelmingly the balanced budget amendment and a bill to curb Federal unfunded mandates. The American people elected a Republican Congress last November so that we could bring to open debate the many pieces of legislation that have wide popular support, such as the provisions of the Contract With America. The people are eager to move quickly on this legislation and I hope that we will not have numerous, dilatory amendments offered on this bill. For too long, a spendthrift Congress has squandered, without restraint, the tax dollars of the American people on wasteful programs. Congress has shown an institutional inability to control its runaway spending habits. Therefore, the time has come to make the President a full partner in the quest for rationality and sensibility in the budget process. History will record that the passage of the line-item veto will be the most significant achievement of these historic 100 days. It is a tribute to the leadership of this House that we will, today, take up this legislation under an open rule and I commend the Speaker, Chairman Solomon and Chairman Clinger for the work they have done to this bill would have never seen the light of day and certainly not under a rule allowing everyone on both sides of the aisle with an interest in the bill to offer an amendment. In the past, Congress has sent the President bloated, omnibus legislation filled with questionable spending items that would be impossible to justify on their own. We need to give the President the authority to delete these items to act as a check in the classical constitutional system of checks and balances on the past tendency of Congress to bankrupt our future. The people of the Fifth District of Washington are in strong support of this cost-cutting measure and I strongly urge my colleagues to unanimously support this rule and this legislation.

Mr. NETHERCUTT

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Torkildsen].

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

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. McCollum]. (Mr. McCOLLUM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Porter].

Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to stand here today as a new Member of this House as we embark upon a momentous change programmed to reform the Congress and our Government. The people of the State of Washington have sent me here to participate in this historic Congress which begins its first day specifically fulfilling the pledge of the Contract With America by reforming our own workplace before we enact other reform measures. As part of this great beginning, I rise today in strong support of section 103 of the contract for a new House, which will limit the Speaker to four consecutive terms and committee and subcommittee chairmen to three consecutive terms. controversial and, indeed, many States have enacted some kind of term- limits legislation including my home State of Washington. What makes our actions today extraordinarily novel is our willingness to change practices of the past by decentralizing the House's power structure away from committee chairmen with virtually lifetime appointments in favor of individual Members. This reform is also at the heart of the strategy for conservative governance that we will pursue in the first 100 days of this new Congress as we seek the devolution of authority from Federal lawmakers and bureaucrats back to individual citizens, a reenergized civil society, if you will. No more will the House of Representatives be charged with stifling public debate and restricting innovative ideas. In the watershed November elections, the citizens of our Nation conferred upon us the authority to seriously reduce the size and scope of Government. Mr. Speaker, more than 200 years ago, after his great victories in the Revolutionary War, Gen. George Washington won the admiration of the world by resigning his commission and demonstrating his commitment to democracy. In this great tradition of selfless leadership, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote yes to adopt the resolution to limit the terms of the Speaker and committee chairmen and subcommittee chairmen to demonstrate to the American people our commitment to democracy. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.