Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose the pull-out of the U.S. of the WTO. This is a global economy that we live in. We have got to be at the table to work with the companies and work with the countries that are taking our jobs, and I believe the pull-out is the wrong thing to do.

Should it be strengthened? Yes, it should and the administration should reject all principles that would make our trade laws weaker. If we talk about intellectual property rights, we need to enforce those that are in there. And the Bush administration and our U.S. administration, regardless of who sits in that White House, must make sure that those property rights are enforced internationally, and that is what the WTO should be about.

In 1995 when the WTO was established, I thought then and I do hope now that dispute resolution procedures would be those where we could come to the table to resolve some of those disputes. The dispute process has become too cumbersome, too lengthy; and many times we find our companies, U.S. companies, not taking advantage and being very much put out of business.

The steel industries in my district, too much dumping from some other countries into America. We ought to rectify that so that U.S. companies can take U.S. companies and that we be able to employ our citizens.

Too many dislocated workers, the only way to address this is to stay in the WTO to work with the other countries. And our administration must see that our rules, our trade laws, our employees' rights are saved. We want to upgrade and lift up other countries, but we must save America.

America is in crisis. Our workers, too many have lost their jobs and many more to come. I represent General Motors, and this week they announced the closing of more plants, dislocating more workers and at the same time put $2 billion in China last year.

So I say stay in the WTO; make it better. This is a world economy, and the U.S. is the most powerful. I would hope that as we move forward in this discussion, and I know the vote will be overwhelming that we stay, that we build it and that we make sure that the countries that are taking our jobs have a responsibility to the workers of this country.

However Members intend to vote on the resolution before us, the issue of trade remedies under the rules established by the World Trade Organization (WTO) is of paramount concern to the industries of my district in the years ahead. How we address this issue will be an important factor in determining whether we can retain support for open markets and the international trading system as we know it.

Countries like China, Japan, and India that have most consistently dumped in this market

and violated international rules are pushed hard to have those disciplines eviscerated. That would be a disaster for U.S. manufacturers, agricultural producers and workers.

Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy laws have already been critically weakened as a result of groundless WTO dispute resolution decisions. If we see yet another new trade agreement that limits the use of these laws, I am afraid they will become completely ineffective.

Our trading partners, in the name of free trade, have been effective in putting forward a number of specific proposals that are designed to weaken U.S. trade laws. Congress is on record as opposing these efforts and I welcome this opportunity to advocate that our top priority should be to preserve core trade disciplines. However, our trade negotiators have not offered meaningful proposals to challenge those who would weaken our trade remedy laws. This is a recipe for failure.

If the Administration comes back with an agreement that waters down our trade remedy laws even further, I am confident we will see a strong backlash in Congress--and a major effect on support for any new trade agreements.

Support for the WTO cannot be taken for granted in Congress or in this country if we cannot maintain the assurance that unfair trade can and will be remedied. I urge the Administration to focus on this issue and to reject any WTO deal that would weaken U.S. trade remedy laws. Otherwise, we may well see the next WTO vote have a very different outcome than is likely today.

Mr. Speaker, I am a strong supporter of stem cell research. It saves lives, it prolongs life, and it helps unhealthy people remain existent on this earth.

I am a diabetic myself, and for the last decade I have been working with stem cell research in my own district. The Karmanos Cancer Institute, world renowned in our community and in Michigan, and part of the former Detroit Medical Center, is a leader in research.

This bill deals with cord research, umbilical cord research, not controversial. Medical professionals and others support umbilical cord research.

Umbilical cord research is the cord that is separated after a woman delivers her child. In many instances, 90 percent of the time, those cords are displaced and thrown away. What this bill will help us do is first of all gather those cords across America to save lives, to renew organs, and to continue life as we know it.

So I rise in support of H.R. 2520 as another means for us to prolong life, to give life, from stem cords, umbilical cords of women that are heretofore thrown out.

In our community, we are educating women and asking for their permission that medical research is able to use the cords, the umbilical cords of the fetus. It is new, it is exciting, and it is happening all over the world. Our country is first in medical science; and this act that we are taking today will continue research and development, healthier lives and longer lives.

Support H.R. 2520 and let us bring America up so that we can save lives, prolong lives, and build a real strong America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the ``Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act''.

This bill creates a new federal program to collect and store umbilical cord blood stem cells and reauthorize and expands the current bone marrow registry program.

Umbilical cord blood units, typically discarded at hospitals, can be an unlimited source of stem cells with representation of all races and ethnicities.

According to the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP), African- Americans have only a 30 percent chance of finding a stem cell match within their own families and often require healthy stem cells from an unrelated individual, typically another African American. Of the NMDP's registry of donors, only 8 percent are from African-Americans.

I support the use of embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells and cord blood research to find cures. I urge all of my colleagues to support this bill and H.R. 810 ``Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act'' introduced by Representatives Mike Castle and Diana DeGette that would lift Bush's 2001 ban on the use of federal dollars for research using any mew embryonic stem cell lines.

All avenues of stem cell research need to be explored. The current embryonic stem cell policy must be changed.

We can no longer tie the hands of our scientists and researchers when millions of lives are at stake.

Mr. Speaker, personal business in my district prevents me from being present for legislative business scheduled for today, Tuesday, May 17, 2005. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall No. 174, on ordering the previous question; ``no'' on rollcall No. 175, H. Res. 278, a resolution providing a rule for the consideration of H.R. 2360, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006; ``aye'' on rollcall No. 176, an amendment offered by Rep. Robert Menendez of New Jersey; ``no'' on rollcall No. 177, an amendment offered by Mr. Tancredo of Colorado; ``aye'' on rollcall No. 178, an amendment offered by Mr. Meeks of New York; ``aye'' on rollcall No. 179, an amendment offered by Mr. Obey of Wisconsin; and ``aye'' on rollcall No. 180, final passage of H.R. 2360, The Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2006.

Mr. Speaker, personal business in my district prevents me from being present for legislative business

scheduled for today, Monday, May 16, 2005. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on H.R. 627, designating the ``Linda White-Epps'' Post Office in Hamden, CT (rollcall No. 171); ``yea'' on H. Res. 266, a resolution supporting the goals and ideals of Peace Officers Memorial Day (rollcall No. 172); and ``yea'' on H.R. 2107, the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial and Maintenance Fund Act of 2005 (rollcall No. 173).

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit for winning the 2004 Foster G. McGaw Prize for Excellence in Community Service--one of the health care field's most prestigious awards. Henry Ford was awarded this award May 2, 2005 at the American Hospital Association's Annual conference.

The Foster G. McGaw prize recognizes health care organizations that demonstrate commitment to community service through a variety of programs. These programs must exhibit a continuous dedication to making communities healthier. Each year, the $100,000 award is given to an organization committed to providing its community with innovative programs and services that promote the health and well being of the community. The American Hospital Association, the Baxter International Foundation and the Cardinal Health Foundation sponsored the award.

Henry Ford Health System's outstanding community programs are improving the health and quality of life of the people they serve, primarily Southeast Michigan's minority and disadvantaged residents.

Henry Ford Health System was recognized for its involvement in: The School-Based Health Initiative, which takes primary and preventive care to Detroit classrooms where it may be the only health care a child receives. The Henry Ford sites handle nearly 20,000 student visits each year.

AIM-HI--African American Initiative for Male Health Improvement, a program within the Institute on Multicultural Health at Henry Ford, that provides mobile health screenings and onsite health education for diabetes, hypertension, and strokes. SandCastles, a division of the Hospices of Henry Ford Health System, which offers grief support for children and families who have lost a loved one. In 2004, this program served 378 children and 274 adults from 228 families. City Year Detroit, a program that is supported financially and housed by Henry Ford Health System. In this program, outstanding young adults make a 10-month, full-time volunteer service commitment to help youth in Detroit's lowest-income neighborhoods.

Automobile pioneer Henry Ford founded the hospital in 1915 to improve the health of metro Detroit residents. Since that time, the health system has been devoted to patient safety, clinical excellence and superior service. The health system partners with dozens of local agencies and organizations to serve more than one million residents in southeast Michigan.

Again, Mr. Speaker I want to commend the Henry Ford Health System and its President and Chief Executive Officer, Nancy Schlichting for a job well done. What an honor for the Henry Ford Health System and the city of Detroit. Their commitment to quality health care and the community is to be applauded.

Mr. Speaker, when H.R. 1268 was first considered on the floor in March, I reluctantly supported its passage. Now that the conference report has been returned to the House for this chamber's approval, I still find myself torn because I do not see how additional funding for the Iraq War effort will ultimately produce a positive outcome for the United States or for the people in Iraq. I want a successful exit strategy--not a permanent occupation in Iraq.

Despite my misgivings for the direction of our Iraq policy, or lack thereof, I do not believe our troops, who are fighting so bravely, should be penalized for the mistakes in judgment of our civilian military leadership at the White House and the Pentagon. As we speak, our ground forces scrounge for scrap metal to make the unarmored vehicles more safe against insurgent attack. The funds provided in this bill will enable our soldiers and Marines on the ground to uparmor their vehicles. There should be more outrage from the American public that they were deployed without adequate equipment from the beginning. But they are there. It is vital that our troops receive the equipment they need to defend themselves against attack.

I have been critical of our war planning from the outset. I voted against the authority that allowed the President to take action in Iraq. I continue to be frustrated that our war plan still contains no game plan on when we can begin to bring our troops home. I am pleased that the bill does contain provisions that require the administration to develop a set of performance indicators and measures for determining the stability and security in Iraq and report its findings to Congress. This requirement falls well short of the exit strategy we need to determine how long our commitment in Iraq will last.

The bill also funds tsunami relief, which is well overdue. The agreement appropriates $656 million in direct assistance to tsunami disaster relief for countries affected by last December's tragedy. The total includes $5 million to support environmental recovery activities; $10 million to create new economic opportunities for women; and $12.5 million to support initiatives that focus on the immediate and long- term needs of children.

The bill provides $400 million for humanitarian assistance in the Darfur region of Sudan and elsewhere in Africa, including funds for the temporary resettlement of refugees. It also funds $240 million for international humanitarian food assistance through the Food for Peace Program, much of which will go to the Darfur region. This assistance will provide some relief to those who are being victimized by the ethnic cleansing that is being waged against the black Muslim population by the Arab Muslim-dominated Sudanese government.

In a period when the President and this Congress proposes reductions in programs that support the development of local communities and neighborhoods, the bill provides

$592 million for a gold-plated embassy compound in Iraq. I find it very difficult to defend such spending when the budget priorities of this administration propose disinvesting in our cities, towns and our American workforce. Money for this project goes beyond providing office and working space for U.S. foreign service personnel. What we are proposing to build is not an embassy, but a compound, with stores and other amenities which will further distance our American embassy personnel from the Iraqi civilian and political population. We are constructing a fortress, not an embassy. I want a successful exit strategy--not a permanent occupation in Iraq.

Another key element of this agreement with which I take issue is the mandate imposed on states that requires certain identification standards on driver's licenses for federal identification purposes. The measure mandates that states meet certain requirements for determining the validity of persons applying for drivers' licenses. Although the bill provides authority for states to receive federal grants to comply, it is insufficient and amounts to an unfunded federal mandate.

The money contained in this bill will go a long way to saving lives, saving the lives of our land forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and reconstructing the lives of those who experienced the devastation of last year's tsunami. After weighing the alternatives, I reluctantly support the passage of this bill. I am not happy with the choices we are making today. I feel backed into a corner without much wiggle room, but the lives of our troops matter to me and they deserve the protection this bill is designed to deliver to them.

I rise in opposition to the resolution. It is punitive to low-income families. The conference agreement proposes cuts totaling $10 billion in Medicaid. It also calls for significant cuts in domestic programs.

In addition to cuts in Medicaid services, the resolution also calls for cuts in education, including student loans, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and large tax cuts. At a time when we need to add jobs to the economy, the budget agreement cuts back on funding for adult and vocational education. Finally, the budget resolution conference report requires drastic increases in the premiums paid by employers to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC). These premium increases will drive many employers to exit the defined benefit pension system, thereby undermining the retirement security for millions of workers and retirees and ultimately weakening the PBGC.

The tax cuts called for in the resolution total $100 billion over five years, but will balloon to $1.4 trillion when stretched out over a 10-year period through 2015. Despite all the domestic program cuts, the tax cuts will make the budget deficit picture worse, not better.

The $2.56 trillion budget agreement cuts domestic spending below Fiscal Year 2005 levels. It does this without making any progress on reducing record level budget deficits. Supporters of the budget resolution, spin this document as a vehicle for bringing the budget deficit into check, but do not be persuaded by that argument. The Republican leadership have made the same argument in the last three budget cycles and look at their performance: more record budget deficits.

It took this country 204 years to run up a public debt of $1 trillion. Under this administration, under this Republican Congress, we are adding $l trillion to the public debt every 18 months. Over the last four years, we have added $2.2 trillion to the national debt.

What concerns me most about this budget is that it signals the call of retreat. It is a blue print for disinvesting in the programs that make our economy and our people competitive in the global marketplace. We cannot build a stronger economy and create good paying jobs if we cut programs for worker education and job training--critical programs that invest in our human capital resources--the future American workforce.

This budget does not represent the values of my district, nor does it represent the priorities of the American people. Is there any wonder that poll after poll has registered declining public confidence in the direction of our economy and the nation's spending priorities. The real test of this budget resolution will come when we attempt to pass the 10 appropriations bills later this year. I predict a tough time ahead because it will be difficult to obtain the consensus needed to pass the spending bills that will keep the government running.

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote against this conference report.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment. The National Traffic Safety Administration is the body who sets those standards. There are standards. They scientifically set those standards. And sometimes they raise

them. It is important that we keep that responsibility with NTSA who does a fine job with that, to set maximum feasible levels for the standards cars and trucks must use.

I want to read from a good friend here who says, ``Such a proposal would dramatically affect the functionality and performance of vans, pickup trucks and sports utility vehicles that consumers in America want.''

And that is by the United States Chamber of Commerce. One in 10 jobs are related to the auto industry. Fuel economy standards are set scientifically, and this body should not get into that.

We have standards. The American people choose the cars and trucks they want to drive. I believe that the standards are set fine. And as we go on, the millions of dollars that the industry has put into new development, new cars that are energy efficient we will see as time goes on. Americans are working and we are winning. Leave the standards to NHTSA.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

We rise to make this a better amendment. If we want EPA to do the testing, to make sure that things are right and labeling is correct, then we want to make sure that there is one test to do that. What we do not want to do is put additional funds, additional costs, additional measures on the auto industry that is already very fragile.

So we rise in opposition to the Johnson amendment and ask that our amendment be considered because the testing is there. We do not need to have two tests, as is required by the Johnson amendment. It doubles the cost for product, and it allows the competition to be more advanced in our competition war than we are now considering.

The auto industry in America is fragile. We all know that they have invested millions of dollars in their products to make them better, make them fuel efficient, do alternative energy sources.

We believe that our amendment is a perfecting one; and, yes, it requires that the EPA do the proper tests, not two times but the one time that is required and that the labeling be accurate.

We hope that our colleagues will support this Rogers-Kilpatrick amendment. It is a much better amendment, and again works with EPA to make sure that the labeling is correct with the one test.

Consumers deserve to know that the sticker in their window actually reflects the mileage they will get on the road.

The EPA should revisit their fuel economy standards and the Rogers/ Kilpatrick amendment would require the EPA to change the adjustment factors that it currently uses to make the fuel economy label accurate.

Nancy Johnson's amendment requires the EPA to change the ``testing procedures'' that auto companies use to determine the fuel economy numbers that go on the dealer label.

Her amendment would require two test auto companies to do one test for labeling and a separate test for CAFE.

Johnson's language doubles the cost to the companies.

The Rogers/Kilpatrick amendment deals with the need for improved dealer label accuracy while only requiring one test.

Instead of requiring EPA to change the ``testing procedures'' the Rogers/Kilpatrick amendment requires the EPA to change the ``adjustment factors'' that EPA currently uses to make the fuel economy label accurate.

This simple change prevents the auto companies from having to run two separate tests.

Rather the auto companies can run one test that could be used and adjusted with appropriate factors to provide a more accurate fuel economy number.

The Rogers/Kilpatrick perfecting amendment to the Johnson amendment achieves precisely the same goal that the Johnson amendment strives to achieve: accurate fuel economy labels on new cars.

The only difference is that the Rogers/Kilpatrick amendment achieves this goal by having EPA revise the current test, instead of compelling EPA to conduct two separate tests.

The Rogers/Kilpatrick perfecting amendment makes clear that the objective is to change the fuel economy label values--NOT the test procedures. This will ensure that this measure will improve consumer information regarding mileage without imposing an increase in the stringency of CAFE or creating a second fuel economy test for consumer labeling.

The Johnson amendment COULD threaten to increase the stringency of

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 256, this bankruptcy bill, because it does nothing to protect the victims of identity theft.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to S. 256, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Action. The title of this bill is a misnomer. It should be titled the ``Corporate Protection and Improved Profitability Act''. If passed, this Act will be a boon for credit card and financial lending institutions and a nightmare for American families who are struggling to stay strong in an economically depressed society. Essentially, the House is contemplating legislation that is more punitive to individuals seeking bankruptcy protection than corporations that resort to filing for bankruptcy.

I also have concerns about House procedures for S. 256. A closed rule was employed, resulting in thirty-five Democratic amendments being rejected from consideration. Debate on an amendment to the bill was prevented. Thirty-five amendments were submitted before the Rules Committee and not one was accepted. Not only were members of the House prevented from engaging in debate but also the American people have been denied the opportunity to hear legitimate debate regarding this Act we are considering today. I am especially distressed about the majority's refusal to accept amendments that related to identify theft and exemptions for disabled veterans whose indebtedness occurs after active duty.

My review of S. 256 compels me to conclude that the framers of the bill failed or refused to recognize that recent economic policies by the current administration have directly contributed to the proliferation of bankruptcy filings by consumers. Burgeoning deficits, perpetual and high unemployment, and the exportation of jobs overseas are just a few of the by-products of failed and poorly conceived government policies that have contributed and continue to contribute to the need for individuals to seek bankruptcy protection.

I also oppose S. 256 because it does absolutely nothing to stem the predatory practices employed by credit card companies, or the abusive fees and penalties imposed on individuals who make just one late payment. Further, the wealthiest citizens in our country are able to insulate their assets by placing them in trusts that are protected in bankruptcy proceedings.

I staunchly oppose S. 256. Democrats were denied the opportunity to offer amendments, the American people have been denied a full opportunity to determine the full implications of the changes in bankruptcy law, and the Act is fundamentally anticonsumer.

Mr. Speaker, my conscience dictates that I oppose S. 256. I encourage my House colleague to vote No on the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act.

Mrs. DAVIS California. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my opposition to the bankruptcy reform legislation before us today.

Unfortunately, there are individuals who abuse the credit system and use it for their own gain.

This is wrong and we should be working to stop those who take advantage of the bankruptcy laws.

However, I worry S. 256 will hurt the thousands of Americans who have absolutely no choice but to file bankruptcy as a last resort.

Specifically, I am concerned about the impact on our brave service members and our military families.

The numerous activations and extended tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan are causing our military families to face debt and serious financial strain.

Studies show that the incomes of military, families decrease significantly when the service member is deployed.

Four out of 10 Reservists, for example, take a drop in pay once they are deployed overseas.

I have met with military families in San Diego who are facing the realities and the financial strain that come with activation.

I worry about the military spouse whose husband is activated to serve in Iraq for a year and must leave his job or his business.

Somehow, we expect the spouse to care her children, to make the house payment, and to pay the bills on an income that is significantly lower.

Some military families will have no choice but to file for bankruptcy because of the environment we have created for them.

The bankruptcy reform bill before us today does not address the needs of our military families and the realities they are facing.

S. 256 will make it harder for military families to recover from a bankruptcy because of the additional costs and the stricter requirements.

The Senate did include provisions exempting military personnel serving in combat from certain provisions of the bill.

But, unfortunately, the financial impact of an extended deployment could remain long after the service member returns home to his family.

S. 256 does not recognize this reality and does not consider the difficult circumstances facing military families today.

I am against passing legislation only adding to the enormous burden we are already placing on those defending the United States and the families sending a loved one into harm's way.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act.

Mr. Speaker, had I been present this evening, I would have voted ``no'' on S. 686.

Mr. Speaker, I regret that Congress is being called in to this special session while official business requires me to be elsewhere at this time. However, I wish to insert these remarks for the Record in order to make public my views and position on the legislation before this body tonight, S. 686, that will provide for the Relief of the Parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo.

We are playing a dangerous game here as we try to act as Solomons when the nine Solomons of the U.S. Supreme Court have refused to review the case involving Ms. Schiavo. The arguments we have heard tonight both ``pro'' and ``con'' give testimony to the difficulty of the decision before us this evening, but it is a decision we should not be making. Issues of life and death should be determined personally, medically, legally, spiritually, morally--but not politically. Congress, the political body that it is, should not be involved in this sad debate tonight, and I strongly believe we will ultimately regret the precedent we are setting by our intrusion into this affair.

My heart goes out to the Schindlers this evening, and I share with them their concern

and love for their daughter. Nonetheless, I do not think we have all the information we need to act wisely in this matter.

Mr. Chairman, I thank both our chairman as well as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) for their leadership on this most important effort.

I rise to support the CBC budget, the only budget in this Congress at this time that invests in America's families.

There are three things wrong with America and why we are not doing well. The permanent tax cuts cost $1.2 trillion. On the war in Iraq we have spent $300 billion, and the deficit is blooming.

Our CBC budget reduces the deficit. Our CBC budget invests in defense, homeland security, and the veterans at the same numbers that were given to this House by the President.

We must support the CBC budget. Americans have to be outraged that we are not investing in their families and their children and their health care. I hope that we will do right. The CBC budget must be adopted.

Support the Congressional Black Caucus Fiscal Year 2006 Budget

Substitute

The Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) fiscal year 2006

budget substitute focuses on the CBC's Agenda (Closing

Disparities in America's Communities) and restoring fiscal

responsibility to the federal budget process. The disparities

that continue to exist in our society in education, health

care, economic opportunity, justice, retirement security and

foreign policy are addressed in the CBC budget. In addition,

our budget focuses on strengthening our efforts at the

Department of Homeland Security, meeting some of the critical

needs of our troops and improving services to our veterans.

And, while making these important investments in our

country's future, our budget places a high priority on

reducing the record federal budget deficit.

The CBC budget uses the Republican budget as the base

budget and makes the following adjustments:

domestic

It includes a reduction in the tax cuts from 2001 and 2003

for an individual's adjusted gross income that exceeds

$200,000; furthermore, it does not adopt the new Republican

tax cuts.

Most of the revenue raised in the CBC budget is used to

address disparities in America's communities; a substantial

portion is reserved to reduce the deficit.

military

Ballistic Missile Defense spending is reduced by $7.8

billion, leaving $1 billion for research and development.

All of these funds are spent on other defense items to

support our troops, homeland security needs, and veterans

programs and benefits.

The total for defense, homeland security and veterans is

equal to the Republican budget.

bottom line

The CBC budget addresses critical domestic challenges, and

supports our troops.

The CBC budget reduces the deficit by $167 billion compared

to the House majority's budget over the next five years; this

fiscal responsibility is rewarded by a reduction of $27

billion in interest payments compared to the House majority's

budget.

The CBC budget focuses on closing disparities that exist in

our society and investing in America's future. We hope you

will join us in supporting these efforts by supporting the

CBC budget substitute.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant support for the $81.1 billion emergency supplemental funding bill we are considering today. The only reason I am voting for the bill before us today is because it provides much needed equipment for our forces in theater, increases death gratuity to $100,000 for families of soldiers who have died or were killed on active duty. My support for this measure is tepid at best.

What troubles me the most about this bill are two key concerns: One, there are no mechanisms for tracking if the money is properly spent. There is simply no mechanism for improving accountability of how taxpayers' dollars are spent. The Defense Department wants to take the money and provide little detail to Congress on how these dollars are being used or abused. The American people have a right to know how these dollars are spent. And, two, by increasing investments in our war and defense efforts, we further constrain budgetary resources for investments in education, highways, community development, first responders, health care, public health and more. What is at stake here is the very welfare of our states and communities, who find themselves financially strapped because of the economic policies of this administration. Our domestic economy cannot continue to pursue this trend.

Despite my many misgivings over this spending bill, I will vote for its passage. We in Congress must call on the Defense Department to provide better accountability for the spending decisions it makes.

Mr. Chairman, I thank our ranking member for yielding me this time.

This is a bad budget. The very safety net that we hoped to help American families is being shredded. The Republican budget is wrong; and the prescription is wrong for Medicaid, over 52 million children, women, elderly, seniors, disabled individuals, 52 million in America. The largest health care program and the only health care program for many.

The Committee on Energy and Commerce has been instructed to cut $20 billion from the Medicaid health care program for so many vulnerable citizens. Medicaid pays for 70 percent of nursing home care in Michigan. Sixty-four percent of the costs are spent on the elderly and disabled. Do we really want to hurt the least of these who have built this country?

This Republican budget cuts Medicaid even more than what the President sent to Congress. We can do better.

I just left a meeting with my Governor in our Michigan delegation, both Democrats and Republicans. Unfortunately, the Republicans wanted to blame our Governor for Medicaid, and they said cut Medicaid back. When one is unemployed, when they have no health care, when jobs are being lost, unfortunately they need Medicaid. And it is unfortunate that this budget does not restore Medicaid, help the most vulnerable, and not ask for $20 billion cut for the elderly, for seniors, for the disabled.

The budget is bad. It kills Medicaid. We can do better.