Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a few comments.

The previous speaker, the gentleman from Montana, gave a very compelling argument, and it is one that I listened to. This is not an easy amendment for any of us; but it is important we have this debate, and it is important we visit each other's districts.

I happen to view Yellowstone and the Grand Teton National Park as not owned by Montanans, not owned by folks from Wyoming. They are owned by Americans throughout the United States. These parks are precious and they are owned by all of us.

What would have happened if the United States Government had not bought these parks? What would they be? They might be owned by someone in the private sector, and then no one could use them.

So I do not have any reluctance whatsoever in standing up and saying I own these parks, as much as anyone else here does. They happen to be in a place that I do not live, but I own these parks; and I have a right to say that my constituents own these parks. They own Yellowstone and Grand Tetons National Parks as much as anyone from Montana or Wyoming or wherever else; and they are owned by us to be used as we, a country, want to use them.

Our concern is that these two precious places are not being treated the way they need to be treated, and we are saying we would like there not to be snowmobiles in these two parks.

We are being asked by those who live there to allow snowmobile use because there is an economy that depends on their use, and I understand that. But that is the difference in this debate. The difference in this debate is we are saying this is a place that our constituents can go to, as much as yours, and the only difference is they have to travel farther to get there. And when they get there, my constituents are saying, they would like to go there and not have to see or hear snowmobiles.

The studies are pretty clear. They point out snowmobiles are not healthy to these parks.

I was not here for the first part of the debate, and I know my colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), wants to make some comments.

I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Wyoming.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I rise in support of the Holt-Shays-Rahall-Johnson Amendment to protect Yellowstone and Grand Tetons National Parks.

I believe protecting and preserving our environment is one of the most important duties we have as members of Congress. We simply won't have a world to live in if we continue our neglectful ways.

Our predecessors understood the preservation of our natural resources was a moral and patriotic obligation. It was their vision and foresight that led to the establishment of Yellowstone National Park in 1872.

The creation of our first national park was a far-sighted guarantee each new generation would inherit a healthy and vibrant Yellowstone, a park complete with wildlife, majestic vistas and awe-inspiring geysers.

But snowmobiles have put the park's health in jeopardy. When they roar through the park, they generate tremendous noise and pollution, forcing our park rangers to wear respirators to combat the noxious cloud of blue smoke in which they work.

The harm caused by snowmobile use in Yellowstone has been scientifically proven, studied further, and proven yet again. Over the past decade the Park Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, and independent experts have conducted extensive studies and always reached the same conclusion: a phase-out of snowmobiles is necessary to restore Yellowstone's health.

Last winter marked the start of a transition to snowcoaches. Just as the Park Service and EPA predicted, substituting snowcoach access for snowmobile use began to make Yellowstone a safer wintertime destination for the public, especially visitors susceptible to respiratory problems.

Visitors and park rangers breathed less carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, and benzene than in past winter seasons. Yellowstone was also quieter and less hectic for people and wildlife alike.

By a 4-to-1 margin, Americans overwhelmingly support protecting Yellowstone by replacing snowmobile use with park-friendly, people- friendly snowcoaches.

This amendment does not restrict winter access to the Park. Rather, it requires visitors to travel in a manner that protects Yellowstone's precious resources.

There are thousands of miles of snowmobile routes surrounding Yellowstone National Park including 400 miles near West Yellowstone, Montana alone. In Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana, the total is more than 13,000 miles. All of these opportunities will be unaffected by the Yellowstone amendment which involves only 180 miles of routes within Yellowstone National Park.

Let's not waste another minute or another dollar of taxpayer money further studying this issue. Let's put into law a scientifically sound, environmentally safe and fiscally responsible decision that protects our nation's first treasure.

I urge my colleagues to vote their conscience.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

Mr. Chairman, I envisioned when I was elected to Congress that we would have really vigorous debates about a lot of issues, and this issue is an issue we should have a debate about. We can agree or disagree; but we should talk about it and understand in our own minds how valuable we think the arts are to our society, to the well-being of the culture that exists throughout our society, to the well-being of our children and what it says about us as Americans.

For me, I want to be on the side of President Bush. I want to be on the side of Mrs. Bush, both of whom believe this is an important contribution to our society. Both the President and the First Lady travel all around the country, and they understand, I think, better than many of us who are focused in our own districts how important this is for the well-being of our country.

The question of who should pay for it, is an easy question to answer. The consuming public pays most for it, and then there are individuals who have small resources and contribute, and some who have larger amounts and contribute. We have wealthy people who give a lot to the arts. And then I think businesses are inclined to want to contribute because they know that the fabric of the life in their communities has a lot to do with the well-being of their workers and makes their businesses better places to be because

of the arts that exist there. A community without arts is like a desert without rain.

Foundations help pay for the arts. And, yes, believe it or not, I think taxpayers should. When I think of what we are asking the taxpayers to do, when you add up the NEA and the NEH, and we add up their budget of $256 million, we will vote like that on billions in entitlements, no debate; and yet we debate for a fairly significant amount of time how we spend a million dollars.

I think taxpayers should play a role, a minimal role, but play a role. When I look at it, we are asking each taxpayer to pay, for the entire--the NEA and NEH--budget, 91 cents. This amendment is asking taxpayers to pay 4.5 cents more. The reason we ask taxpayers to do it is because the cost can be spread across all of them, and then it is so affordable for each and every one of us.

No one is going to pretend that the arts survive because of what we do as taxpayers, because we are the smallest part. The consumers pay the most. Individuals, businesses, and foundations contribute far more than the government; but the government, I think, is saying we would like to have a role here as well.

I salute the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), and I am proud to be a co-chair of the Arts Caucus; but the gentlewoman is the one who is calling the shots on this, and I thank her for all of her work.

I may have a particular bias. My mom and dad met in the theater. I grew up almost every night hearing my dad play the piano. I realize how vital the arts are to our well-being as a society.

I feel it is almost more important when we are involved in warfare around the world that the other part of us, the part that deals with beauty and grace, is also being heard. I do not want to just be a person who supports the war on terror, supports the war in Iraq, which I am. I also want a part of me and a part of my constituency to be expressed in the love and appreciation for arts. I strongly ask my colleagues to ask the American people to pay 4.5 cents more each so that we can make the arts better, and I strongly ask them to support President Bush and the First Lady. The First Lady rarely asks this Chamber for anything. She has specifically said, please spend more on the arts. I am glad to oblige her.

I would like to just conclude by saying that I think that this Chairman has done his best with the limited resources he has and this subcommittee, and I appreciate them for understanding why we have this amendment and that the process is working the way it is intended. The Subcommittee has brought out, I think, what they believe to be a very good bill. We would like to make a slight change to it. I hope ultimately the Chamber will agree.

Mr. Speaker, protecting our environment and promoting energy independence are two of the most important jobs I have as a Member of Congress. Unfortunately, the legislation before us today is another missed opportunity to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, lower gasoline prices, promote energy efficiency and conservation, and improve our air, land and water quality.

We had a chance to devise a forward-looking energy policy that would have increased fuel efficiency, prioritized conservation, made polluters, including MTBE producers, pay for harming our environment, and advanced a renewable portfolio standard. Instead what we have is quite a bad bill.

I fail to understand why the major thrust of the bill's tax provisions involve further subsidizing the fossil fuel industry, rather than providing incentives for conservation and renewable sources of energy. These are enormously profitable industries operating in a time of record energy prices. Clearly, these profits demonstrate the market has already provided the fossil fuel industries with sufficient incentive to increase production.

Instead of creating a balanced energy policy that provides incentives to make renewable energy more affordable and widely available, we are making fiscally irresponsible and environmentally-reckless decisions for the benefit of a few profitable industries that don't need this kind of help from taxpayers.

I strongly oppose a provision in the bill that allows for the permanent activation of the Cross Sound Cable. In doing so, the bill subverts the regulatory process and ignores sound environmental policy.

I also oppose provisions in this bill related to the transmission of electricity. For instance, the Energy Policy Act allows the Federal Electric Regulatory Commission (FERC) to preempt state sitting authority when it is determined that a high-voltage power line is of ``national significance.'' The fact is FERC arbitrarily gets to make that determination.

While I find the bulk of this bill environmentally-shortsighted, I am pleased it does not include provisions to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas exploration and drilling. In my judgment, it would be far better to develop prudent and lasting renewable energy sources than to risk irreparable damage to the wilderness of one of North America's most beautiful frontiers.

I look forward to the day when we will have an opportunity to vote for a fiscally-prudent, environmentally-responsible national energy policy. Today is not that day.

Mr. Speaker, I count my blessings for President Ronald Reagan. I count my blessings for this man because he spoke from his heart and he spoke the truth. Obviously he was an exceptional communicator, but he was also extraordinarily honest. You did not have to wonder where Ronald Reagan was coming from. He had core principles: confronting tyranny, expressing strength to the world, believing in our market economy, reducing the size of government.

The bottom line is, he had extraordinary faith in our country, in the promise of America that the best of America is yet to come. And the best generations of Americans are yet to come. He trusted Americans to spend their own money and lead their own lives. In the process he knew our country and the world would benefit.

I am absolutely convinced President Reagan totally changed the debate. He helped our country recognize that people have their own sense of self-worth and that we trust them to do the right thing.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to congratulate the Westport Volunteer Emergency Medical Service (WVEMS) on their Quarter Century Anniversary for their outstanding work.

The men and women who dedicate their time and energy to the WVEMS are shining

examples of civic duty. As volunteers, they are vital to the Westport community.

The WVEMS volunteers come from all walks of life. Some of them run their own businesses, some are students. They have busy lives, yet they make time because they feel the need to give something back. Some are seniors who worked hard all their life and deserve to sit back and simply relax, yet they go out and volunteer their time and energy for a greater cause.

Over the years, the many awards and distinctions from local, State and national organizations--the Veterans of Foreign Wars, designation as a Connecticut Treasure and National Gold Award for Volunteer Corps from EMS Publications just to name a few--illustrate the selfless dedication with which they help countless individuals in need.

For two and a half decades WVEMS has gone above and beyond the call of duty to provide exceptional service, providing over half a million volunteer hours to date. Their efforts have formed a truly remarkable tradition. Fifteen of the founding members of the WVEMS are still with the Service, regularly putting in time to help others. Each one of them has been designated an American Red Cross Unsung Hero. Today, I want to sing their praise: Edward and Elizabeth Audley; Patricia Audley; Sharon Barnett; Russel M. Blair; Susan DeWitt; Michael Feigin; Richard Frazier; Neil Harding; Thomas M. Keenan; Kathleen Todd; Alan Yoder; Isabel Blair; Alan Stolz; Nettie Skinner; and Pasquale Salvo--you are heroes!

Two other members have been with the WVEMS for a quarter century, and I would like to commend them for their dedication over the years: Jay Paretzky and April Anne Yoder.

I would also like to include all the other active members of the WVEMS: William Puterbaugh; Norman Coltin; Sandra McPherson; Jeffrey T. Lea; Andrew Dinitz; Loretta S. Harsche; Marge Costa; Christine A. Evans; Todd M. Smith; Mark A. Blake; Anthony F. Santo; Donald E. Smith III; Thomas F. Burrows; Martha M. McGorry; Elizabeth Slattery; Chris VanDeusen; Diane Salvo; Benjamin Frimmer; Barbara F. Wood; Barbara Babash; Arlene M. Healy; Amy Smith; Linda Canterbury; Albert Bassett; Mary Jane Cross; KC Duffy; Linda Green; Carole Grob; Dorothy Harris; Gordon Joseloff; Chris Sanders; Whitney Cusa; James Flint; Nicole Donovan; Toni Cribari; Mary Minard; Terrence Blake; Michele Brewster; Michael Falbo; Cheryl Jones; Michael Quan; Rico Tiberio; Sylvia Lempit; Susannah Kehl; AnnaLiisa Joseloff; James Hinckley; Nanci Jenkins; David Heinmiller; Rainy Broomfield; Ronald Carkner; Donna Patchen; Robert Redman; Olivia Weeks; Courtenay Quinn; Joseph Devermann; Linda Gale; Jean Marie Wiesen; Nancy Strong; Gregory Coghlan; Paul Resnick; Barbra Utting; Adam Sappern; Nancy Fusaro; Wendy Hill; Megan Watson; Kristin Ancona; Kathryn Min; William Min; Susan Parks; Jamie Talbot; Michael Rickard; Marc Hartog; Michael Engelskirger; Craig Kupson; Elizabeth Jennings; Glenn Eisen; Angela Chichila; Anna Dowdle; Ashley Hawley; Andrea Hoboken; Dustin Schur; Jackie Stenson; Carol Boas; Yannick Passemart; Kerry Volmar; Michael Wilmot; Danielle Faul; David Bodach; Christin Giordano; Zack Klomberg; Jordan Kunkes; Alma Loya; Whitney Riggio; Kimber Roberts; Alicia Wong; Karen Bizzak; Margaret Russell; Richard Arriaga; Carol Dixon; Gabrielle O'Halloran; Daniel Rappaport; Dora Sweet; Lois Benfield; Adele Donohue; Susan Shewchuk; Nancy Toll; Pamela Nenham; Matthew Rees; Richard Celotto; John Sommers; Caroline Andrew; James Gray; Stephanie Howson; Rebecca Kamins; Kaitlyn Mello; Elizabeth Parks; Christian Renne; Rob Stewart; Emma Trucks; Christina Voonasis; Maryanne Boyle; Robert Dowling; Yashasvi Jhangiani; Maribeth Nixon; and Steve Brothers.

Your service is outstanding!

Mr. Speaker, on May 18, I was returning to Washington from the World Economic Forum in Amman, Jordan and, therefore, missed three recorded votes.

I take my voting responsibility very seriously and would like the Congressional Record to reflect that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on recorded vote No. 180, ``yes'' on recorded vote No. 181, and ``no'' on recorded vote No. 182.

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

I want to recognize two Fourth Congressional District members of our military, Wilfredo Perez, Jr., from Norwalk, Connecticut; and Tyanna Avery Felder from Bridgeport, Connecticut; both lost their lives in Iraq fighting for freedom and fighting for justice and fighting for the United States of America on behalf of a better world.

We have lost 773 in Iraq. We have lost 122 men and women in Afghanistan. And I think it is just absolutely essential we recognize all who have lost their lives by wearing this red poppy on Memorial Day and asking all Americans do that. I thank the sponsors of this legislation for advocating that kind of recognition.

I close by saluting one community, in the 4th Congressional District, Greenwich, Connecticut. In Old Greenwich the community rings a bell for every American who has lost his or her life fighting for America, and that goes back before the Revolutionary War.

We are a great Nation, with an extraordinary history. We must never forget those who served in battle and came home draped in an American flag.

Mr. Speaker, as we have developed this fiscal year 2005 budget resolution, I have listened carefully to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. The one common theme for the many budget alternatives offered by the Congressional Black Caucus, the Blue Dogs, and the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on the Budget on behalf of the Democratic Caucus has been higher taxes and more spending.

I have also heard too frequently that my side of the aisle is cutting spending for important programs, like education, veterans, and health care. The fact is when you look at Federal spending for the last few years, you will see few programs that have not received significant increases, in most cases very significant increases. Only in Washington do we call a spending increase a cut.

I think our budget can be summed up in one word: responsible.

We think it is responsible to control spending at a time of mounting budget deficits. By freezing nondefense, nonhomeland security spending for 1 year, we are taking a painful, but necessary, step towards fiscal responsibility. I strongly support many of these programs, but I also know being fiscally responsible requires tough choices, like we made in the late 1990s, including Members saying no to increases to many popular programs.

We think it is responsible to not raise taxes during a period of economic recovery. The tax relief we passed in 2001 and 2003 fueled the economy to 8.2 percent growth in the third quarter of 2003, the highest growth rate in 20 years; 4.1 percent growth in the fourth quarter of last year; and 4.2 percent growth in the first quarter of 2004. Additionally, the unemployment rate declined from 6.3 percent in June 2003 to 5.6 percent in April 2004. While this substantial growth in the economy is welcome news, we know there is still work to do, particularly with employment. We think it is important to continue the policies that have led to the current economic recovery. The fact is there are more jobs today than ever before, but there are more people looking for work.

We also think it is responsible to plan for ongoing military operations around the world. All of us, on both sides of the aisles, want to make sure we provide whatever resources are necessary for the men and women of our Armed Forces who are risking their lives as we speak. I look at the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) as a good example. For this reason, we have provided $50 billion for fiscal year 2005 for the additional cost associated with our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I would just add it is absolutely critical we give this budget the force of law. The Committee on the Budget has marked up legislation that would reinstate discretionary spending caps and pay-as-you-go on mandatory spending. I appreciate the leadership's willingness to consider this legislation soon after we return in June.

Mr. Speaker, from 1997 until 2001, the books of the Federal budget showed that we were running a surplus. For the 40 years prior to that, the country was running deficits. I was grateful that we played a significant role in crafting the budget in the 1990s that not only got us to balance, but got us there ahead of time. We did it by cutting taxes, controlling the growth of spending, and growing the economy.

This budget begins to use that model to address the deficit and get our country's financial house in order.

Mr. Speaker, on May 17, I was participating in the World Economic Forum in Amman, Jordan and, therefore, missed three recorded votes.

I take my voting responsibility very seriously and would like the Congressional Record to reflect that, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes'' on recorded vote No. 177, ``yes'' on recorded vote No. 178, and ``yes'' on recorded vote No. 179.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) and his bill, the Paperwork and Regulatory Improvements Act, and thank his staff as well for the fine work they have done. This legislation is a needed addition and an improvement of existing law. H.R. 2432 would increase the transparency and effectiveness of government and lessen the burden associated with taxation-related paperwork for small businesses.

In 1980, the Congress passed the Paperwork Reduction Act, which established the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. The principal responsibility of this office is to reduce the paperwork burden from Federal regulations on the American public. The burden is considerable.

According to a 2001 study, Americans spend an estimated $843 billion annually to comply with Federal regulations. It is our responsibility as Members of Congress to review the new agency rules and regulations. Most importantly, it is our duty to find ways to reduce red tape. In order to fulfill this responsibility, Congress needs detailed information on the costs and benefits associated with each regulation. The

Paperwork and Regulatory Improvements Act would ensure this information is provided to Congress.

H.R. 2432 would do three things. It would require the Office of Management and Budget to seek agency input for its annual regulatory accounting report to Congress; permanently fund an independent regulatory analysis function within the General Accounting Office; and authorize OMB to designate at least three agencies to conduct a 2-year study on regulatory budgeting.

Based on the results of this study, OMB will report to Congress on the feasibility of regulatory budgeting. We can then determine if it is a useful tool for managing regulatory burdens on the public.

Finally, this legislation addresses the challenges small businesses face with regard to the paperwork burden. Small businesses spend an extremely disproportionate amount of resources, time, and money on compliance with regulations. The largest share, almost 80 percent of the paperwork, is taxation-related paperwork.

H.R. 2432 would require the OMB and the Internal Revenue Service to jointly develop specific solutions to reduce the paperwork burden on small businesses. It is time Congress paid attention to this pressing problem.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to urge all of my colleagues here today to support this sound piece of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my Connecticut colleagues. This is really an extraordinary opportunity for us. I join the entire State of Connecticut in congratulating the University of Connecticut Women and Men Huskies for becoming the first school, ever to have both their college basketball programs win the NCAA National Championships in same year. It is extraordinary. Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely extraordinary.

The Male Huskies overcame early adversity in winning their second national championship since 1999. Despite several injuries, the UConn Huskies simply would not be denied their second national championship in 5 years. Led by Academic and Athletic All-American Emeka Okafor, junior sensation Ben Gordon at shooting guard, senior leader Taliek Brown at point guard, sharp shooter Rashad Anderson at forward, and freshman force Josh Boone, the Huskies were a force to be reckoned with.

I would also like to commend the hard work, the extraordinary work, of Jim Calhoun. He has given us years of tremendously exciting basketball. I commend him for so many things but also to say he overcame prostate cancer to become one of only three active coaches to win multiple national championships. The Huskies demonstrated quickness, great outside shooting, and stifling defense; but in the Final Four in San Antonio, they demonstrated their greatest trait, resilience. They made us a little nervous, but they demonstrated their extraordinary resilience.

Despite trailing 41 to 34 at half-time in the semifinal game against Duke, our nemesis, I think of that last-second shot and feel like they have gotten their just desserts since then. The Huskies battled back, led by Okafor's rebounding and his 18 points to win the game 79-78. I just love it. It was an amazing afternoon.

In the national championship game, the Huskies played nearly flawless basketball to beat the Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets 82 to 73.

The perennial champion UConn Lady Huskies won their third straight national championship and fourth in 5 years. That is a dynasty. It is an extraordinary dynasty. The Lady Huskies, led by one of the greatest women players ever to play the game. In fact, my staff said one of the greatest. I want to say the greatest. No one close. Diana Taurasi and her fellow starters, Ann Strother, Jessica Moore, Barbara Turner, and Maria Conlon, would not be denied a three-peat. Unlike the previous 2 years, the Lady Huskies had to battle back from early season setbacks to finish the season as the number one team again.

I would also like to commend Geno Auriemma, who has put together a streak of unbelievable seasons. He is only the second coach ever to win three straight national championships, and he has five championships total. In the national championship game, the Huskies jumped out to a 17 point lead and managed to hold off perennial opponent, the University of Tennessee, eventually winning the game 70 to 61.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate these young men and women not only for their tremendous basketball ability but also for being such extraordinary role models for Americans of all ages. I am so proud of each and every one of them. I truly am just in awe of what good kids these young men and women are. They have made us proud. They have given us extraordinary exciting times, and there is always the anticipation that there is more good to come in the future. Right, I ask the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons)?

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate Aloysius P. Kelley, S.J., the seventh and longest-serving President in Fairfield University's history, who plans to retire on June 30, 2004, after 25 years of service.

Father Kelley's decision marks the end of a tremendously successful 25-year tenure during which Fairfield University has become one of the preeminent Jesuit schools in the country. As the longest serving president of the nation's 28 Jesuit colleges and universities, arriving at the University in 1979, Father Kelley has presided over the graduation of 64 percent of Fairfield's 38,000 alumni.

During his tenure, Father Kelley worked tirelessly in collaboration with the University's faculty, alumni, parents and friends to achieve extraordinary results. He has overseen facility expansion that has transformed the campus, including the construction and acquisition of 14 new facilities and the renovation and expansion of 12 others.

The student body and faculty of Fairfield University have been strengthened over the past 25 years. On the undergraduate level, Fairfield this year set an all-time record in the number of applications, with 7,655 for 850 seats in the incoming class. During Father Kelley's tenure, the average combined SAT score for the entering class has increased from 1,065 to 1,197. Fairfield's admission for this year's entering class placed it among the top five percent of four-year colleges and universities in the nation in terms of selectivity. The intellectual environment thrived during Father Kelley's tenure

This is the end of an extraordinarily successful era. Under Father Kelley's leadership, Fairfield University has experienced dramatic growth and success. To top it all off, the institution's endowment has increased from under $2 million in 1979 to $131 million currently.

Father Kelley will be greatly missed. He leaves a strong legacy and bright future on which his successor may build. I would like to extend my heartfelt appreciation to Father Kelley for his tremendous accomplishments.

Mr. Speaker, on March 29, I was in New York City for meetings to discuss a number of homeland security issues with various officials and, therefore, missed two recorded votes.

I take my voting responsibility very seriously and would like the Congressional Record to reflect that, had I been present, I would have voted. ``yes'' on recorded vote No. 94 and ``yes'' on recorded vote 95.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my mind that global warming is happening and that man is contributing to it. Now, it is our responsibility to work to mitigate the impacts of potentially catastrophic climate change.

It is clear we must begin taking steps to reduce U.S. emissions and the Climate Stewardship Act lays out a scientifically sound, economically feasible and environmentally progressive formula for doing so.

By limiting the combined global warming emissions of major polluters, creating a trading market for emissions allowances and reductions through a National Greenhouse Gas Database, and funding transition assistance for workers, industries and consumers, this bill takes a responsible first step toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions in a way that is timely, meaningful and cost-effective.

The Climate Stewardship Act targets emissions from the electricity generation, transportation, industrial, and commercial economic sectors, which together account for 85 percent of overall U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. (Starting in 2010, the bill would cap U.S. aggregate emissions for the covered sectors at the 2000 level. The bill's emissions limits would not apply to the agricultural and the residential sectors.)

It applies a successful, market-based approach to reducing emissions, and the result will be cleaner air and a healthier environment.

The Climate Stewardship Act charts a new, more responsible course on climate policy and reflects a cognizance of the very real threat global warming poses to our Nation and the rest of the world.

We simply will not have a world to live in if we continue our neglectful ways.

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

We heard from the Democratic presentation more spending and more taxes. Once again, our budget is based on three key principles, strength, growth and opportunity, which we will discuss in greater detail during the course of this 6-hour debate; Before handing this off, I would like to make a few observations.

From 1997 until 2001, the books of the Federal budget showed that we were running a surplus. For the 40 years prior to that, the country was running deficits. I was proud to play a role in crafting the budgets in the 1990s that not only got us to balance, but got us there ahead of time. We did it by cutting taxes, controlling the growth of spending, and growing the economy. But beneath the positive balance sheet of the government, there were many other deficits that we would soon have to address.

Many have suggested the projected surplus was squandered as if it simply disappeared into thin air, but we intentionally acted to shore up the areas in which we had serious deficits. As a result, we have a budget deficit today. To suggest that we should not have recognized and dealt with the economic downturn and recession, the needs of protecting the homeland, or providing the resources to our military is extraordinarily shortsighted. Now that we have begun to address these areas, however, it is appropriate that we focus attention on the need to control the deficits, and this budget does just that.

There are only three ways to balance: one, raise taxes; two, grow the economy; or, three, control spending. While some have argued for raising taxes, we think that is completely the wrong approach and not the approach that was successful when we balanced the budget in the 1990s.

We think the right thing to do is the same thing we did last time we set out to balance the budget: control spending and keep growing the economy. For all of the talk we have heard about the deficits, we can just about guarantee that during this debate, most of the rhetoric on the other side will be either direct or thinly veiled calls for higher spending across the board and higher taxes. That is exactly what they did in the Committee last week. In one year alone, they would raise taxes $28 billion and raise spending $28 billion or more.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mario Diaz-Balart).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Just to respond to my colleague and say when the Alternative Minimum Tax was passed by Democrats. Republicans warned that it would be not just a tax on the rich but it would be a tax on all income producers.

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

When we tried to eliminate it in the past, we were told we were eliminating it for the wealthy. And, in fact, we were saying, it is not a tax on the wealthy, it is a tax on the middle class.

This tax does need to be eliminated. It was passed, regrettably, by our Democratic colleagues, and it is a heck of a problem to get rid of now, but we need to.