Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Holt amendment to create the Center for Scientific and Technical Assessment.

In this day and age it is imperative that Members of Congress understand technology and the rapidly changing world of innovative advances. But what we really need is fair and balanced information to make those decisions.

This new initiative is a bipartisan office that will quickly respond to Congress and our inquiries into new technology. This office will provide Congress with the basic on how the technology works, how new technology integrates with current policy, how the new technology will affect business.

This office is vitally important because if Congress makes the wrong decision or advances the wrong technology we could set our country back a few years. We could hurt business and let our international competitors take over a technology sector. We could slow innovation and hurt what is still one of our greatest economic engines which is the research and development of new technology.

I ask my colleagues to support the Center for Scientific and Technical Assessment so that we are all educated when we make decisions on technology and technology policy.

I ask my colleagues to support the Holt amendment.

Mr. Speaker, it is truly my honor to stand and recognize the men and women of the Maryland Emergency Medical Services System and the R. Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center at the University of Maryland Medical Center in Baltimore. After a near-fatal car crash in 1975, I was airlifted to the Shock Trauma Center where a team of dedicated physicians and nurses saved my life. It was a turning point for me and I am grateful.

The Maryland EMS system was the first of its kind in the Nation and the Shock Trauma Center stands as the ``core element'' of that system. In the late 1950's, long before we watched heroic doctors save lives on television's ER, Dr. Cowley of Maryland envisioned a medical facility dedicated to the mission of saving lives during that first critical ``golden hour.'' What began as a 2-bed unit has grown to become a 102- bed dedicated trauma hospital that treats approximately 7,000 severely injured patients each year.

Dr. Cowley's vision has since become the national model for a fully integrated statewide EMS and trauma system. The Maryland Shock Trauma Center's survival rate is 98 percent. This survival rate is the product of Maryland Shock Trauma's faculty and staff, as well as, its pioneering techniques. Its state-of-the-art facilities and equipment attracts some of the best medical talent in the Nation. Through fellowships and other programs, the center will only continue to set the standard. However, Shock Trauma's success also rests on the efforts of the pre-hospital providers, both career and volunteer, the Maryland State Police Medevac system, the regional trauma centers throughout Maryland and the foresight and leadership of the Maryland Institute for Emergency Medical Services Systems (MIEMSS).

Proud, though I am of these accomplishments, don't just take my word on this. Recently the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) conducted an assessment of Maryland's EMS and Trauma system. The Maryland EMS system was compared to predetermined ``gold standards'' and is recognized as positioned ``to offer national leadership in promoting the continued development and improvement of other state systems''. The report goes on to say that the system's acheivements ``have much to offer in terms of promoting improved emergency care throughout the United States''. This is a well-deserved and hard-won honor to so many dedicated and devoted emergency care professionals in the State of Maryland. Dr. Cowley's vision has become a reality that has exceeded everyone's expectations thanks to the unceasing efforts of pre-hospital providers, doctors and nurses and administrators, along with the unfailing support of Maryland's elected officials and its citizens.

I am grateful for the Maryland EMS and Trauma system, and particularly the Maryland Shock Trauma Center--for my family and the families of so many thousands of other survivors. I am honored to stand here today and recognize this amazing trauma system.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule on the fiscal year 2005 Intelligence Authorization Act. In response to some of the comments made by our colleagues on the other side, let me just make this statement: this issue is not about politics; it is about national security.

Now, it is important in our work here in the House that we put America first. Equally important is a focus on ensuring that the men and women protecting us in the intelligence agencies and in the military have all the support and resources that they need.

I am surprised that a number of Democratic amendments were ruled out of order, notably the Peterson amendment which would fully fund the counterterrorism budget needs of the intelligence agencies.

As the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) has pointed out, the current bill authorizes less than a third of the additional funds the intelligence agencies need to fight the war on terrorism. This one- third comes from the contingency emergency reserve fund that the President asked for on May 12, which is designed to bridge the gap between the budget request and a supplemental funding request that will not happen until after the election.

In his May 12 letter to the Speaker, President Bush said, ``I have pledged to our troops that we will have all the resources they need to accomplish this vital mission.'' Yet, the intelligence agencies have told us in hearing after hearing that the current process of funding counterterrorism operations by supplemental has hampered their ability to plan and operate. And despite the President's lofty words, we know that the intelligence troops do not have all of the resources they need to accomplish the counterterrorism mission.

As a former county executive, I can relate to the agency's need to plan right to achieve success, and so I am concerned that these budgeting practices have to stop, for the good of the country and national security.

I was disappointed that the Republican majority on the Committee on Rules did not allow this amendment to come to the floor for debate. This issue needs to be debated. The public needs to know, we need to know, we need to debate this issue of national security.

If, as administration officials keep warning us, there is a terrorist attack this summer, we will all wonder if we could have done more to protect America. The answer to that question today is yes. For one thing, we could be debating the Peterson amendment today and finding a way to get the intelligence agencies the counterterrorism funding that they need.

I urge the rejection of this rule. It is so important that all of our intelligence agencies have the resources they need to deal with the issue of national security.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Surface Transportation Extension Act before us today. I realize another extension is needed to keep the process moving forward. But I think we need to stop voting on extensions and solve the greater issue of passing a 6-year transportation reauthorization bill with enough funding behind it to put people back to work all across America.

The transportation infrastructure is critical to America for several reasons. First, our entire interstate highway system was created by President Eisenhower as a national security safety measure and that remains a priority today. Second, Americans rely on roads, bridges and tunnels to live their lives each and every day. We use them to get to and from work, to travel on vacation, and to visit friends and family. Third, and most important today, building and maintaining our transportation infrastructure means creating jobs all across America-- over 2 million jobs that cannot be outsourced. Jobs to the cities, counties, towns and states throughout this nation that are vitally needed.

The construction industry is a key pillar to any economic recovery providing the much needed stimulus for thousands of related industry jobs. Unlike other important issues, transportation requires long-term planning and investments to keep the nation moving efficiently and safely. Short term extensions interrupt that planning. Two-year funding commitments threaten to destroy plans. This nation needs Congress to act now, to pass the bi-partisan compromise of a $318 billion funding level for a six-year bill. Anything less will only short change the nation and keep Americans out of work.

Pushing for a conference report that provides the bill America needs should not be about partisan politics. As a former county executive, I understand what transportation funding means to people outside of the beltway. A six year $318 billion transportation reauthorization bill is supported by local leaders nationwide. It has been endorsed by the National Association of Counties, National League of Cities, United Conference of Mayors, American Public Works Association, Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations, National Association of County Engineers, National Association of Development Organizations, and the National Association of Regional Councils.

Finally, it is important to remember that a large price tag on transportation reauthorization does not mean adding to the deficit. This bill is funded through the Highway Trust Fund and any measures not fully offset in the Senate version can be addressed in conference. If Members--both Democrat and Republican, both House and Senate--are serious about jump starting the economy for working Americans and putting Americans back to work we must enact the six year $318 billion reauthorization now.

I urge leadership on both sides of the aisle in both chambers to set the politics aside and do what is right for America. Let's bring this conference report to the floor immediately. Let's pass it and send it to the President.

Mr. Chairman, first I think I do have to respond to some of the comments made from the colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I do respect each and every member of this committee, and this committee should be bipartisan, and our goal is U.S.A. first. I think some of the comments that were made have to be addressed.

First, there is a lot of respect for our chairman, the gentleman from Florida. This is not about a personal attack on the gentleman from Florida. I respect the gentleman from Florida. I respect what he has done as it relates to the intelligence community throughout his career. He has done a great job. However, I was elected to come to the Halls and the floor of Congress to debate issues. It seems to me that the majority thinks that if we disagree on an issue that we are being unpatriotic. That is just not so. We disagree on one major issue and that is the major issue of the funding of counterterrorism. That is what the issue is here today.

My comments are basically about NSA. I happen to represent Maryland's Second Congressional District. NSA is located in my district. I want to acknowledge General Hayden and all the members of NSA both in Iraq and Afghanistan and throughout the world that do a superb job. Unfortunately, the American people should know more about what they do, but we cannot really talk about that.

The bill also makes some reductions in several NSA programs that I believe are too deep. All of the affected programs are essential to NSA's overall technology modernization program, which is key to the future success of the agency. I hope that these reductions will be addressed in conference with the Senate.

Congress last year transferred the authority to review and approve NSA's acquisitions programs to the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition in the Defense Department. NSA and the Under Secretary are faithfully implementing this direction, and NSA is, in my judgment, making good progress in restoring confidence in its acquisition management capabilities.

I want to express again my appreciation to the gentleman from Florida. He is an honorable man. He has done a great job. We have a disagreement on an issue. Again, I ask the majority to understand, because we disagree does not mean we are being political. It means that we think this is in the best interests of the United States of America and its national security.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Harman) for the time.

First, we appreciate the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Rogers) service, and I agree with a lot of the comments he made about coming together and supporting our men and women who really toil in the intelligence community. They toil tirelessly in the shadows for sake of our Nation's security.

Today, we have heard complaints about our side being involved in partisan politics when, in fact, we are just trying to debate an issue that we disagree on; but I believe that certain parts of this amendment deal with a lot of politics, and I think it is important when we deal with the issue of politics that we then follow the facts because we need to be bipartisan as it relates to intelligence.

The problem with this amendment, basically, is that the facts are as follows: first, the cuts in the Intelligence budget began after the first Bush administration. The first President Bush ordered a 17.5 across-the-board cut in intelligence staffing from 1991 to 1997.

Now, let us talk about the reasons for some of these cuts. It was the end of the Cold War. The entire intelligence community was going through a transition that we are still going through today. So let us follow the facts.

House Republicans supported a 6 percent cut in President Clinton's Intelligence budget by voice vote in 1992. The Republicans have controlled the Congress in the last 10 years, which includes the purse strings. In 1996, Dr. Paul Wolfowitz, Under Secretary of Defense; the gentleman from Florida (Mr.

Goss), chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence; and Senator Warner were cosigners of the Brown-Rudman report calling for further staffing reductions in intelligence, 3 years after the World Trade Center bombing in 1993.

Senate Republicans cut $400 million from President Clinton's Intelligence budget in 1998, and these cuts were later restored.

In 1999, President Clinton's CIA Director, George Tenet, secured the largest single increase in intelligence funding in 15 years.

House Republicans increased President Clinton's fiscal year 2000 budget by just 1 percent.

From 1990 to 2003, overwhelming bipartisan majorities have supported every intelligence budget by a roll call or voice vote.

I think we all recognize what this amendment really is. Let us get back to national security, and let us get away from the politics.

Mr. Chairman, one of the issues we have been debating today is the issue of oversight with respect to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. I am a member of that committee, but I am also a member of the Subcommittee on National Security of the Committee on Government Reform of which the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) is our chairman. I support this amendment. I find that the gentleman from Connecticut is taking his responsibility for oversight very seriously. Not only has he ruled and really been in charge of this committee and trying to seek and follow the facts but he has gone to Iraq. He has done his investigation. It is important that we follow the facts and that we move forward because this oil-for-food program is a rip-off. People were taken advantage of. Our citizens were taken advantage of, as were the Iraqi citizens. We must follow this investigation.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, there is also an issue of Mr. Chalabi, who made allegations that he had evidence concerning this issue. We had under oath certain representatives representing Mr. Chalabi that were going to come forward with evidence. That did not occur. It is important that we move forward in a bipartisan way and follow the facts.

Mr. Speaker, while I am voting against the Energy Policy Act of 2004, I believe its provisions regarding alternative vehicles and fuels introduce valuable incentives that would help protect our air quality, limit fuel consumption, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

These provisions would make the cleanest vehicles available today more affordable by providing a credit for the purchaser of new qualified fuel cell, hybrid, or other alternative fuel motor vehicle, as well as a new credit for qualified biodiesel fuel mixtures. With significant fuel economy and low tailpipe emissions, alternative-fuel and advanced-technology vehicles help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and cut fuel consumption.

What our country needs is a national energy policy that will promote conservation, and also improve our economy and reduce our growing dependence on foreign oil. We need a plan that safeguards our natural resources, and relies on energy efficiency and renewable energy. Encouraging Americans to drive environmentally friendly vehicles would benefit our economy and protect our environment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this amendment and I thank my colleagues for their diligent efforts to bring this amendment to the floor.

I have always said that governing is about setting priorities. With more needs than resources, leaders must prioritize when it comes to the business of problem solving. This is particularly true in the area of public safety, which has only become more critical since the events of September 11. The federal government is responsible for protecting all Americans from the East Coast to the West Coast and everything in between. That is a vital and daunting mission, and the reality that security has a price tag means we must make thoughtful priority funding decisions based on risk and threat assessments. This amendment recognizes that reality and ensures that the most likely terrorist targets will be given the priority funding they so desperately need.

Federal money is not drawn from a bottomless well. There is a fixed amount available to go around for many needs including homeland security, military/defense, transportation, education and so on. And there is a fixed amount available within each of those needs. Homeland security money is not unlimited and once again--the needs exceed the resources. When the urban area grants were first created, we prioritized the cities with the highest threats and most critical needs. The first seven grant recipients included New York, the National Capital Region, Los Angeles, Seattle, Chicago, San Francisco, and Houston. Given the recent news reports of failed attack plans in the past, we know these priorities were absolutely correct.

Since those first grants, the program has increased to 80 grants for 50 high threat cities and transit systems. Out of the same fixed amount of money, we have gone from 7 grants to 80 and we believe this is appropriate given the current known threats and risks our nation faces. Our concern, however, is that we can not dilute that fixed amount of urban area threat money by increasing the number of grants further. Perhaps we will decide at a later date we will need to do that, but now is simply not the time.

This amendment will limit the number of grants DHS can make under this program to 80, the same number made by the department last year. This amendment will not dictate who receives the 80 grants or how much money each grant recipient gets. It simply acknowledges that we must prioritize how we disperse these limited federal funds.

As the Congressman for the Maryland 2nd Congressional District, this problem is very close to home for me. My district includes the Port of Baltimore, BWI Airport, NSA, Ft. Meade, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, and approximately 90 percent of the chemical facilities in the State of Maryland. That is quite a lot of critical infrastructure. I believe protecting these national assets is both important for my district and for the country as a whole. In addition to the tragedy of human loss in the event of another attack, we must also consider the crippling impact of environmental, commercial, economic, and infrastructure disasters. We must do all we can to protect our people, our nation, and our way of life.

I support this amendment because I believe it is a responsible and common sense approach to tackling these enormous problems.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to this amendment. Let me be clear. I do not believe any law maker is against the need to make our homeland safe. However, I have always been and will continue to be a strong advocate for improving the security of our homeland especially at our nation's airports, but I do not believe in creating additional unfunded federal mandates.

I represent the Baltimore-Washington International Airport and I am very familiar with these issues. I believe the security of aviation is a critical component in protecting our homeland and air cargo is a significant concern. I fully support the need to protect our airports, the people who fly in and out of them, the people who work in the airline industry and the goods and services that are transported by planes. Aviation security is key to our way of life, our business and leisure travelers, and our nation's commerce. On that point, I think we can all agree.

We can also agree that air cargo security deserves an equal amount of attention and problem solving to make it a safe way of doing business. We need to ensure that air cargo is safe so business can proceed. The air cargo industry and airports have worked hard since September 11, 2001 to recognize potential risks and threats, and to make air cargo more secure. Have we done enough? Probably not. Do we still need to do more? Absolutely. That is not the debate before us today.

The next question becomes what is the best solution. On this, I do not believe this amendment is the right way to improve air cargo. I commend my colleagues for their hard work to correct risks associated with air cargo, but I am concerned about the creation of further unfunded federal mandates on an industry so vital to the American economy. There are still so many questions about the feasibility and cost of available technology. Each airport has different challenges and there is no one-size-fits-all solution to any homeland security issue, including air cargo.

This amendment would effectively double the amount of air cargo to be screened and inspected without providing any sort of financial relief for equipment, technology, infrastructure or personnel to do so. The aviation industry did not create the problems we face in homeland security and I do not believe they should shoulder the entire burden of correcting it through further unfunded mandates. Throughout my entire political career I have stressed the need for partnerships to solve problems and the federal government must partner with industry to address the needs of homeland security. The Constitution tasks the federal government with protecting Americans and we cannot fulfill that responsibility by simply creating new mandates for the aviation industry

to comply with. We need to work together in commitment and resources.

The 2005 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill does recognize and address the challenge of air cargo security risks. It substantially increases research and development funding for new technology that will ultimately make comprehensive cargo screening feasible. It is an important and fiscally responsible step in the right direction to tackle an enormously complex issue. All Americans want the safest environment we can create, but we must do it in a logical way that does not unduly burden the aviation industry or impede national commerce.

I believe this amendment is placing the cart before the horse and we should let the R&D money provided for in this bill do its work. I will continually fight to keep the Maryland 2nd Congressional District and this nation more secure. I believe we need to do more with airport security but I do not believe this solution is the right one.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 417 honoring the Tuskegee Airmen and their amazing contributions during World War II and the impact they had in creating an integrated United States Air Force.

As the first African-American combat unit in the Army Air Corps, the Tuskegee Airmen helped shatter stereotypes by fighting for freedom both abroad and here at home. Through their heroism in the skies above North Africa and Europe, the Airmen demonstrated that African-Americans could be effective members of the military. Completing over 500 missions during the war, the Tuskegee Airmen destroyed over 250 enemy aircraft without losing a single American bomber. Their individual and collective acts of courage helped pave the way for the desegregation of the Army in 1948.

I would also like to take this opportunity to recognize four members of the Tuskegee Airmen with ties to my hometown of Baltimore,

Maryland. Alfred L. Woolridge, Gordon T. Boyd, Leroy A. Battle, and Alfred McKenzie were four individuals with separate lives and histories. Each brought unique skills to their service and each helped to form this historic group of Tuskegee Airmen. I would like to take this opportunity to speak briefly about each of these incredible men and share a bit about them with you.

Mr. Alfred L. Woolridge, a Baltimore resident, joined the Tuskegee Airmen after enlisting in the Army in 1942 and being assigned to the Tuskegee Army Air Field in Alabama. A scientist with a master's degree in chemistry and mathematics, Mr. Woolridge worked as an aircraft engineering officer ensuring that the planes were safe to fly every morning. After leaving the Army in 1946, Mr. Woolridge worked as an analytical chemist in Maryland until 1974. He remained an active member of his Baltimore community until his death in March of 1998.

After being inducted into the Army Air Corps during World War II, Mr. Gordon T. Boyd Jr. became a bombardier and a navigator. He joined the Tuskegee Airmen after being assigned to the Tuskegee Institute in Alabama. Mr. Boyd ascended to the rank of First Lieutenant and is credited with helping newer cadets adjust to military life. After being honorably discharged in 1946, Mr. Boyd worked as a management specialist for the U.S. Census Bureau until his retirement in 1979. Before his death on May 5, 1995, Mr. Boyd became a charter member of the East Coast Chapter D.C. Tuskegee Airmen Inc.

Mr. Leroy A. Battle was a jazz musician who played with Billie Holliday before he was drafted into the Army in 1943. He volunteered to join the Tuskegee Airmen and soon became a bombardier and a navigator. On April 5, 1945, Mr. Battle along with 100 other airmen, defied orders by attempting to desegregate the officer's club at Freeman Field in Seymour, Indiana. The Freeman Field Incident played an important role in African-American attempts to combat racism in the Armed Forces and eventually paved the way for President Truman's order to desegregate the Army in 1948. After being honorably discharged from the Army, Mr. Battle spent 29 years teaching before retiring in 1978. He continues to be an active member of his community by speaking out about his experiences as a Tuskegee Airman.

Mr. Alfred McKenzie joined the Tuskegee Airmen after being drafted into the Army in 1942. After completing advanced training, Mr. McKenzie became a B-25 pilot. He was sent to Freeman Field in Indiana where he later joined Mr. Battle and 100 other airmen in attempting to desegregate the officer's club. After World War II ended, Mr. McKenzie continued to fight for the cause of civil rights. After being passed over for a promotion numerous times at the Government Printing Office, McKenzie filed a class action lawsuit. The suit resulted in an order to end discrimination in promotions and a $2.4 million award in back pay to over 300 people. He continued to work for various civil rights causes until his death on March 30, 1998.

These four men exemplified the bravery of the legendary Tuskegee Airmen. They served their country both on the battlefield and off and were valued members of their Maryland communities. Mr. Speaker I am honored to speak today on behalf of H. Con. Res. 417 honoring all of the Tuskegee Airmen including these four gentlemen. At a time in our history when we mark the unbelievable accomplishments of the Greatest Generation, dedicate the new World War II Memorial, and commemorate the 60th Anniversary of D-Day--I think it is only fitting that we recognize these men and their fellow airmen of Tuskegee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 3722 because this bill places an undue burden on our hospitals to be the judge and law enforcement officer for our country's immigration policies. I agree with the sponsor of this legislation that we need to stop illegal immigration but we need to do that by giving immigration officers more resources to find, detain, and deport illegal immigrants. We need to redouble our efforts on our borders and aggressively prevent illegal immigration, but should not shift the responsibility of enforcing our immigration policy onto our health care professionals.

The problem with this bill is that it targets the reimbursement of hospitals that provide care to injured or sick undocumented aliens. This legislation withholds reimbursements from hospitals that do not collect and share a person's immigration status, their citizenship, address, employment information, personal and financial data, health insurance information, and electronic version of their fingerprints that meet DHS standards. If they do not comply they do not get reimbursed. This means hospital personnel will have to spend time collecting information as opposed to treating the sick. More importantly, this places the burden on doctors to choose between treating a person and looking out for the financial security of the hospital. This is not a choice that a doctor should be forced to make.

Many businesses do their due diligence in determining and screening workers but they do not have all the resources to fully verify immigration status. This legislation forces those businesses to reimburse hospitals for care if the company unknowingly employs a worker without full immigration documentation or offer health insurance to all of their workers. We should not punish businesses that have tried and do not have the resources to verify the immigration status of their workers. We also cannot require businesses to provide health insurance. That is a business decision and should be left to them. Government should not be forcing the hand of business.

This legislation is opposed by the American Hospital Association, the American Medical Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association for Manufacturing because this legislation does not address the real issue.

This legislation penalizes hospitals and businesses and is not a way to stop illegal immigration. This is a law enforcement problem not a medical problem. We need to step up our efforts to reduce illegal immigration by increasing our resources in the law enforcement community.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill because we should not impose a one size fits all solution to the problem. We need to bring the patients, doctors and insurance companies to the table to address this problem as a whole and not just target one factor in the rising cost of malpractice.

Medical malpractice is an issue of concern and we need to look at ways of addressing the real issues. We need to look at patient safety. We need to look at ways of helping doctors that have been negatively impacted and we need to find ways to stop frivolous law suits. With these underlying problems is a one size fits all answer a solution. Will this address doctors and patients needs? Will this ensure that patients receive the care they need and will doctors be able to provide the appropriate care to heal our sick?

I do strongly believe that a factor that has been left out of this debate is the insurance companies. What role do they play and what information do they provide and is it accurate? Are these companies playing on the fear of doctors and patients to increase their premiums? We cannot continue down this path without addressing this issue. We must have an open debate where all the major players are involved and we do not pit doctors versus patients. If this problem persists and we start to lose doctors we must force all these players to the table to rectify the problem.

We are fortunate in the state of Maryland to have caps. These caps have done a good job in keeping the health care standards in the state so high. Anything we work in Congress should allow for the states to address their individual needs. Maryland is best suited to address the needs of the doctors and patients in our state. We do not need a forced federal one-size fits all solution for our state. We need an open dialogue.

Mr. Speaker, the rising cost of health care is running out of control. With these flexible savings accounts it allows employers to pay for health care not covered by their health plans. It is only right that left over funds be rolled over into next years accounts. I support this bill to help people pay for their health care coverage.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition of this amendment today. I agree extending the 10 percent tax bracket is necessary and lawmakers should pass legislation to make it permanent. Substantively, I agree with this.

I disagree, however, with the impact this bill will have on our already dire fiscal reality. We need to have responsible fiscal management in this country--beginning with a sound and comprehensive budget. All bills that follow should incorporate the same fiscal responsibility, whether that bill cuts taxes or authorizes spending.

This bill has a $218 billion price tag, which will have to be borrowed on top of the $280 billion we have already borrowed this year. I am extremely concerned about our levels of borrowing, most of which comes from foreign governments.

The Treasury Department states that major foreign holdings of U.S. Treasury securities equal $1.6 trillion. Mainland China and Hong Kong alone hold $206 billion of U.S. debt. Japan has $607 billion in holdings. With China's purchases of U.S. government securities exploding by more than 105 percent since January 2001, it is clear that foreign investments in the U.S. are financing our budget deficits. That means foreign investors, not U.S. residents, will be the beneficiaries of the interest paid by us, our children and our grandchildren.

The Washington Post recently quoted a former official of the People's Bank of China as saying, ``The U.S. dollar is now at the mercy of Asian governments.'' This is simply wrong and we need to stop it now. If we do not, future generations will be burdened with higher taxes and greater debt. They will have to pay off the structural deficits and interest costs we are accumulating today.

The only way to stop this now is to stop deficit spending. That is why I supported the substitute bill that would have provided tax relief that was paid for and did not add to our historical $7.1 trillion Federal debt.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill because it will negatively impact my home state of Maryland. To paraphrase what was in Governor Ehrlich's letter to Chairman Boehner, this legislation will undue what the state of Maryland has worked so hard on for the past 10 years.

The rising cost of health care is a concern for all Americans. We need to find ways to make sure that we help people reduce their healthcare cost. We need to find a way to provide insurance for the 44 million Americans without any coverage at all.

Association Health Plans has many benefits such as allowing a group of shared interest businesses and individuals to purchase health insurance at a group rate. However, what we should be working toward is a solution where everyone benefits. One of my concerns with Association Health Plans is one I also have with the prescription drug bill that is law. My concern is that AHP's will be able to skim off the healthiest individuals leaving those most in need without coverage. Also, the legislation would allow the AHP's to not comply with state health mandates.

I would be more supportive of tax credits for businesses to purchase health insurance and also allow for states to establish insurance pools like we have in Maryland. Again, we need to make sure the states and businesses have the tools to address this issue. We cannot have a forced federal mandate that will hurt what the state of Maryland has already done.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 598.

Tens of thousands of men and women in uniform are serving our country around the world. I believe we owe it to them to make sure that their children here at home have access to a quality education. Teachers, staff, and administrators at schools serving our military communities are a critical part of achieving this goal. These professionals work hard to educate our youth as well as support families who are dealing with a loved one serving overseas--very often in a dangerous, combat area. That is why I am taking time today to honor these great educators for the work they do every day. The commitment of the staff at these schools is unwavering and I am proud to stand here today in support of these great Americans.

In my district, the Maryland 2nd Congressional District, schools around Fort Meade in Anne Arundel County, especially elementary schools, are feeling the pinch. The military is funding the development of 3200 new housing units on the base in the next few years. This is welcome news for military families but this initiative coupled with the fact that more military personnel are being called to duty is expected to bring 700 new students to the Anne Arundel County School System. These military families typically don't pay taxes in Anne Arundel County because their home of record is in another state. This situation is expected to overburden the school system and disrupt the system's construction and modernization plan due to this influx of new students.

As the former Baltimore County Executive, I understand the financial constraint situations like this put on local governments. I am doing everything I can here on Capitol Hill to make sure that this situation does not unfairly burden Anne Arundel County. I believe we need to fully fund Impact Aid to counties serving military children like Anne Arundel County. Impact Aid is federal assistance that helps offset the costs of educating military children when their families don't pay taxes in the area. Right now Impact Aid is only funded 60%. I believe we should completely fund the program.

The teachers, staff, and administrators at these schools do their part to educate and support these military families in this very difficult time. We in Congress must do our part and give them the resources they deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I support H.R. 4181. It will permanently get rid of the marriage penalty. I voted for this tax cut as a matter of equity and fairness. I do not believe couples should be penalized for getting married. The standard deduction for a single person should simply be doubled when a couple gets married. This measure does this and makes it permanent. Under current law, relief from the marriage penalty ends in 2010.

In our current economic climate, families across our country deserve tax relief from the time they are newlyweds to the time they are parents with children to the time they are enjoying their golden years. This move is a good first step to help all families.

But, I am disappointed that the Republican leadership brought this bill to the floor without a plan or a means to pay for it. This move will add to the deficit. I believe the U.S. House of Representatives has a responsibility to fund this cut. We can no longer cut taxes and increase the deficit. We are borrowing against our children and grandchildren's future.

I supported the Democratic Alternative that would have permanently eliminated the marriage penalty while not adding to the deficit. Here on Capitol Hill, we should provide tax relief but at the same time we must exercise fiscal restraint.

The Republican leadership intends to bring more tax cuts to the floor and I will consider each on a case by case basis. We must find the right tax cuts for the right time. Our children and grandchildren deserve it.