Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) for bringing this issue up.

What we are trying to do is expand options to fund transportation solutions. As both gentlemen have pointed out, there are many limitations on that, and States throughout the country are struggling with their efforts to find the resources to fund the transportation solutions they want. This is one idea to basically make tolls an option for State projects so that they could receive Federal funds if they wanted to use those tolls to fund it and maintenance of that new construction. The amendment expands this to allow for whatever projects want to apply.

It is my opinion that the bill itself is actually narrower. It only allows an isolated number of projects to have these toll roads. It is not my understanding that this amendment in any way changes the current structure on mass transit. I am not certain that we currently allow Federal funds to go for tolling to fund that. But this amendment, to my understanding, and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) can perhaps correct me, does not speak to what the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) just talked about. It does not further restrict funds for transit. If it did, I would not be supportive of it. It expands what is available for roads.

Toll roads, by definition, are for roads. If there was some way to expand further to deal with mass transit, I would be in favor of it. It was my understanding that this amendment does not further restrict what the law already does. It targets one area and expands the opportunities, whereas the current bill only allows for an isolated number of projects to take advantage of this opportunity. As the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy) pointed out, it is like three projects throughout the country that could get this, and obviously there are more than that.

So this is an opportunity to expand access to transportation opportunities, and that is why I support the amendment. My State and just about every other State I can think of desperately needs more funds for transportation. This opens up an avenue, a way for them to get those funds and build new roads and opens it up in a way that the public is likely to be supportive of. It funds specifically the road that they would be paying tolls on until it is paid for and the maintenance and care of it.

Getting public support for these issues has long been a challenge. We voted down the gas tax in the State of Washington on several occasions. This would be an opportunity to get people something that they want and expand transportation funds.

Mr. Speaker, I want to talk this evening a little bit about a subject that has been on everyone's mind and certainly being talked about throughout the country, and that is the issue that has come to be known as outsourcing or offshoring, the concern that many Americans have about the number of jobs that used to be done in the United States that are now being done overseas.

The best way to think about this issue is to think about our entire economy. It is not really just about outsourcing or offshoring of jobs. It is about the future of the U.S. economy and, most specifically, where the jobs are going to be. That is the fear that I hear expressed by my constituents and by people throughout the country. They are worried about what jobs are going to be here for them in the future and for their children and for their grandchildren. What should they prepare for? What type of economy are they going to have? Are we going to have enough good jobs across the board so that the people of our country can be employed and employed at a standard of living that we have all come to expect?

I think, when I look at the debate, we have to be very careful about how we approach this issue; and I am pleased in working with the new Democrats and also with other members of the House Democratic Caucus that we are working on a series of proposals and a series of issues to try to address this issue in a serious and intelligent manner that will help us create the type of economy that we all want.

Right now, there are sort of two directions that we see being taken by the majority of folks, and neither one of them is particularly helpful. On the one hand, I do not think it makes sense to take a full- scale protectionist approach, to basically say that we need to stop trading with other countries that do not have the same labor and environmental standards that we do, that we need to cut off immigration and, in essence, we need to adopt a policy that says we are going to do whatever we can to protect every job that currently exists, regardless of the consequences. History has shown us that sort of approach leads to less economic growth in the future, and that is what this is all about, is long-term, sustainable economic growth for the benefit of all of us.

I would point out that the most protectionist economy in the world right now is, arguably, Japan. They have done just about everything they can to protect all of their existing jobs, all of their existing businesses. They subsidize industry. They erect tariff barriers to outside countries coming in and competing with them. They protect bad loans even long after they are no longer obviously going to be paid. They do everything they can to protect that economy, and it has led to a decade-long recession in Japan.

One needs to be able to change. One needs to be able to grow. One needs to be able to not just protect the bulk of the jobs they have but, most importantly, to be prepared to take advantage of the future economic opportunities that are to come.

That is what we do better than any other country in the world. We have a higher capacity for change than any other country in the world. We have consistently seen the next trend, gotten there first, and benefited economically. Most recently, we have seen this in technology, in the Internet, in software and hardware before that. We prepare ourselves for the new trends in the economy, take advantage of it, and get out front and have a leadership role, and we need to do that again.

As much as protectionism is not the best way to go on this, I think it is an equal mistake to take the approach that far too often the current administration has taken, which is to say that there is not a problem, basically outsourcing, offshoring, it is just the natural economic dynamic at work, creative destruction, it will all work itself out, we do not need to do anything. That, I think, is an equally unwise approach. There are policies that we need to adopt in this country to be prepared to deal with globalization, to deal with the economic changes.

They will point to past times when it looked like our economy was challenged throughout the 1980s. People thought that Japan and other countries in Asia would take over and we would never be able to compete with them. That certainly did not happen as we came into the 1990s. With each economic change, there has been this concern that somehow we will not be able to compete, and we have risen above and competed. And that is true, but it is wrong to say that we did that effortlessly, that we did that without adopting policies to confront it.

In the 1950s and 1960s, we adopted policies to deal with the space race that we had going on with the Soviet Union. We set up the National Science Foundation. We did a lot of things to encourage people to study and get education in the areas where we thought the jobs and the economy would be in the future. We built the interstate highway system. We passed the GI Bill to make sure that all the people coming out of the service could have access to education.

We made policy decisions to deal with these changes. We did not just take a step back and say economics will take care of it. We adopted policies that made sense to move us forward. That is what we need to do today, and we have some specific ideas amongst the new Democrats and the Democratic Caucus to do that.

First and foremost, there is nothing more important than education and job skills in competing in the global economy. The more skills we have, the more education we have, the more we will be able to compete, particularly for those high-end jobs that are so important in keeping our economy strong and giving American families the opportunities that they deserve.

There is some despair out there about job training. We can see stories about people who were trained for jobs and then wound up being outsourced and they did not have access to them. But for every one of those stories, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of other stories of people who have used the advanced skills training and the advanced job training and education they have received to be employable, to be employed in many cases in better jobs than they had before.

That is why I and a number of other folks have introduced a bill on trade adjustment assistance to the number of people who are eligible for those benefits because we believe that trade adjustment assistance works. It would work a lot better if we fully funded it so everybody eligible for those benefits got all the benefits, but it works when it is used, and we need to use it more, not less. So our Trade Adjustment Assistance Bill would expand the number of people covered to include service sector workers who now increasingly face the same sort of competition that manufacturing sector workers have faced.

We also expand the bill to expand the number of countries to which, if they lose their job, they are eligible for these benefits. Currently, it is restricted to very few countries that we have specific trade agreements with.

We have lost many jobs to countries that do not fall into that category. We need to retrain those workers as well. We need to make that investment.

But when we look at the education and jobs skills issue, it is not just about retraining. It is also about basic education. We hear a lot of scary economic statistics out there, but for me the scariest statistic right now has to do with education and specifically with education in the area of math, science, and engineering. Those are the degrees and skills that are going to most create jobs in the future, that are going to most take advantage of the trends in everywhere from biomedical sciences to energy to the new ideas. It is math, science, and engineering that will grow our economy.

Right now, in China, 70 percent of all undergraduates get degrees in math, science, or engineering. That is what the Chinese are doing. What we are doing here in the U.S. is 5 percent of our undergraduates get degrees in math, science, and engineering; and, furthermore, the real number of degrees that U.S. students are receiving in those three key areas, math, science, and engineering, have gone down every year for the last decade. We are putting out fewer people with the skills that are desperately needed, and there are changes that we can make in our education system from the K-12 system forward that will help us deal with that and compete better. We need to set high standards. We need to place emphasis in the K through 12 level on math and science to get our students interested in it.

Too often right now, and I have visited just about every school district that I represent and many of the schools, when I talk to the students and the teachers there, they cite the same problem. By about the seventh or eighth grade, someplace between the seventh and eighth grade and 11th or 12th, students lose interest in math and science. It is happening to somewhere between 50 and 75 percent of our students. We lose them before they even have the chance to get into a university and get the advanced degrees that they need in these areas. We have to change that, and we have to increase the emphasis in those areas.

I am pleased to say that that is happening in a lot of States in the Union. Certainly in Washington State we have adopted higher standards. We have made math and science priorities. We have made those basic skills fundamental, and we are starting to see some changes. But we need to aggressively approach that. We need to do whatever we can to make sure that we get as many degrees in math, science, and engineering as is possible.

But it is not just about education. There are other issues that are important, and certainly trade is important. I mentioned that protectionism is not the way to go, and I believe that. We need to open overseas markets, get access to those markets so that we can sell our goods. But that does not mean that we need to lay back and do nothing in the trade area. We need to make sure that our trading partners live by the same rules that we do.

One of the biggest mistakes that this country has made certainly in the last 3 years is to not aggressively enforce the trade agreements to our advantage. Certainly other countries are coming after us. Europe sued us over our manufacturing tax credit. Now we have to totally change that, possibly to the detriment of U.S. companies. We have dealt with many different issues where other trading partners have come after us for what they perceive to be trade violations on us. We, on the other hand, stand idly by while other countries do not give us the same access to their markets that they have to ours.

Most specifically, we have a huge problem with other countries, primarily China, stealing our products. And it is not just software and intellectual property like movies and books and recordings. It is everything. It is the basic manufactured product that some small businesses made where the Chinese come over, copy it, take it back, sell it as their own. We should issue trade actions to stop that.

We should also aggressively go after nations that unfairly manipulate their currency to gain a trade advantage. That is against the WTO. We voted, I think correctly, to bring China into the WTO, to make them part of a rules-based economy. That is great. But to bring them into a rules-based economic system and then not make sure that they follow those rules is ridiculous. It is not taking advantage of what we put out there. We have numerous opportunities to make sure that our trading partners' markets are as open to our goods as ours are to theirs. We should be much more aggressive in enforcing that. We cannot afford to lay back and assume that somehow we are always going to win these competitions.

The final issue I want to talk about is investing in research and development, basically making sure that we have the investments made with our companies and with our university system so that we can develop the next best thing first. That is what economic growth is really about, is being at the cutting edge of new inventions, and that is all about investments in research.

One issue of particular concern, when we look at economic growth, a lot of people will tell us that health sciences, biotech, biomedical, that is where the future is. When we look at what is going on with the human genome, with DNA, with a variety of different issues, with the development of pharmaceuticals, there is massive potential for growth in these areas. We have several advantages in being the leader on that.

But one of the ones that we are giving away right now is in the area of stem cell research. It is a critical factor in developing in the area of health sciences. We have limited the funding for stem cell research in the United States, and a lot of those projects have gone to other countries. They are getting ahead of us in that technology.

In numerous other technology issues we have the ability to change our policy to make sure that we are making the investments in research and new technology to be the leaders. We need to make sure that we do that and move forward.

Overall, there is no question in my mind that the United States of America can figure out a way to create long-term economic growth so that we can compete in a global economy and create the kinds of jobs that we want. But we cannot sit idly by and pretend that that is just going to happen naturally. We have to make smart policy choices to help the workers, to help the people of our country in their efforts to compete in an increasingly challenging world. We can do it, no doubt about that whatsoever, but not if we are not smart as public policy makers about helping our workers in their ability to compete and create a strong, long-term, sustainable economic growth in this country.

I am pleased to be joined by one of my colleagues who has been working with me and others on this issue, very knowledgeable in economic policy issues. I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).

I thank the gentleman.

I want to follow up with a couple of the tax policy points. As I mentioned, job training and worker skills, the best way to do that is obviously to have the companies train their workers, because companies know what specific skills they need. Increasingly, in having job skills, it is not just a matter of knowing a certain computer programming skill or a certain scientific skill. It is knowing what a specific company needs, and the only way to do that is to get training from the companies, or I should say the best way to do that.

So tax credits that encourage companies to give training to their workers so that they can improve those skills and stay employable in those companies is an excellent idea, and also just overall developing the Tax Code to make sure it encourages businesses to create jobs here domestically.

We have a situation now in the Tax Code where if you have a plan, let us take a call center as an example, that is one of the ones that has been off-shored, and you are here domestically in the U.S. employing workers and making profits on that call center, you pay taxes on it.

Now, if you take those same workers and move them overseas, even if they are still servicing U.S. consumers, U.S. customers, all of a sudden they do not pay taxes anymore in the U.S. on that. There is a proposal by Senator John Kerry to change that, to make sure that if you are performing services here in the U.S., you continue to perform them for U.S. customers in a different country, you still have to pay taxes on that. That would discourage or take away one of the incentives the companies have to move jobs overseas.

The second idea within that area that Senator Kerry has introduced, which is a positive incentive, would be to allow companies that have subsidiaries overseas and subsidiaries that serve overseas markets, not U.S. markets, whether it is in China, India, Vietnam or wherever, if they are doing that and making profits over there, right now if they want to bring those profits back to the U.S. from their subsidiaries, they have to pay taxes on them. If they leave them overseas, they do not.

It makes sense to reduce that tax rate to give them an incentive to bring the money back and invest here in the U.S., and that is another tax idea that Senator Kerry has supported. I think it is a pretty good contrast with the general approach of the Bush administration, which is just give tax cuts to the people who make a lot of money and hope that they invest that money here. We know there is no guarantee of that. They can invest that money any place they want to, and increasingly they are investing it overseas. So our tax policy needs to be smart to help grow jobs here domestically.

I want to now turn it over to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), another of my colleagues who has worked extensively on this issue and understands the importance of job creation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) for his remarks, and I do agree, as I said, that we need to be more aggressive about enforcing our trade agreements.

I will point out I am actually fairly familiar with the CAFTA trade agreement, and it does not have the affect on sugar you describe. It raises the quotas for sugar from Central America by less than 5 percent over what they currently are and it is, in fact, spread out over 15 years.

So if my colleague looks at the details of CAFTA, sugar, corn, a variety of different issues, it is a pretty level playing field on both of those. It does not dramatically increase the quotas on sugar coming from Central America.

So I would urge my colleague to take a closer look at that and assure your folks in the Michigan sugar beet industry that they are going to be just fine with regard to that particular agreement.

Mr. Speaker, that cannot possibly be true. I would be happy to take a look at it, but it is not just over 15 years. At the end of 15 years the quotas are still there. They are just slightly larger than they are now. It does not even get rid of them.

So sugar was very important to me, and I was actually in conversations with Ambassador Zellick and others while they were negotiating that.

Mr. Speaker, absolutely. We have a sugar industry throughout the U.S.

Mr. Speaker, I want to now yield to my colleague from my State, our State, I should say, the gentleman from the great State of Washington (Mr. Inslee) from the first district who is the cosponsor with me on the TAA bill to expand trade adjustment assistance for service sector employees and expand it in other areas as well.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, because that is a point I found interesting. When the President has proposed his tax cuts, for 3 years he has talked about the number of jobs he is going to create. The figure that he used for the tax cut that was passed was 1.2 million. He has fallen way short of at this point, I think it is about 400,000. But in making that proposal it is interesting that he assumes that, absent that tax cut, no jobs would be created, which flies in the face of history. Obviously, some jobs were going to be created.

As the gentleman points out, after we did this supply side tax cut for people at the high end of the scale, we actually created less jobs than economists tell us we would have created if we had done nothing. So it is worse than just not doing what he said it was going to do. It seems to be having a negative impact.

I thank the gentleman for his help on this issue. You worked very closely on it, and I thank you for your leadership

I want to close off the debate, and we do not have anymore speakers for our hour, which is almost up, by emphasizing the point the gentleman from

Washington (Mr. Inslee) made about the cost and some of the choices involved. It is interesting, business leaders throughout this country have come together and agreed with a lot of the items we have talked about tonight, agreed with the importance of education, the importance of job training, the importance of investment in research and development, the importance of another item we have not talked about, which is an investment in infrastructure, a building of roads and improving our energy system so that we can have a sustainable strong economy; and they know we need to do those things, and they consistently advocate for them and I appreciate that support.

But it is also tied into the issue of how do we pay for these things, and as the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) pointed out, the tax cut choice. We have heard a lot already in this campaign about taxes and tax cuts; and the general approach of the President and his party is that, look, any tax cut there is has to be lower, anyone who is for higher taxes is by definition not worth being elected, but we have to take a step back and look at this in terms of choices, and take a look at those issues that I just talked about, the business leaders and many Republicans say they support, funding for education, funding for job training, funding for infrastructure.

There is the little problem of paying for these things, and we have to look at the choice that is being presented. The President wants to make his tax cut permanent, all of his tax cut, including the portion of that tax cut which is a pretty substantial portion of it that goes to people making over $200,000 a year, also the portions of the tax cut that go to people who are paid dividends; and, yes, I know average Americans earn some dividends, too. If you look at the percentage of where dividend income goes, it goes almost entirely, 75 to 80 to 90 percent, to people again making a great deal of money; and I understand the philosophy behind that, give these people money, they will invest and everything will be fine.

It has not quite worked over the course of the last 3 years at this point, but more importantly it is a matter of choices. If the business community, other folks out there, want us to make that investment in education, job training and research and infrastructure, there has got to be some money left somewhere to do that; and when we are sitting here with an over-$400 billion deficit due this year to pile on top of a $7 trillion debt, to say that we are going to make the tax cuts permanent at the cost of somewhere around 2 to $3 trillion, over the course of the 10-year period, and still make these investments in our workers, an investment in our economy, it does not add up.

It is a matter of choices, what is the best investment of that money. Is it really best to make sure that the top tax rate for people who make, it is about $250,000 before you hit that top tax rate, goes down from 39 to 35 percent? It goes down to 4, I guess, critical percentage points. Or is it best to take some of that money to get us back towards fiscal responsibility and to get us back towards making an investment in our workers that they can fairly compete? Looked at in that context, I think it is a pretty obvious choice; and I hope that we will make those choices.

We absolutely need tax cuts. Senator Kerry supports a number of tax cuts targeted to the middle class, the child tax credit, elimination of the marriage tax penalty, a number of different issues; but, absolutely, we have got to give those tax cuts to hardworking Americans.

When you look at the total package of tax cuts, these are some choices we can make to better invest in our workers and better invest in our country. We hope that we can make those choices so that we can deal with the challenges we face from outsourcing, from offshore, so that American workers can have that level playing field, can have that opportunity to grow our economy and to benefit from that growth.

I thank you very much for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is absolutely critical that we fund our troops and the rebuilding effort in Iraq, and I think some very good arguments have been made in support of that, particularly by the gentlemen who took the trip to Iraq to see, on the ground, firsthand, what is going on over there. We have an incredible investment over there that we must see through to the end. We must follow through on the policy and try to leave Iraq in as good a state as possible when we eventually withdraw. But the problem I have is I think we ought to pay for it. We should not simply add this $87 billion to the already growing Federal debt. And it is fairly easy to do. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has a suggestion in his amendment to take it out of the existing tax cut but, personally, I would be open to other options that reduce spending elsewhere and cover those costs.

The problem I have with this supplemental is that it simply adds to our debt. And I know it is an incredibly important expenditure. We have had many incredibly important expenditures in the last several years, and we will have many more in the future, but at some point, those expenditures have got to add up to equal the revenue. If not, we are burdening not just future generations, I have heard that, but anyone here who plans on being alive more than 10 years in the future will also have to bear that burden of an incredibly high Federal debt, a debt that is over $6 trillion in total and a deficit that is going to push towards $500 billion next year.

Let us do the right thing in Iraq, but let us pay for it. Let us pay for it preferably out of the tax cut, which could easily afford to see an $87 billion reduction but, as I said, I would have the offer to the colleagues on the other side, if there is some area of government spending that you want to cut specifically to fund it, then that is fine, but we cannot afford to continue to act like the debt does not matter. I think the most scary aspect of the debate on this subject has been the comments coming out of the administration in the last few months that have said just that, that deficits don't matter, that all of a sudden it doesn't matter if you balance your budget. That is wishful thinking and dead wrong. It matters whether or not we balance our budget. Let us start moving in the right direction and do the right thing in Iraq, but pay for it, for once.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 227: H. Res. 159. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable vote on rollcall No. 228: H. Res. 195. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 229: H.R. 1465. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 230: S. 222. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 231: S. 273. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 232: S. 763. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 233: H. Amdt. to H. J. Res. 4. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 234: Final passage of H. J. Res. 4. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 235: Motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 231. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 236: on agreeing to H. Res. 257. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 237: Motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 177. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 238: Motion to suspend the rules and pass H. Res. 201. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 239: H.R. 1954. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 240: H. Amdt. 154 to H.R. 760. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 241: Motion to Recommit to H.R. 760. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 242: final passage of H.R. 760. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 243: On Ordering the Previous Question for H. Res. 256. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 244: H. Res. 258. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 245: H. Res. 258. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 246: on passage of H.R. 1474. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 247: S. 222. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 248: S. 273. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 249: H.R. 1610. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 250: H. Con Res. 162. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 251: S. 763. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 252: H. Res. 263 to H.R. 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 253: H. Res. 263 to H.R. 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``No.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 254: H. Amdt. 159 to H.R. 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``No.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 255: Passage of H.R 2143. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 256: H. Res. 252: Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 257: On ordering the previous question for H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 258: On agreeing to the rule for H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 259: On passage of H. Con. Res. 110. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 260: On passage of H.R. 1320. Had I been present I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 261: H.R. 2350. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 262: H. Amdt. 5 to H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 263: H. Amdt. 4 to H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 264: On passage of H.R. 2115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 265: H. Res. 269 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 266: H. Res. 269 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 268: H. Amdt.

168 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 269: H. Amdt. 169 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 270: H. Amdt. 170 to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 271: Motion to Recommit to H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 272: Passage of H.R. 1115. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 273: H. Res. 270 to H.R 1308. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 274: Rule for H.R. 1308. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 275: Motion to Instruct Conferees H.R. 1308. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 276: H.R. 2254. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 277: H. Con. Res. 220. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 278: S. 703. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 279: H. Res. 276. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 280: H. Res. 171. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 281: Passage of H.R. 658. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 282: S. 342. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 283: Passage of S. Con. Res. 43. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 284: Previous Question to H. Res. 281. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 285: H. Res. 281 to H.R 8. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 286: Approving the Journal. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 287: H. Amdt. 171 to H.R. 8. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 288: Passage of H.R. 8. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 289: H. Res. 283 to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 290: H. Res. 283 to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 291: H. Amdt. 172 to H.R. 1528. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 292: Motion to Recommit H.R. 1528. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 293: Passage of H.R. 1528. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 294: Kind amendment to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 295: On motion to recommit with instructions to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 296: On final passage to H.R. 660. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 297: H. Res. 264. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 298: H. Res. 177. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 299: H. Con. Res. 209. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 300: Passage of H.R. 2465. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 301: Previous Question to H. Res. 293. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 302: Agreeing to H. Res. 293. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 303: Passage of H.R. 923. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 304: H.R. 1460. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 305: On sustaining the ruling of the chair on H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 306: Sustain ruling of the chair on H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 307: H. Amdt. 176 to H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 308: H. Amdt. 183 to H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 309: H. Amdt. 188 to H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 310: Passage of H.R. 2555. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 311: Passage to H.R. 1416. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 312: S. 858. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 313: H.R. 2474. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 314: H. J. Res. 49. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 315: H. Con. Res. 49. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 316: H. Res. 199. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 317: H. Res. 294. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 318: On the Hastings amendment to H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 319: On the Kucinich amendment to H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 320: On the Lee amendment to H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 321: H. Res. 299 to H.R. 1 and H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 322: H. Res. 299 to H.R. 1 and H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 323: H. Res. 297 to H.R. 1 and H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 324: Ordering the previous question on H. Res. 298. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 325: Passage of H.R. 2559. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 326: Passage of H. Res. 277. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 327: On approval of the Journal. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 328: H.R. 2596. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 330: H. Amdt.

197 to H.R. 1. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 331: Motion to recommit with instructions to H.R. 1. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 332: Final passage of H.R. 1. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no''.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on Rollcall No. 333: On passage of H.R. 2417. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to honor an individual from my district who is a true American hero, Duane A. Osborn. He is an ordinary man with an extraordinary story. Unless you are a friend or a family member you won't recognize his face, or ever have heard of his name. But there are millions of Americans like him--Americans who have sacrificed so much for our country and do not receive nearly enough recognition in return for their service. On this, the 50th Anniversary of the Signing of the Armistice of the Korean War, I'd like to introduce you to one of many forgotten warriors in a forgotten war.

Duane A. Osborn was born in Wapato, WA on May 30, 1934. In June of 1952, shortly after his 18th birthday, he enlisted in the United States Air Force with the 8th Division. Before he was sent to the Korean War he married Donna Elder.

From 1950 to 1953, the United States joined with United Nations forces in Korea to take a stand against what was deemed a threat to democratic nations worldwide. During the Korean War era, 6.8 million Americans served on active-duty and 1.8 million soldiers served in the Korean theater during the three-year period of hostilities. During the war, 36,940 service members made the ultimate sacrifice and lost their lives.

At war's end, millions of American veterans returned to a peacetime world of families, homes, and jobs--and to a country reluctant to view the Korean War as something to memorialize. But to the men and women who served, the Korean War could never be a forgotten war.

In October of 1955, following his service, Duane returned home to Washington state and settled in an unincorporated area that would become the city of SeaTac in my district. He worked building county roads until an accident in September of 1973 rendered him a paraplegic.

Duane's hardship duty in Korea had prepared him to meet this difficult physical challenge and in 17 years of participating in the National Veterans Wheelchair Games, he has won 100 gold, silver, and bronze medals--proving again and again his courage, commitment and dedication, as well as his passion for living.

Duane continues to contribute to his community and country as a board member of the Northwest Chapter of Paralyzed Veterans of America where he volunteers his time to make my district and Washington state more accessible for people with disabilities. He works tirelessly to ensure that all Americans are given the opportunities to live their lives to the fullest.

It is the regular men and women like Duane who honorably answered their country's call to duty and went to Korea over fifty years ago today that we must also remember. Countless Americans never won medals, never were labeled ``heroes,'' yet they tirelessly fought for the causes they believed in--freedom and country.

Now home as proud veterans, these individuals know that freedom is not free, they know the costs and they continue to fight anonymously for liberties at home as they serve their communities, once again volunteering to make life better for all of us.

I thank Duane A. Osborn and the millions of other Korean War veterans for their contributions to my community and my country, both during that War and now at home, and I ask that we remember his service and the service of so many other ordinary, inspiring individuals today.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to offer my thoughts on H. Con. Res. 220, a resolution commending Medgar Wiley Evers and his widow, Myrlie Evers-Williams, for their lives and accomplishments.

I strongly support this resolution to commend Medgar Evers and his widow, Myrlie Evers-Williams, who were true heroes in their fight for justice, peace, and civil rights.

Medgar and Myrlie set up the first NAACP office in Mississippi, and fought tirelessly to desegregate local businesses and schools. They advocated boycotts of businesses that discriminated against blacks, fought for the enforcement of Brown vs. Board of Education, and helped James Meredith gain admittance to the University of Mississippi. Their efforts made not only Mississippi a better place, made America a better place.

On June 12, 1963, Medgar Evers made the ultimate sacrifice for his beliefs--he was shot in the back and killed. Myrlie later wrote about their struggles and their life together in a book entitled ``For us, the Living'', which I read as a young man. Her story of how humble and decent people fought hard to make a real difference in the lives of millions inspired me.

I regret that I cannot be here in person to vote on this important resolution, but as we recognize the 40th anniversary of Medgar Evers' assassination and commend him and his widow, the reason why I'm not able to vote is a particularly special one. One June 11, my wife Sara and I welcomed a son into the world, whom we proudly named Jack Evers Smith.

Mr. Chairman, I think the most telling thing about this debate thus far is that those who oppose this amendment have said virtually nothing about the amendment itself. We absolutely completely agree that that system on the gentleman from California's chart should stay in place. We should have checks on end use. We should have some standard for what to ship to countries that we do not want to ship

it to. This amendment does not eliminate that. It merely recognizes the fact that the existing standard does not work and actually places our country in precisely the danger the opponents have described.

The MTOPS system is hopelessly out of date and keeping up with it is virtually impossible. Just to give you one example, by trying to figure out what a supercomputer is, you have this concept that you can simply look at a computer and say, it's a supercomputer or it isn't. It is not that easy. MTOPS is the way it is currently measured, but that does not take into account that a computer that would be under the supercomputer level can be elevated to the supercomputer level simply by adding another processor which is about the size of my hand, or smaller, to the computer.

The point here is that the MTOPS system does not work. The Dreier amendment would change that and has nothing to do with the letter that people signed back in 1993. We should absolutely keep standards in place for what technology we export, particularly to countries that we are concerned about. The standard we have now does not work, and it does not protect us. It not only hurts business, as has been mentioned, which, by the way, is also important to national security if we are to maintain our leadership in technology in this country where it does us the most good on national security; but this also does not even work to protect national security because the standard is hopelessly out of date. We are giving the President of the United States, who I think the gentleman from California (Mr. Hunter) has some confidence in on national security issues, the power to change that system to one that would work better. That is what we are doing.

At some point, the opponents of this amendment might talk about it. I doubt it. They will talk about other issues. On the substance of the Dreier amendment, it is a change that is going to protect our national security, which is something we should all be in support of.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to come and address the Chamber this evening. I want to talk about deficits, the debt and fiscal responsibility.

There was a time in this country when those issues were very, very important. It dominated public debate in this country in the 1980s and well into the 1990s as we saw our deficit on a yearly basis explode and the overall debt go up to levels that started to concern people. There was a constant battle to try to figure out how to get that debt under control and get our budget balanced on a yearly basis.

In recent years, that debate has drifted away. Part of that makes sense. After 9/11, with the slowdown in the economy, with the war in Iraq, there is no question that it makes a certain amount of sense to run short-term deficits in at this point. In emergency situations, that is what you do.

My concern and the concern of the New Democrats, which I represent and work with, is that far from simply saying, well, for the time being we are not going to pay as much attention to deficits, it has gotten to the point in Congress and with the White House where it seems like they do not care about them at all, they do not care what the numbers are and they do not think they are important, and that is a very, very dangerous policy and one that we must correct.

So this evening I want to talk about, first of all, putting it back into context and letting folks know where the deficit is at, where the debt is at. In recent years we have not focused on it that much, and I think people have totally forgoten what those numbers are. It is important to be aware of what those numbers are.

The second issue is to remind folks that the deficit and the debt matter. We have heard some truly bizarre talk here in recent months, coming primarily from conservatives, conservatives who just a few short years ago were arguing that we ought to have a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, we ought to require that it be balanced, never have it be an option to run a yearly deficit. Those same people are now saying deficits probably do not really matter that much.

I think they were probably wrong in both, requiring a constitutional amendment and now in saying that the deficits do not matter. Deficits do matter. Now, there are times when you should probably go ahead and run one because of an emergency situation, so a constitutional amendment to balance the budget would unduly restrict our Federal Government. But to go from that to saying that they just do not matter at all is ridiculous. So what I want to start out with is showing where the numbers are at and just how bad things have gotten.

First of all, as we head toward fiscal year 2003 coming to a close in October, the projections are now that that deficit, when you add in the supplemental for the war that is going to pass this week in Congress, that deficit will approach $400 billion, just for the one year. That is a higher dollar figure deficit than our Nation has ever seen, by a comfortable margin. I think the highest deficit we had, even during the really bad times of the early 1990s, was $290 billion.

When you look long term at the 10 year picture, that is where it gets even bleaker. That is what we are talking about this week with the budget resolution that the House and Senate are trying to reach agreement on.

The budget resolution, in theory, is a 10 year blueprint for where we want our budget to go. That blueprint right now has us going in debt, in debt to a level never before imagined.

So I have a chart here that shows this and where we are going. This is from the Goldman Sachs study that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) mentioned earlier. It starts off by showing what the official CBO projection is. The official CBO projection is that over the course of the next 10 years, we will have an $890 billion surplus.

So basically they are assuming, despite the existing $400 billion deficit that we are going to run this year, in the out years, as we get further down, we will have sufficient surpluses to make that up and get us up to this very happy figure of an $891 billion surplus. The problem is that there are a lot of

assumptions in that number that simply will not come to pass, and those assumptions are laid out in the Goldman Sachs analysis.

First of all, economic growth has been far slower than CBO expected. If that economic growth hits modest levels over the course of the next 10 years, instead of the overly optimistic projections from CBO, that knocks over $1 trillion off of this $891 billion figure.

In addition, will $891 billion does not take into account the emergency supplemental, which, of course, we are going to pass, probably sometime in the next 48 hours, and that will be somewhere in the neighborhood of $80 billion, which, again, comes out of that figure.

Now, it is also worth noting that this $80 billion figure may not turn out to be the total cost of the war in Iraq. As the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel) and others were talking about earlier, there are big plans to spend even more money on the rebuilding of Iraq, which may well need to be done, but that will drive this figure up even further.

Finally, we have a little thing called the alternative minimum tax, or at least finally on this top set. The alternative minimum tax is something that is going to have to be fixed. It was set up a while ago, and it is incredibly complicated, but the bottom line is in the next few years, if we do not change the alternative minimum tax, middle- class taxpayers are going to have to start paying it. It is going to get down to the point where your average middle-class taxpayer will not be able to take the deductions that they are used to taking and they will be hit with this tax. Well, to fix that, it would cost $500 billion over that 10 year period. So for these three things, the adjustments bring us down below the $891 billion figure and put us into deficit.

Then we have a series of other issues. If you assume the president's tax cut, that is another $509 billion, plus making the 2001 tax cut permanent, which is part of the President's proposal as well, is another $624.

Then in defense, CBO does not assume a significant increase in defense spending. The President's budget does. Given where we are at right now in the world, it seems that the President is right, we are going to increase spending on defense. If we increase that modestly, that is another $536 billion more than CBO projected.

Non-defense discretionary, one of the assumptions in the President's budget that helps make it look more fiscally responsible than it is is the assumption that somehow we are just going to dramatically cut all non-defense discretionary spending.

Well, historically that has not happened. This is what happened during the time of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings proposals. These proposals would come out in the early eighties and say over the course of the next 6 or 7 years we are going to make these cuts, and then, inevitably, they would never happen and the numbers would be higher than expected.

So even assuming a modest growth, 2 percent, which is less than what inflation would probably be over that period, or at least inflation plus population growth, even assuming a 2 percent modest growth, you lose another $350 billion.

Lastly, we have the oft-talked about issue of a prescription drug benefit. I do not think there is a significant politician, House, Senate, Democrat, Republican, White House, who has not said we should not do a prescription drug benefit. Well, if we do, it is going to cost something. The figure Goldman Sachs picked on was $600 billion. That may be $400 billion or $500 billion, it may be more than this.

But whatever it is, if we do a prescription drug benefit, that is another thing that CBO did not count on.

Lastly, once we add up all of these additional expenses, they drive up the debt, and when we drive up the debt, we drive up the debt service. It is just like when you owe more money on a credit card, your minimum payment gets higher and your interest payments get higher. Those interest payments are projected to be $878 billion. So when we add all of this up, what we come up with is instead of a $891 billion surplus over those 10 years, you wind up with a $4.2 trillion deficit over the course of those 10 years. I now know what this $777 billion figure is. This is counting the 891. So basically, if we add all of these up, that reduces this down to a negative 777, and then we add it all the way up and get 4.2.

As the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) pointed out when he spoke earlier, even this figure is a little optimistic, because this counts Social Security surpluses against it. If we take those Social Security surpluses out, put them aside, as we should do, because that money is going to be needed to pay for Social Security as the baby boom generation starts to retire, this figure gets over $6 trillion. Right now, in the entire history of the country, we have ran up a debt of around $6 trillion. If we go forward along the path that the President and the majority in Congress is proposing, we will equal that in the next 10 years. Another $6 trillion in debt will be lumped upon us.

So it is important to keep these figures in mind, even if it is not at the top of the agenda right now, as folks are distracted, understandably so, by the war in Iraq and other issues. These figures need to be put into our minds and we need to remember, this is where we are headed, towards another $6 trillion in debt over the course of the next 10 years, with very modest assumptions. This does not even have any emergencies. It seems like every year we have an emergency within the farm community and we have to fund that. Who knows where the next natural disaster might hit or where the next military conflict might come up that would change all of these numbers dramatically.

The bottom line is, the numbers show us heading into long-term, structural deficits and huge debt.

Which brings us to the next argument and that is the one that the conservatives have been throwing out there recently that oh, come on, deficits do not really matter. It is not really that big of a deal. The economy can move forward and everything is fine. One of their favorite arguments is that deficits do not, in fact, drive up interest rates. Because consistently, one of the arguments against running deficits and in favor of fiscal responsibility is that it is good for the economy. The basic argument is, if the government has a balanced budget, interest rates will stay low because the government will not be out there gobbling up all of that excess cash and driving up interest rates.

Well, conservatives look at a couple of historical figures. They have gone back to the 1970s when, in fact, interest rates were very high and deficits were not, and then they have gone to the late 1980s and early 1990s when deficits were high and interest rates really were not and they said, see, one thing does not really have to do with the other.

First of all, deficits and how they effect interest rates happens over a long period of time. It is not immediate. And it simply defies economic wisdom to say that the amount of money that the Federal Government is gobbling up has no impact whatsoever on what that money is going to cost. That is what interest rates are: the cost of money. So it just does not make any sense that it will not drive up interest rates. But beyond that, even if it did not drive up interest rates, if we run deficits year after year, the bottom line is, sooner or later, we run out of money. Sooner or later, the only thing the Federal Government is going to be able to do is pay this number down here, pay interest on the debt. Sort of like you get so far in debt, all you can do is make the minimum payment on your credit card, and as that number goes up, spending for everything else, for every other priority in this country must go down.

If we run these types of numbers, 10, 15 years from now, the generations that follow us, the Congresses that follow us will have no money whatsoever to meet the needs of their day, and there will be needs. As we look around the country now, we can see many, many crushing needs. In education, the IDEA, the Individuals With Disabilities in Education Act, has been underfunded by tens of billions of dollars for years. Transportation. We have huge infrastructure needs in this country. Back to education. School construction. It is estimated that we have somewhere in the neighborhood of a $300 billion need for school construction. We will not meet that. Health

care. Access to health care is in crisis. In my State, reimbursement rates for Medicare and Medicaid are so low that providers are frequently not accepting Medicare and Medicaid patients and they have got nowhere to go.

The bottom line is there are needs that require funding. There are needs now, and there will be needs in the future. And if we continue to run up deficits like this, blow the debt through the ceiling, blow the debt payments through the ceiling, we will have no money to address those needs, our infrastructure will collapse, and the economic impact will be devastating.

Bottom line: fiscal responsibility matters. If we drive home no other point in this hour this evening talking about fiscal responsibility and deficits, I hope it is that. Let us not get carried away with other issues and forget that fundamental point: balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility matter, and they are good for this country, and we should fight as hard as possible to see that those policies are enacted, that we get the budget balanced, that we put ourselves on a long term path towards fiscal responsibility. That will help this country grow economically and will help us be in a position to meet our needs for the future. The budget resolution that is coming out this week in the House and the Senate will not come close to being fiscally responsible. We need to make sure that we get that under control.

I am pleased this evening to be joined by a couple of my colleagues who wish to discuss this issue. We have my fellow cochair of the New Democratic Coalition, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), and I yield to him.

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

I just want to follow up on how this is the exact wrong time to run up deficits because of the baby boom generation and their coming retirement.

I think there might be a tendency to say, we have heard this doom and gloom before. In the late eighties, early nineties, we had huge deficits, big debt, and people said we could never get out from under it. Lo and behold, by the late 1990s we were actually running surpluses.

We were fortunate. We had a booming economy. A high-tech economy took off, productivity went up, and we were able to do that. There may be a tendency to think, see, the problem can be fixed.

We are in a much different situation now, as the gentleman said. We are going to reach the point in the early part of probably about 2014, 2015, when those Social Security surpluses that we have all grown used to, having huge surpluses in Social Security in order to offset debts in the other part of the budget, they are going to be gone. We are not going to have that money to rely on.

What is more, the other part of the budget is going to now have to start covering the deficits in Social Security and in Medicare. So with the baby boom generation retiring, we are not going to be so fortunate this time.

Absolutely.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), a proud member of the baby boom generation that is soon to bankrupt us, although I will not hold him entirely responsible.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.

I just want to close by saying, it does not have to be this way. There is absolutely no reason our Nation cannot put us on a fiscally responsible path in the next 10 years.

Now, I will be honest. I do not believe we can balance the budget this year. We have too many pulls upon us between the economy and the war and various other concerns, but over the 10-year period of time we could quite easily put together a budget that is balanced.

I think the reasons we have not gotten there is because politics over the course of the last 20 years, certainly over the course of the last five or ten, in an accelerating fashion has become more and more about promises. And at the end of the day that is why I feel that the Republicans, and in some cases some Democrats, have tried to argue the deficit does not matter because the deficit is inconvenient. When you are out on the stump trying to get elected, people wants tax cuts and they want spending programs. Fiscal responsibility in the short term does not put any money in anybody's pocket and it is a hard thing to be in favor of.

You want to promise things. You want to promise a prescription drug benefit. You want to promise a big tax

cut. You want to promise more money for the military or more money for education or more money for veterans. And those promises add up to far more than we could ever possibly deliver. And as those promises add up, we dig ourselves a deeper and deeper hole so that when we actually get back to Congress or in the White House and we have to make the decisions that are necessary to move our country forward, we have that huge stack of promises coming up behind us that we do not think that we can get out from under.

Mr. Speaker, I guess I will close on a bipartisan note. While it is certainly true to say that the Republicans right now are behaving in a very fiscally irresponsible manner, they have turned on a dime from a rich history of fiscal responsibility for political reasons, it is fair to say that Democrats have not always been fiscally responsible either. In many cases they have supported more programs than our government can support. It is a bipartisan problem but it can also be fixed in a bipartisan manner. There are Republicans and there are many Democrats who believe in balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility. As a group, we need to rise up and make sure that our voices are heard and our policies get enacted. We can not afford to have deficits for as far as the eye can see. We certainly cannot afford to have $4 trillion in deficits racked up over the course of the next 10 years.

If we do, future generations will be dealing with a mess of a size this country has not seen. Fiscal responsibility matters. Let us always remember that and pledge to work on it.

Mr. Speaker, before I am done I want to recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).

The gentleman's remarks reminded me of a line from the President's State of the Union speech this year. Very early on in his speech he said that the paramount goal of his was that we shall not pass our problems and our challenges on to future Congresses. Now, I think what the President was alluding to at that point was Saddam Hussein and Iraq; and I happen to agree with him on that for one. I think it was bold and courageous to step up and address that problem and not pass it on to future Congresses.

But I could not help but be struck by the irony of a line saying, We shall not pass our problems on to future Congresses. If you think about it basically what he was saying was but we shall pass on the bill. That is not responsible. When you run up deficits like this, that the very definition of passing your problems on to future Congresses. It is irresponsible, unworkable, and not in the best interest of the future of this country. I am absolutely convinced we can do better, that we can put together a fiscally responsible budget that best prepares us for the future and allows future economic growth.

I want to thank my colleagues again who came out to speak with me tonight on this issue. This is not the last time we will be talking about it. Fiscal responsibility is a never-ending job.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I missed the following rollcall votes:

Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass. Sponsor: Representative Ron Kind; Motion agreed to: 411-13. To promote Department of the Interior efforts to provide a scientific basis for the management of sediment and nutrient loss in the Upper Mississippi River Basin, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 85, a motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 961, the Upper Mississippi River Basin Protection Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes''.

Motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass. Sponsor: Representative Chris Cannon; Motion agreed to: 423-0. To revise the boundary of the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area in the States of Utah and Arizona.

Mr. Speaker, due to family reasons, I was unable to vote on rollcall No. 84, a motion to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 788, the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area Boundary Revision Act. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes''.

Mr. Chairman, on House rollcall vote 78, on the Hill Substitute to H. Con. Res. 95, I mistakenly cast my vote as a ``no''. I intended to vote ``aye'' and support the Hill substitute.

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the gentlewoman from Oregon for organizing this hour to talk about a very important subject, the budget. Of the many things that are disturbing about the budget that the President has proposed and the Republicans have proposed here in the House of Representatives, I think perhaps the most disturbing, is the chatter that is coming out of the Republican side of the aisle that deficits do not matter. It used to be that a balanced budget amendment seemed to be required, and now we have sort of decided because it is inconvenient to have to balance the budget that deficits no longer matter.

They have come up with all kinds of fascinating arguments as to why that is. I think the biggest one they focus on is to say that deficits do not really affect interest rates, because that is typically one of the arguments against running deficits is that if the government is gobbling up all the money out there, it is going to drive up interest rates and hurt the overall economy. They point to various points in our history and say that, well, in the 1970s we did not have much in the way of deficits, and we had very high interest rates. In the 1980s we had high deficits and lower interest rates. That is debatable. It seems to me just as an economic matter, if you run deficits over a long period of time, eventually that is going to have a negative effect on interest rates. But even ignoring that point, it is simply true that you cannot run a deficit forever.

The biggest reason that deficits are, in fact, a problem is that they suck up all the money for the future and get us to the point as a country where all we can do is pay the monthly payment, just like someone with a credit card debt that is out of control, where they are simply trying to pay the monthly payment, and the interest keeps racking up. The amount of money that we will spend on interest will accelerate. The amount of deficits we run up on a year-by-year basis will accelerate under the President's budget. Ten, twenty, thirty years from now, we are going to have no money for any priorities, be they Republican, Democrat or whoever.

So if we can at least eliminate one notion, during the debate tomorrow I would hope that someone on the Republican side of the aisle would stand up and say that deficits matter. They are something we should be concerned about, and just because they are inconvenient, we should not turn logic on its head and suddenly say we do not care about them anymore.

The other thing that is truly disturbing about this budget is never in the history of this country have we cut taxes while at the same time going to war. The unrealism of that puts us in huge fiscal jeopardy and puts us in a position where we will not be able to meet our obligations in that war. Keep in mind, we are really about to enter our second war. Al Qaeda declared war on us years before September 11. That war was crystal clear after September 11. So dealing with that challenge was number one. Now we are about to launch a second war in Iraq and we, the Republicans, are telling the American people that we can still cut taxes by hundreds of billions, trillions of dollars.

That is hopelessly unrealistic. We have already seen the impact of it, the lack of funding for homeland security, and we are very concerned about it, the lack of funding for the war in Iraq for that matter. It has not been put on the table as part of this budget, and we know there is going to be a cost. That is very, very unrealistic.

The last thing that is troubling about this budget is it in no way stimulates the short-term economy. The tax cut that is being proposed, only 10 percent of that tax cut will come into being in the first year, right now, when the economy is in trouble. If it were truly stimulative, that is where the money would be. Ninety percent of this tax cut is at least 1 year away, which means it is going to have no impact whatsoever on our economic problems today. Presumably in 2, 3, 4 years, the business cycle will return, and we will have a strong economy, and what is the purpose of the tax cuts then? Certainly it is not stimulative.

That is the overarching problem with this budget. This budget reflects a philosophy that says fundamentally we need to cut the Federal Government dramatically. The tax cut that was passed 18 months ago, or almost 2 years ago now, was bad enough. It set us on a path when fully implemented to dramatically see that reduction. Now to pile on another trillion dollars will put us in a position where we will not be able to fund many priorities.

Again, the Republican majority is being very disingenuous about this. They come before you and they talk about the no child left behind bill, their commitment to education. They talk about a prescription drug benefit. They talk about the need to deal with health care. If you are going to cut taxes by trillions of dollars, you are not going to be able to address those issues. The no child left behind bill is already on pace to be underfunded by $12 billion from what the President said he would do as a starting point. What this shows us is we cannot meet those priorities. The rhetoric talking about them is simply empty.

So one final thing I would ask of the majority in the debate tomorrow is to make that clear to the American people, that this is the choice. Do you want simply to have the largest tax cuts possible, primarily for what they like to refer to as the investor class, which primarily means not most of the people in America? Do you want to have that, or do you want to fund these priorities? Because when the Republicans get up here and talk about a prescription drug benefit and talk about education, understand they have no plan whatsoever to fund it. To the extent it is in there, it is only in there rhetorically. We simply cannot have the tax cuts that they are talking about and fund the priorities that they are talking about.

Let us have an honest choice. Let us honestly assess what our choices are, be fiscally responsible, fund our priorities as they lay out there and not pretend that we can have it all; not pretend that in essence we can spend the same dollar three or four times.

Again, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Oregon for bringing this debate out. Tomorrow I think we will have the opportunity to talk about it further. I would urge us to reject the Republican budget plan.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with my colleagues a letter to the editor that was printed in The Manchester Enterprise, of Manchester, Michigan, written by one of my constituents, Larry Byrne, a Vietnam veteran.

``To the editor:

`Manchester Area People for Peace,' . . . if not for using

the Manchester name in your group's cause, I'd never taken

the time to write this article.

I know as a Marine Corps Sergeant serving two hours of duty

in Vietnam, my views may be slightly different from those

that are active in the `people for peace' camp. I do hope you

realize this doesn't mean the rest of us that enjoy living in

our peaceful community would rather live elsewhere, just

because we don't share your views on this serious matter.

Peace is a state of mind that the majority of Americans

have the right and privilege to share. We should never take

it for granted nor believe that it didn't come at a very high

cost. Hundreds of thousands of men and women gave their lives

so that we could live in peace.

Our country has made its mistakes throughout its history

when it comes to war. Maybe we should have helped remove a

crazed paperhanger much earlier than we did, but as Pearl

Harbor was bombed they talked peace.

Maybe we should have not been drawn into the Vietnam

`crisis.' I was sent to Vietnam after some 35,000 Americans

gave their lives doing what their country requested of them.

I was only 19 at the time and I'll never forget discussing

with other Marines the hurt and anger we'd feel when we would

read the Stars & Stripes newspaper. Articles and pictures

showing our fellow Americans protesting back home only seemed

to demoralize us and strengthen our enemy. This brings us to

current events. Does anyone really believe Iraq's hostile

government or any terrorist organizations would not let us

live in peace if not for the threat of war? Therefore, it

seems this great nation of ours with all its flaws has been

give the role of `peacekeeper.' To those of you don't like

this position for our country, I ask . . . to whom do we give

it? Germany would have gladly taken the role of 60 years ago,

but now they just want to direct the leaders.

Japan, like Germany, somewhat graciously relinquished the

role and decided to build better cars.

Canada--just joking, eh?

From France, a newspaper ad: `French military rifle for

sale. Never fired, dropped once.'

United Nations? Please, the UN has proven totally

ineffective with the Iraq situation.

On the other hand, what if nobody did anything? I don't

know if isolationism could work in our small world today, but

if we were all willing to give up a lot, who knows?

A new song came out called, ``Have you Forgotten.'' I

suggest as you're walking on the bridge with your peace signs

you listen to it. Who knows, you may learn something. By the

way, don't try this in Tieneman Square.

Personally and perhaps most of us that served in our

country's military, especially in Vietnam, would appreciate

you not using our town's name of Manchester to promote your

ideas. Again, I respect your rights and privileges to do so,

but don't draft me by name association to be a participatant

in your point of view.

Da Nang, 1969 or Manchester 2003--strong believes don't

change . . . you're hurting us and helping them.''

Mr. Speaker, I commend Mr. Byrne for writing this letter.

Mr. Speaker, on Sunday, December 29th, Pierce County,

Washington State and our nation lost a true hero, Helmut ``Brownie'' Braunsteiner, due to complications surrounding his battle with cancer.

It is difficult to describe Brownie's life without resorting to superlatives, but the evidence speaks for itself. From his birth in 1926 to his escape from Nazi-controlled Austria to America in 1939, Brownie never failed to display his particular brand of zest for life that so characterized his 75 years with us.

In 1944 Brownie began his decorated 27-year career in the United States Army, serving in World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War. Because of his fluency in German, he later served as an interpreter at the Nuremberg war crime trials.

For thirty years, Brownie was a full-time volunteer for veterans organizations, coordinating Veterans of Foreign War volunteers for the VA Hospital and chairing the Pierce County Veterans Advisory Council. In 1987, he helped found Fife's Veterans Independent Enterprises of Washington to rehabilitate homeless drug- or alcohol-dependent vets and help them become self-sufficient.

After he developed diabetes, Brownie dedicated countless hours to the Diabetes Association of Pierce County, conducting diabetes screenings without charge to residents of Pierce County. Brownie was known for both helping people detect their diabetes and begin to manage the condition. He would frequently go so far as to check in with people after their initial diagnosis to make sure they'd seen a doctor about their condition even three weeks after the test.

But these jobs and titles don't begin to describe either who Brownie was or the depth of his commitment to life. A man with a big heart, Brownie fought for issues he believed in. After serving our nation with a decorated career in the Army, Brownie worked tirelessly for the rights of veterans. Brownie was a passionate, dedicated citizen. He was patient and kind in teaching me not just about veterans and military issues, but also a wide range of other concerns close to his heart.

I was fortunate enough to work with Brownie on veterans issues ranging from concurrent receipt to VA health care to continuing education and reform of the Montgomery GI bill. It was always an honor to stand in the same room as him and I will always cherish the opportunity I had to call him both a colleague and a friend.

Brownie's outstanding contributions, selfless volunteerism, patriotism, and endless devotion cannot be sufficiently acknowledged. Everyone in the veterans' community, every elected official, everyone in Pierce County knew him and admired him. His tireless work earned him not only the respect, but also the love of everyone he touched.

Brownie Braunsteiner's passing is a loss to all who knew him and we extend our deepest sympathy to his family in their great loss. I will miss his friendship and his counsel.