Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, today marks the 40th anniversary of the creation of the National Endowment for the Humanities--a small, independent Federal agency that each year puts millions of Americans in contact with the ideas, ideals, and institutions of our great Nation.

As co-chairman of the newly established Congressional Humanities Caucus, I would like to congratulate the Endowment's Chairman, Dr. Bruce Cole, and his dedicated staff on the agency's anniversary.

In establishing the NEH through the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965, Congress declared that ``encouragement and support of national progress . . . in the humanities . . ., while primarily a matter of private and local initiative, is also an appropriate matter of concern to the Federal Government.'' Acknowledging the Federal Government's interest in promoting progress and scholarship in the humanities, the 89th Congress expressed this interest in a single, powerful observation: ``Democracy demands wisdom and vision in its citizens.''

For 40 years, NEH has promoted ``wisdom and vision'' by advancing the study and understanding of history, literature, languages, archaeology, and philosophy throughout the United States. With the relatively small amount of funding provided by Congress to the agency each year, the Endowment provides important seed money for projects and programs including scholarly editions of the papers of historical and cultural figures, preservation of historically important books and newspapers, seminars and institutes for K-12 teachers and college and university faculty, major television documentaries, and educational museum exhibitions.

Beginning in 2002, at the direction of President Bush and with the support of Congress, NEH began a historic initiative, We the People. We the People is a multi-faceted, agency-wide program focused on examining significant events and themes in our Nation's history. The initiative is designed to expand

awareness and knowledge of the traditions and values that have formed our Nation, and to enhance appreciation of our civic institutions.

Because contact with the humanities encourages individuals and our Nation to seek knowledge and wisdom, to reflect deeply on issues, and to make sense of and find meaning in our cultural heritage, the mission of the NEH continues to be a worthy national enterprise.

I extend my congratulations to the NEH for its 40 years of service to the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in favor of the motion to instruct conferees to reject Secretary Chertoff's plan to further weaken and gut FEMA.

I and many of my colleagues have been raising these concerns about the systematic deconstruction of FEMA and about reduced funding for our first responders for many years now. Current and former FEMA officials told me months ago that FEMA had become a hollowed-out agency and that it was one major disaster short of collapse. Unfortunately, Katrina was the disaster that substantiated that claim.

We should not be satisfied in laying the blame solely on the former FEMA director. Two years ago, FEMA put out a warning that two-thirds of our fire departments operate with staffing levels that do not meet the minimum safe levels required by OSHA and the National Fire Protection Association. What was the administration's response to that? It proposed zeroing out the SAFER hiring program for firefighters and proposed massive cuts to fire equipment grants. FEMA officials had publicly called these grants one of the ``best bangs for the buck the taxpayer gets.''

Overall, we are providing less funding for our first responders now through FEMA and the Department of Justice than we did prior to 9/11. When I asked Secretary Ridge 2 years ago why this administration was cutting funding for police and other first responders, his response was that supporting local law enforcement was not the Federal Government's responsibility, no matter that they were the linchpin in all of the Department of Homeland Security's planning.

Time and again, we have also warned of the dangers of moving away from an ``all-hazards'' approach to preparedness and response, to a terrorism-only approach.

FEMA used to be one of the leanest and most effective agencies in the Federal Government. But then its cabinet level position was taken away by the Bush administration. It was buried under tons of homeland security bureaucracy. Its top posts were stripped

of experts and filled with campaign workers and friends of people in power. Some of its best programs were taken away and stuffed into other offices in Homeland Security.

As former Director Mike Brown testified yesterday, FEMA was de- prioritized in Homeland Security and lost its political power, access and funding. Its failure after Katrina was the result of a series of decisions to under-fund key agency functions, to cut key personnel, and to de-emphasize preparation for natural disasters. That failure had dire consequences.

I am not saying this to play the political blame game. I am saying it because we have to understand that this was the consequence of years of neglect of FEMA and of our first responders by this administration and this Congress. We need to understand this so we do not repeat these same mistakes.

Instead of learning from the mistakes of FEMA, the Department of Homeland Security appears intent on plowing ahead with plans to further bury FEMA in the departmental bureaucracy and now to strip it of its planning and preparedness responsibility. Republican leaders of this House seem inclined to go along with that. But our vote today will show whether politics and partisanship will trump sound policy.

Mr. Speaker, we exist as an institution to do more than just stay in power. We ought to do what is right for the American people. Further dismantling and burying FEMA is wrong. Further cutting funding and support for our first responders is wrong.

When we make decisions that are based on a refusal to admit a mistake, rather than a determination to learn from our mistakes, Americans suffer and we lose some of our greatness. So I ask my colleagues to support this motion to instruct.

Things are bad enough. Let us not make them worse.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment offered by my colleague, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall).

In 1992, I did author the legislation that created the Advanced Technical Education program. And with the help of Mr. Boehlert and many others, I got it passed on this floor. Today, ATE remains the only NSF program focused primarily on our Nation's community colleges, which educate the vast majority of the three to five technicians that support each engineer, scientist, and medical doctor in this country.

Over the last 3 years, the number of proposals for ATE funding has increased by over 40 percent. Success stories abound. It is obvious the program is working. Yet over these same 3 years, the number of awards has actually gone down, and the success rate for proposals has declined from 32 percent in 2003 to a projected 20 percent in 2005.

This means that nearly 80 percent of the community colleges that develop innovative curricula, teaching methods, and partnerships with local industry are being denied ATE support.

Over the years, I have worked on the Appropriations Committee to maintain adequate funding for the ATE despite the cuts often called for in the President's budget requests. Some years we have done better than others.

But this authorization does matter. If all we are doing is authorizing ATE at about the current funding level, we will continue to deny more and more community colleges a chance to equip American workers with the skills they need to compete in the global economy.

Twenty percent is simply not a high enough approval rate. The Udall amendment would allow ATE to achieve its potential, helping us to get back on track as the global leader in innovation. There is nothing extravagant about this, Mr. Chairman. It is a good program, and it deserves to be adequately funded.

I thank the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) for sponsoring this important amendment. I urge all colleagues to give it their support.

Mr. Speaker, our country is facing a difficult, even desperate, situation in Iraq with an insurgency that seems to be gaining strength, a reconstruction effort that is lagging, and an international coalition that is deteriorating.

President Bush seems determined to put the best face on the situation, but the American people are increasingly pessimistic and distrustful of what they hear. We are overdue for a major course correction. It is my intent today to make the case for such a correction and to outline what its major elements should be.

What are our objectives in Iraq? A careful reading of the President's Fort Bragg speech of June 28 reveals a shift of emphasis, from standing up an independently functioning democracy to preventing Iraq from becoming a basing point for international terrorism. That is ironic, for most analysts, including the 9/11 Commission, agree that the Iraqi regime had no discernable link to the perpetrators of 9/11. It is our invasion and its chaotic aftermath that have attracted al Qaeda and other international terrorists to Iraq.

In any event, by whatever definition of the American mission one chooses, our effort is falling short, dangerously short, of what it will take for Iraq to achieve self-rule and the capability of self- defense and for the American occupation to end.

The news of recent days leaves little doubt that the insurgency, which Vice President Cheney described as in its ``last throes,'' is anything but. In the last 2 weeks, insurgent attacks have intensified again, killing more than 200 people in Baghdad and towns to the

south. Last weekend we read of gunmen ambushing a wedding party, killing the bride and wounding the groom, apparently because of his Iraqi army affiliation--a heart-wrenching account that underscores the insurgents' brutality and their continuing ability to launch lethal attacks.

General Abizaid, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, recently acknowledged that the insurgency has not diminished. In fact, estimates of the number of hardcore insurgents now range from 20,000 to 40,000, up from original U.S. estimates of 5,000. Attacks now average 70 per day, up from 25 per day 1 year ago. And car bombs average 135 per month, up from an average of 20 per month last summer.

We are getting better at identifying potential attacks. Only 25 percent of car bomb attacks are now successful compared to 90 percent last year. But while we have been able to reduce the insurgents' success rates threefold, they have increased the number of attacks sixfold. So the number of lethal attacks has actually doubled over the last year.

How far have the Iraqi police, security forces, and officer corps come toward being able to secure the countryside and control terrorists and criminal activity? ``About half of Iraq's new police battalions are still being established and cannot conduct operations, while the other half of the police units and two-thirds of the new army battalions are only `partially capable' of carrying out counterinsurgency missions, and only with American help, according to a newly declassified Pentagon assessment'' the New York Times reports.

The administration claims that approximately 170,000 Iraqis have been trained to assume security responsibilities. U.S. commanders in Iraq have stated that the training is limited, and Joint Chiefs Chairman Myers has publicly said that only about 40,000 are fully capable of deploying anywhere in Iraq. Other estimates go as low as 10,000 Iraqi security forces that are actually trained and capable of performing their security responsibilities.

The equipping of these forces is also deficient. According to the Brookings Institution, the Iraqis only have 42 percent of required weapons, 24 percent of required vehicles, 19 percent of required communications equipment, and 29 percent of required body armor. The Iraqis are not now ready to provide their own national security, handle civil policing duties, or deal with the continuing and strong insurgency, nor will they be ready in the near future.

What is the state of the reconstruction of Iraq? Successful reconstruction is critical to gaining the support of the Iraqi people and denying the insurgents the benefits of widespread popular discontent. We have made substantial headway in rebuilding bridges, roads, and railways; in rehabilitating the seaport of Umm Qasr, and installing and repairing telecommunications infrastructure both inside of Baghdad and for the international satellite gateway system.

Despite these efforts, we have a long way to go. Nationwide, Iraq is only generating 75 percent of its electricity production goal and the nation only has an average of 12 hours of electricity per day. Oil production has barely reached 80 percent of its pre-war levels, and Iraqis are experiencing gas lines up to a mile long. Iraqi government sources cited in the Pentagon's report of July 21, 2005, put the unemployment rate at 28 percent, up from 22.5 percent 6 months ago. Most independent estimates of unemployment are closer to 40 percent.

The top five problems Iraqis identified in an April, 2005, IRI survey are inadequate electricity, unemployment, health care, crime, and national security, all significant indicators of major reconstruction needs.

Are we on schedule for getting an Iraqi Constitution adopted and a legitimate, broadly representative government established? The National Assembly is to draft a Constitution by August 15, 2005, to be put to a national vote by October 15. On May 10, the National Assembly appointed a 55-member committee to begin drafting the permanent Constitution. The committee missed its own deadline to produce a preliminary draft by July 15. However, several working drafts have surfaced that have sparked serious complaints regarding constriction of the rights of women and a strict interpretation of Islam as a source of legislation.

Despite these conflicts and the missing of the self-imposed deadline, Iraqi leaders say that a draft will be completed by the August 15 deadline. Six subcommittees are working on specific issues of the new Constitution, including the thorny questions of Kurdish autonomy and the role of Islam in law. Many other contentious issues remain to be negotiated. There is a provision for a 6-month drafting extension if the Assembly cannot complete a draft by the specified deadline, but exercising this extension would delay all subsequent stages of the transition.

Given the enormity of the task we face in Iraq, what is the condition of the Coalition of the Willing on which our efforts depend? The coalition has always been a pale imitation of the one the first President Bush assembled for the first Iraq war. For Operation Iraqi Freedom, the U.S. share of overall troop numbers has never been less than 84 percent. And now the coalition is deteriorating further. Spain's troop commitment has gone from 1,300 to zero. Italy's 3,120 troops will go to zero by early next year, as will Poland's 1,500. Other countries that have withdrawn their forces or are in the process of doing so include Bulgaria, the Dominican Republic, Honduras, Hungary, Moldova, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, the Philippines, Portugal, Thailand, Tonga, and Ukraine. In most cases, these withdrawals have taken place amid overwhelming public opposition in these countries to the war.

Troop contingents of 12,000 from the United Kingdom and 2,800 from South Korea remain, but this war and occupation have mainly had an American face, and that has become more and more the case as erstwhile allies have fallen away. American troops strength now stands at about 135,000, and many say that is not sufficient to complete the mission unless the training of Iraqis can be greatly accelerated. American casualties number 13,657, including 1,790 deaths. Of these, 1,653 deaths have occurred since President Bush landed on the aircraft carrier U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln to proclaim major combat operations successfully concluded.

While there is no definitive source of information, we know that the human toll in Iraq is enormous. Estimates of noncombatant Iraqi deaths have reached 25,000, and the Pentagon reports that Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) combat deaths have now exceeded 2,000.

As for the budget impact, outlays for Iraq operations are now about $1 billion per week. The cumulative cost of the Iraq war, occupation, and reconstruction has already exceeded $200 billion.

In the face of all this, the American public's confidence is waning. This is not because Americans are cowed by the challenge we face in Iraq. Fully 57 percent in the NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll of July 11 said it was important that America ``maintain its military and economic commitment there until Iraq is able to fully govern and police itself.'' But the public is increasingly skeptical of President Bush's rationale for going to war. They are doubtful that the administration has a plan for success, and they wonder if they are being told the truth by our country's leaders. More than half say they do not think the war was ``worth it.'' Only 40 percent say the Iraq war has made us safer from terrorism; 54 percent say less safe. Nearly 60 percent now disapprove of the job President Bush is doing in Iraq. This has helped drive his overall disapproval rating to 56 percent.

The President's June 28 speech was widely anticipated as an opportunity for the Commander in Chief to give an honest assessment of progress to date and to chart a realistic and compelling course going forward. The setting of the speech, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, was well chosen, giving the President the opportunity to express the admiration and the gratitude we all feel ``to our servicemen and women across the globe . . . for [their] courage under fire and service to our Nation,'' and for the sacrifices of their families as well.

In other respects, however, the speech was a disappointment, offering

neither a candid assessment nor a specific strategy for success. The President spoke of ``significant progress,'' while glossing over the state of the insurgency and ignoring the falling off of international support. He furnished fewer details than I have already given in this presentation this afternoon. He offered no benchmarks by which success might be measured or his administration might be held accountable. He was defensive about past decisions and oblivious to the obvious need for course correction. As others have observed, he exposed the weakness of his arguments by rhetorically falling back on 9/11, despite the lack of any significant al Qaeda connection to prewar Iraq.

The President asked Americans to stay the course, to continue to pay the heavy price of this war, without holding up his end of the bargain. He and his administration owe these brave men and women in uniform and, indeed, all Americans more than glib assurances and exhortations to steadfastness. He owes all of us a plan for success, for turning Iraq over to the Iraqis, avoiding a reversion to tyranny or chaos, and terminating the American occupation.

The President's speech has now been improved on somewhat by the Department of the Defense's congressionally mandated report, ``Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq,'' dated July 21, 2005. The report states, ``The criteria for withdrawing coalition forces from Iraq are conditions-based, not calendar-based. The development of the Iraqi Security Forces to a level at which they can take over primary responsibility for their own security is the threshold condition. ISF development in turn will be helped by progress in political, economic, and other areas.''

This is only slightly more specific than the standard suggested in the President's speech, ``As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.''

Only in limited instances does the report measure present performance against a defined goal, much less specify the conditions under which American responsibility can be scaled back. Moreover, the Pentagon almost always chooses the more optimistic among analysts' conclusions as to conditions in Iraq and apparently sees no need to defend those choices. Congress has required that this report be updated every 90 days. Our leaders should insist that future reports meet a higher standard of candor and of relevance to future policy choices.

The coherence of administration policy was thrown further into doubt this week by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the Commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, General George Casey, in their comments reported from Baghdad. Rumsfeld, who last month suggested that the insurgency might last as many as 10 to 12 years, displayed a new urgency about moving the constitutional process and the training of security personnel along. Meanwhile, General Casey emerged from a meeting with Rumsfeld and U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalizad to declare that ``fairly substantial reductions'' in U.S. troop levels might be possible by next spring and summer.

That may be a tantalizing prospect politically, but the Pentagon owes the Congress and the public an accounting of the conditions that must be met, and how they are to be met, in order for such a policy to succeed.

Mr. Speaker, the challenge of Iraq calls for leadership of a high order, leadership that is determined and confident, but does not mistake confidence for rigidity, or does not mistake determination for an unwillingness to acknowledge and learn from past mistakes.

The Bush administration's Iraq policy has been plagued by far too many misjudgments and mistakes, and it would compound those mistakes to fail to learn from them now. We went to war with defective intelligence on the threat posed by Iraq, evidence selectively and sometimes misleadingly presented to Congress and the public. We went to war virtually unilaterally with too few allies and unwarranted disdain for the United Nations' program of weapons inspection and destruction. We went to war with unrealistic expectations as to how our occupation would be received, and with grossly deficient postwar planning. We undertook a war of choice, allowing ourselves to be diverted from the war on terrorism and other more dangerous international challenges, and foregoing other means for containing and controlling whatever threat Saddam Hussein represented.

Our current situation in Iraq bears the marks of these past mistakes, and I believe history will judge George Bush and his administration harshly for them. In much of this, Congress was complicit, and I am even more convinced than I was on the day I cast my ``no'' vote that this body abdicated its responsibility when it gave the President, months in advance, open-ended authority to invade Iraq. But, while we must learn from the past, we must face resolutely forward. That means transcending past grievances, rethinking past positions, confronting the unvarnished truth as to our present situation, and weighing our realistic options.

What alternative possibilities, in fact, lay before us? The President has proposed more of the same: persevere on our present course, despite abundant evidence that we are falling short. Others are urging unilateral withdrawal of American forces, some say on a preannounced, fixed timetable. More and more politicians and commentators are expressing this view. They point out that the presence of American troops is not only challenging the insurgency, but also fueling it. Our alien ``infidel'' presence is itself a rallying point for Iraqi insurgents and international terrorists. Moreover, some argue, Iraqis will be more likely to assume responsibility for assembling a workable government and developing their own security forces if they know that their dependence on U.S. troops is coming to an end.

These arguments have merit, but they underestimate factors beyond the American military presence that are feeding the insurgency and could plunge Iraq into a civil war, or even the conditions of a failed state, after we are gone. They also underestimate the danger of encouraging our enemies to wait us out and then to strike with devastating force.

There is, I believe, a better way. We should indeed signal clearly that we intend ultimately to bring our troops home, that we expect the Iraq Government to assume responsibility for the country's security, and that we have no plans for permanent bases or an ongoing military presence. But we should also put forward a strategy for success--a plan for course correction in Iraq, for recognizing and correcting policies that are not working, and for moving Iraq decisively towards self- defense and self-rule.

A strategy for success requires benchmarks by which we can measure progress and hold our own government accountable. One useful formulation was suggested by the House minority leader as an amendment to the fiscal year 2006 defense appropriations bill, but was, unfortunately, denied a vote by the Republican leadership. The amendment would have required the timely submission by the President to the Congress of a report specifying:

``(1) the criteria for assessing the capabilities and readiness of Iraqi security forces; goals for achieving appropriate capability and readiness levels for such forces, as well as for recruiting, training, and equipping such forces, and the milestones and timetable for achieving such goals.

``(2) The estimated total number of Iraqi personnel trained at [these] levels . . . needed for Iraqi security forces to perform duties currently being undertaken by United States and coalition forces, including defending Iraq's borders and providing adequate levels of law and order throughout Iraq.

``(3) The number of United States and coalition advisors needed to support Iraqi security forces and associated ministries.

``(4) The measures of political stability for Iraq, including the important political milestones to be achieved over the next several years.''

I would augment this list with benchmarks and goals for the reconstruction effort and for the involving of allies and multilateral organizations.

What of the other ingredients of a strategy for success? Senator Joseph Biden, ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, gave a wide-ranging speech on June 21 that stressed the need to take advantage of

legitimate foreign offers to help Iraqi security forces and to share responsibility for Iraqi reconstruction internationally.

Egypt has offered to train Iraqi police. The Jordanians have offered advanced military training for the officer corps. Even the French have offered to train 1,500 paramilitary police in France and send them back to Iraq. NATO is establishing an ISF training mission, and the alliance and its member states should be encouraged to do more. Senator Biden, for example, has proposed a small NATO force dedicated to border patrol and protection.

We must have an ongoing crash course in the training and equipping of Iraqi police, security forces, and the officer corps. And the Bush administration should be far more aggressive in enlisting international partners in these efforts.

The same goes for Iraqi political development and reconstruction. The Pentagon's July 21 report commends United Nations support of the constitutional development process and assistance in preparing for approaching referenda and elections. Recent international donors' conferences in Brussels on June 22 and Amman on July 18 made only limited progress in securing financing for Iraqi reconstruction and economic development.

Most of the effort was aimed at getting donors to follow through on the approximately $33 billion pledged in 2003 in Madrid. Many potential donors conditioned future support on improvements in the security situation.

Unfortunately, both the military and the reconstruction efforts continue to bear the marks of the Bush administration's early unilateralism. This must be overcome, as a matter of burden sharing and of ensuring the legitimacy and eventual success of the effort.

Our reconstruction programs should have a steady focus on improving the lives of ordinary Iraqis. This will often require us to emphasize smaller-scale projects that have an immediate local impact, and/or that mainly employ Iraqis.

It also means we should continue to provide reconstruction funds directly to our midlevel military officers. The Commanders Emergency Response Program (CERP) provided for the disbursement in fiscal year 2004 of $549 million by U.S. commanders at the tactical level. Many Members of this body have returned from visits to Iraq, as I did from Kirkuk, impressed by the education and health facilities and the other projects these funds have made possible, with a minimum of red tape, and the trust and good will they have generated.

Among the worthwhile Iraqi projects sponsored by the U.S. Agency For International Development, I am particularly familiar with the local government and civil society work of North Carolina-based RTI International.

These projects have been forced to use a substantial portion of their funding to provide security, and some efforts have succumbed in a hostile environment. Yet RTI staff, many of them Iraqis, have helped establish representative and accountable governments in many localities and are currently implementing a training and management program for 150 model health care centers in Iraq. This is difficult but important work, and it deserves our continuing support.

In the midst of the challenges in Iraq, and the course correction we must undertake there, it is critical that we not lose sight of related undertakings in the region with a direct bearing on our prospects in Iraq. I will here mention only Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Over the past 3 years, the Afghan mission, directly related to 9/11 and to the denial of a support structure or sanctuary to al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, has suffered by virtue of the President's initial fixation on Iraq and the human and material resources required by Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar remain at large. And it has often fallen to this Congress to augment administration budget requests for Afghanistan.

The Taliban has managed to partially reconstitute itself in recent months. Insurgent attacks and government offenses since March have killed more than 800 in Afghanistan. The obvious intent at present is to disrupt the September 18 parliamentary elections, a critical step in Afghanistan's political development.

In Afghanistan more than in Iraq, however, U.S. troops have the benefit of international assistance. The International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) has operated under NATO command since August 2003, providing security and supporting nation-building activities.

The ISAF currently numbers about 8,800 troops from 26 NATO and 11 non-NATO partner countries, including Canada, Spain, France and Germany, all noticeably missing from Iraq.

The provincial reconstruction teams (PRTs), military-led groups that secure enclaves for the work of reconstruction, aid, and Afghanistan interior ministry personnel, also display increasing international participation. Of the 21 now in operation, 11 PRTs are U.S.-run, 10 are run by partner countries, and several U.S. teams are slated for takeover by NATO/ISAF forces.

The Kabul government is still far from exercising effective authority throughout Afghanistan, and the Taliban and other enemy forces are displaying a disturbing resilience. Our Afghan mission is under severe challenge. We must not again be diverted.

We must also expand the mission's international character and apply the lessons of multilateralism in Afghanistan to Iraq.

Also critical to a strategy for success is determined U.S. diplomacy aimed at the two-state solution President Bush has advocated for the Middle East. The immediate challenge is to make certain the evacuation of Israeli settlers from Gaza undertaken by Prime Minister Sharon comes off successfully and peacefully, despite predictable attempts at sabotage from extremists on both sides.

This will require redoubled Palestinian efforts to rein in terrorist groups and prevent attacks against Israeli troops and communities. The Israelis must give such efforts a chance and work with the Palestinian Authority to coordinate the logistics of the withdrawal and the freedom of movement in and out of Gaza after the withdrawal.

Longer term, the parties must follow the path of mutual accommodation outlined in the Road Map, eventually undertaking final status negotiations. ``Gaza First'' must not become ``Gaza Last.'' But none of this will be easy, and it is unlikely to move forward without skillful and persistent U.S. diplomacy.

The peace process has languished for 4 years, partially because of the disengagement of President Bush and his administration. This has been terribly costly to the Israelis and the Palestinians, who have endured 4 years of dashed hopes and recurring violence. But it has also been damaging to American interests in the region.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict fuels extremism and anti-American attitudes across the Middle East. It greatly complicates our prospects for success in Afghanistan, Iraq, and beyond.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has signaled that the second term will be different. To her credit, she returned to Israel and the West Bank last week as violent attacks escalated dangerously--a suicide bombing, rocket attacks, retaliatory air attacks--and Israeli tanks were lining up at the Gaza border.

It is extremely important that she and the President stay the course, understanding that Israeli-Palestinian peace-making, important in its own right, is also critical to any strategy for success in the region.

Mr. Speaker, the war in Iraq has been terribly costly in terms of lives, resources, and our country's diplomatic and security interests. Our challenge now is not merely to cut our losses, but to extricate ourselves in such a way that prevents Iraq from reverting to tyranny or chaos, that denies a basing point to international terrorism, and that leaves the country intact, able to defend and govern itself.

We are not now on course to achieve this objective. The Bush administration neither has a strategy for success nor even acknowledges the need for course correction. We must do better. And it is the duty of this Congress to demand candor, accountability, and a strategy calibrated to achieve our goals.

We must have an honest accounting of the state of the insurgency, the

readiness of Iraq forces, the progress of the country's reconstruction and political development, and the extent of international collaboration and support.

Where there are deficiencies, and the deficiencies are serious in all of these areas, the administration must provide benchmarks by which success can be measured and a plan specifying what it will take to reach our goals.

Glib reassurances from the President are dangerous, postponing and preventing corrective action and opening wider the credibility gap with the American public.

Those who commit troops to battle on behalf of this great country owe them and us an intelligent and realistic plan to succeed.

Members of this body should demand such a plan and a frequent, truthful accounting of our success in reaching its goals from the President and his administration. A midcourse correction in Iraq is worthy of our Nation's best efforts, and the window of opportunity is closing.

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to yield the remainder of the time.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to do that, to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank him also for taking out this Special Order so that a group of our colleagues can speak with our constituents and speak with the American people about the budget situation that we face. And I think the previous presentations have left little doubt that it is a budget in crisis, it is a budget in moral crisis in terms of the priorities that this Nation needs to be addressing. It is also a budget in fiscal crisis, taking us over the cliff.

One might find that easier to take if, as the reward for our efforts, so to speak, we were getting adequate funding for major priorities, or if we were getting a good stimulus for the economy, but it actually seems we are getting the worst of both worlds. We are going over the cliff fiscally and we are not getting these other benefits.

So the American people are asking, where is this economic stimulus? Where is this support for what our communities need to grow and prosper and widen opportunity? I am afraid the answer is a lot of this money is down the rat hole, so to speak, in terms of the budget deficit, the growing debt; a lot of red ink, but not very much to show for it.

Our colleague, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) was saying earlier that there is a familiar refrain these days about there is just not enough money to do this and that, and I can vouch for that as a member of the Committee on Appropriations. I think there is probably no refrain that we hear more often, and we hear it on bill after bill after bill, that we would like to have more adequate funding for cancer research and heart disease research and the work of the Institutes of Health; we would like to build more highways, because we know this creates jobs and because we know it is a boost to the economy; we would like to do right by Medicaid because we know that millions of people are probably going to have their medicaid benefits cut or leave the rolls altogether, and that adds to the number of uninsured, the number of people who are not getting good health care.

Sometimes our colleagues say, well, we would like to improve the military quality of life. We know that we are actually spending less than we did before the Iraq war on base housing and on some of the provisions for our military families that do determine their quality of life.

Sometimes it is said, we would like to do more for first responders here, too. We are doing less for our first responders than we did before 9/11. And by first responders, we mean the people on the front lines every day protecting our communities, policemen, firefighters, emergency medical personnel, but there just is not enough money.

Sometimes we hear not enough money for after-school programs or other educational programs designed to close the achievement gap and to help communities meet this challenge of No Child Left Behind.

After all, No Child Left Behind was not just supposed to be a program for labeling classes failing. No Child Left Behind was supposed to be a way of diagnosing problems that needed addressing and then having some resources to address those needs. But we hear there is just not enough resources.

This very day, marking up the transportation bill in the Appropriations Committee, we heard there is just not enough money for Amtrak, not enough money to maintain rail passenger service in this country. We heard there is just not enough for community development block grants for the infrastructure and the rehabilitation of housing, to make our neighborhoods viable, and on and on and on. We just do not have enough money, we hear.

And, Mr. Speaker, I say this as a Member who does not believe any program, domestic or foreign, should have a blank check. Of course, we need to economize, and of course we need to be responsible with public funds. But I also believe that we need to be honest about where the problem is coming from in the Republican budget. And the problem is not mainly coming from domestic discretionary spending. And the ranking member of the Budget Committee has made this very, very clear. And we need to underscore it here tonight.

Our friends over at the Center For Budget and Policy Priorities asked an interesting question a while back. They said, where did that $9.5 trillion fiscal reversal come from, going from $5.5 trillion in projected surpluses over the next 10 years at the beginning of the Bush administration? What is now, Mr. Ranking Member, the projected addition to the national debt?

That is the $9.4 trillion reversal. And the analysts asked, Where did that money go? The largest chunk of it went to President Bush's tax cuts, which mainly benefit the wealthiest people in this country. A significant chunk of it went to defense and security spending after 9/11.

And of course in many ways we have had agreement that that spending needs to increase, but it is not the bulk of the increase we are talking about. It is not the bulk of the fiscal reversal that we are talking about.

The poor economy produced some of that. So there are many reasons for this. The tax cuts are the main reason. But the one thing that does not figure prominently in the fiscal reversal is domestic discretionary spending. That has not been all that much above projected levels.

So the strategy of the administration and the strategy of the Republican leadership here in the House to pretend that we are going broke in this country because of these domestic investments, who can believe that? Who can believe we are going too broke because we are doing too much cancer research or because we are building too many highways?

The chart here pretty well tells the story. The Republican tax agenda worsens the deficit by $2 trillion. And the gentleman can confirm, we are talking about $1.4 trillion over the next 10 years and a worsened deficit situation because of the Bush tax cuts. And then if we take account of the alternative minimum tax and fix that, then that is another $600 billion.

So something like $2 trillion that the Republican tax agenda is going to cost us in the next 10 years is what that chart says to me. And then we have the next chart.

Then the next chart shows that the story is worse than that, because the Bush budget omits a number of 10-year costs. The repairing of the AMT I have already mentioned, over $600 billion. The cost of social security privatization, $750 billion.

The realistic estimate of war costs, beyond what we are appropriating this year, almost $400 billion. Paying interest on all of this accumulated debt, $267 billion; that is another $2 trillion. Where is it going to end?

This is a deeper and deeper hole that we are digging, and very little of it has to do with domestic discretionary spending. But the main victims are these domestic investments that we are seeing every day on the Appropriations Committee squeezed mercilessly, and squeezed in a way that really do shut off growth and opportunity for our people.

Just think what we could do with the interest alone on this growing debt. This chart shows how interest payments are dwarfing appropriations for other priorities. The red bar is interest. The blue is education spending. The brown is environmental spending. The dark bar is veterans spending. And then you look ahead to 2010, you see the disparity is even more.

That is money down the rat hole, money that anyone in our hearing tonight could think of better public and private uses for that money that we are paying mainly to foreign purchasers of our national debt.

But that is where the money is going. It would be more than enough, of course, to fix the Social Security problem totally. And it is, in the meantime, preempting so much that this country needs to be doing to ensure expanding opportunity for all.

So I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for the Special Order tonight, for the presentations, which I think have underscored quite clearly the deficit situation that we are facing, the accumulating debt, and what we are paying for that, the kind of opportunities lost because of this fiscal excess.

What you are saying about leadership, I think, really is important, because it is pretty easy to get cynical about Congress and the budget process over the 1980s and the 1990s as so often action was pretty ineffectual. But there were three times, were there not, when Congress rose to the occasion: once in 1990, on a bipartisan basis when the first President Bush joined with the Democratic congressional leadership and concluded a significant budget agreement; in 1993, with Democratic heavy lifting alone, an agreement that was actually rather similar to 1990 and moved the ball further; and then the 1997 agreement led by President Clinton, but with some bipartisan support.

Looking back to that 1990 agreement, which I think most of us remember as a difficult time, but a very positive achievement, is there any prospect that this present administration or this present congressional leadership has any inclination to undertake this sort of tack?

If you fast forward to the present, as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Scott) was suggesting, the budget situation is actually worse; the objective budget situation is actually worse now than what we faced in 1990.

This President Bush, unlike the first President Bush, does not seem inclined to even agree there is a problem. And the congressional leadership is totally disinclined to take this up. So it strikes me as a very dangerous kind of complacency that really, I guess, bespeaks a deterioration of the budget process, but also of leadership to use the budget process to get our fiscal house in order

Mr. Chairman, the Small Business Administration 7(a) loan program is a proven success. In past years it has provided 30 percent of all long-term small business loans in this country, making it the largest source of public or private financing. So one would assume that such a proven program would be supported by everyone.

However, last year we found out that when there was a choice between more tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans or helping our small businesses, the administration and the Republican leadership were all too willing to change that 7(a) program in conference, so that all expenses and risks would be borne by the small businesses themselves.

The result of this change is exactly what we predicted. Fees for loans of less than $150,000 have nearly doubled. Fees for larger loans have risen by $3,000 to $5,000. Fifty lenders have dropped out of the program. It is much harder for small businesses in rural areas and small towns to get loans. Most significantly, 7(a) lending has decreased every quarter since the new fees were added, and the amount of the average 7(a) loan has dropped by $75,000 since the changes have been put in place.

So we have a problem, and the Velazquez amendment would solve that problem, restoring funding for the 7(a) program, $79 million for loan- loss reserves, which will leverage $18 billion in new loans. Vote for the Velazquez amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Defense Authorization Bill. I want to specifically express my support for the ``Contractors on the Battlefield'' section of the bill, which takes a number of positive steps toward improving federal oversight of contractors providing security services in war zones.

Several major incidents last year brought to light the problems and dangers inherent in the federal government's use of security contractors, including the Abu Ghraib scandal and the brutal murder of four Blackwater contractors in Fallujah.

A year ago, more than 100 members of Congress joined me in writing to the GAO to request an investigation into the use of security contractors in combat zones. Last month, GAO confirmed many of our fears, releasing a report that found substantial confusion surrounding these contracts and how they fit into larger military operations.

I have been working with Congressmen Spratt, Waxman, Cramer, and Snyder--and with the various security contractor groups--to develop legislation that would address these problems and help rationalize the security contracting system.

Last month, we introduced a bill based on those efforts, the Transparency and Accountability in Security Contracting Act, and we have been working with the Armed Services Committee to incorporate the major elements of our bill into the Defense Reauthorization legislation we are considering today. I am grateful for the support that Representatives Hunter and Skelton have provided in addressing these issues.

There were some items in our bill that I would have preferred be included in the measure now before us, but I understand there are some jurisdictional issues that would have complicated that. Nevertheless, the provisions that are part of the Defense Authorization bill are a solid first step, and I am pleased with this bipartisan accomplishment.

To date, the federal government has had no precise estimate of the number of armed contractors working in Iraq and, as a result, the Defense Department has had no systematic way to communicate with them, putting both contractors and troops at risk.

The Defense Authorization bill would address that problem by requiring DoD contractors to provide information on their personnel who carry weapons, including the exact location where they are working. They would also be required to certify that those personnel have received the necessary training to do their jobs safely and effectively.

The bill also would require combat commanders to establish protocols to improve communication between military personnel and contractor personnel. And it would require the Pentagon to establish guidelines for contractors as to the type of weapons they may use and the amount of training required to use them.

These provisions would help keep our troops and contractors safe, and they should improve the effectiveness of contractors in Iraq and other areas of conflict. And after two years of being in the dark, this bill would also provide us with the information we need to provide appropriate oversight of contractors in war zones. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Madam Chairman, I rise in support of the Slaughter/Shays/Dicks/Leach/Price amendment for increased funding for the National Endowment for the Humanities and the National Endowment for the Arts.

As co-chair of the newly established Congressional Humanities Caucus, I am pleased to support this amendment which will in particular increase funding for NEH's We the People program by $5 million.

We the People is an agency-wide program focused on examining and understanding significant events and themes in our Nation's history. An additional $5 million will enable We the People to support teacher seminars and institutes with new content focusing on American history and civics, media projects focusing on key people and events in American history, and preservation projects that preserve and provide access to important historical documents and artifacts that are central to America's historical and cultural heritage.

We ought to do more, but this modest funding increase will help. It will aid NEH's efforts to conserve and nurture America's heritage, bring humanities to communities across this country, and educate the next generation of Americans. I encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, as a proud alumnus of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, I am pleased to join several North Carolina colleagues tonight in honoring our amazing Tar Heels.

It has been six weeks since the Tar Heels were crowned the 2005 NCAA Men's Basketball National Champions, but the news accounts of their victory still paper the front door to my office. My staff tells me that nearly every day a Capitol visitor spots the coverage and walks in unannounced to say that his or her children want to go to UNC. That is music to our ears.

We know it is not all because of the basketball program, of course. UNC Chapel Hill is a fine school with an excellent academic reputation. The university consistently ranks among the Nation's top public institutions, and last year, it joined Harvard and Stanford as the only schools with prestigious Rhodes, Luce, Truman and Goldwater scholarship winners.

It sure is nice to also be among the Nation's athletic elite.

The UNC team knows what it is to come back from adversity. The championship win was especially sweet for North Carolina's three seniors, who helped lead an impressive comeback from freshman year challenges to the glory of that final game, and we are well aware of the challenges next year's team will face without these seniors and some other fine players.

But Coach Roy Williams has led Carolina to victory once, and he is going to do it again, with the same spirit and heart and dedication that he inspired in this year's championship team. Coach Williams long ago established himself as one of the premier recruiters in the country, and the talented class of 2006 that he has landed, which already includes the number one point guard in the Nation, should give us all comfort that the future we are going have is a bright future for the men in Carolina blue.

So, Mr. Speaker, I suppose that tomorrow we may finally take that newspaper down off of the front door of my office and put it in a scrapbook, but I am not the least bit worried.

That championship banner hanging from the rafters in the Dean Smith Center in Chapel Hill will be there forever alongside the many other banners that recount the proud history of one of the most storied programs in college basketball, and it will not be long before we have new banners to take pride in and more good news with which to paper our front door.

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to my colleagues, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo), for their conscientious and cooperative efforts in writing this bill.

The bill would provide much-needed additional funding to protect our borders. It would also boost the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to track down potential terrorists and criminal aliens that are already in this country.

It would shorten the backlog for people seeking to legally live in this country as permanent residents or citizens. It would help protect our ports and our chemical and nuclear facilities. And as the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), my colleague, just stressed, it focuses on accountability, much-needed accountability, at the Department, and I commend the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) in particular for that.

Given the limited funds the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo) had to start with, theirs was not an easy or enviable task, and they have done an exceptional job with the poor hand they were dealt. But I have said this before and I will say it again: we can do better. This bill could and should be better. We would do better if we made better budget choices at the front end of this process.

This vote today is not occurring in a vacuum. During recent funding debates, we have heard the Republican leaders say over and over, there simply are no funds available to provide what

is needed. I suspect we are going to hear that again today.

What we do not hear as often is that since 9/11, we have spent 20 times as much on tax cuts, mainly benefiting the wealthiest people in this country, as we have on protecting the American people from terrorist attacks. Just the other week, we passed another tax cut that will only benefit people inheriting estates that are worth millions of dollars.

So we go over the cliff fiscally, and our Republican friends try to pin the blame on discretionary domestic spending, including spending for security. We pass budget resolutions that fall far short, so that by the time we try to write appropriations bills within the limits in these resolutions, we have nothing left to talk about. All we can do is lamely speak of the things we just are not able to do, in this bill and other bills, because we do not have the funds.

Well, we chose not to have the funds. To name one conspicuous example, for the second year in a row, we are going to cut the Fire grant program, one of the most successful Federal programs we have.

Despite the fact that a recent FEMA study showed that two-thirds of our fire departments operate with staffing levels that do not meet the minimum safe staffing levels required by OSHA and the National Fire Protection Association, we are again under-funding the SAFER program, which assists understaffed departments in hiring additional personnel.

Mr. Chairman, we pass bills authorizing first-responder support, but when it comes time to pay for these programs, we would rather put the country's money toward tax breaks for the wealthy than for police officers who are protecting our communities. Trillion-dollar tax cuts get rammed through this Congress, but in this bill, the leadership says we have ``no choice'' but to cut State block grants by 14 percent.

Today, our choices are indeed limited, although I am hopeful we can make some improvements at the margins, for example, by passing the gentleman from Minnesota's (Mr. Sabo) first responder amendment.

At the end of the day, we should pass this bill, and I am hopeful that colleagues on both sides of the aisle will support it. But we should understand why this bill, despite our subcommittee's best efforts, does fall short. We should resolve to fix this country's budget policy so that at long last our Nation's people and their security can come first.

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to add my word of support for the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo's) amendment and commend him for offering it, and also thank the chairman of our subcommittee, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), for his cooperation in working out this accommodation.

Several steps have led us to this point. The President's budget was sorely deficient in the area of first responder funding. The President proposed to cut the State Homeland Security block grants by 25 percent. He proposed to cut the Department of Homeland Security firefighter grants by 30 percent. He proposed to eliminate funding for the SAFER program.

And then when you look at the Department of Justice, at the programs that our law enforcement agencies depend on, the President proposed even more massive cuts, a 95 percent cut in the COPS program and a 98 percent cut in the Justice Assistance grants.

We will, of course, not be able to deal with all of that here today. We will hope that our colleagues on the subcommittee appropriating for the Justice Department will attend to this and repair some of this damage.

But today we can deal with the Homeland Security portion of the President's budget. Our subcommittee already has made some improvements in the bill brought to the floor today. The first responder funding was brought to a 10 percent cut overall, which in terms of the President's budget was a gain. State and local block grants in the bill before us would be cut 11 percent, fire grants by 15 percent, the SAFER program by 23 percent.

The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo's) amendment takes that progression further, and I commend him for it, because it is money that our communities really need. For fire grant funding, half of the committee's cut from the current fiscal year's level would be restored.

SAFER funding would actually be increased $10 million from the current fiscal year. State block grant funding would be increased but it would still fall $400 million short of the current year.

So we are not talking still about generous funding, funding that is anywhere near as generous as it should be, but we are talking about an improvement, and I hope that colleagues on both sides of the aisle will readily agree to this amendment to the committee bill.

Mr. Chairman, all of us, I suspect, have visited and talked with first responders in our districts. I hope and expect that we have thanked them for what they do, because they serve our communities every day. It is important, though, not just to stop with the lip service. It is important to understand that what we are talking about with fire and law enforcement and other first responders is an essential governmental service in which the Federal Government is a crucial partner.

Sometimes that partnership has been in danger of faltering. We have got to make certain that that does not happen. So we need to do more than say thank you. We need to do more than talk about hometown heroes.

We need to put our money where our rhetoric is. This bill is not all that it should be, but with this amendment I believe we will go some distance toward extending to these first responders the kind of support they need. After all, they are being asked to do some new and demanding things in this post-9/11 world. They need some new equipment. They need new communication capacity. They need some new personnel and training.

So we are preparing to extend that assistance, without forgetting that these first responders have been on the frontlines all along.

Traditional disasters, traditional emergencies have not gone away. In fact, the need for a conventional capacity is as strong or stronger than it ever was.

So let us resolve that we are not merely going to pay lip service to these people on the frontline who defend our communities every day. Let us resolve to strengthen the Federal partnership and provide the Federal support that they need and deserve.

Support the Sabo amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 1544. The bill significantly improves the homeland security application and funding process by restructuring it in a way that my home State of North Carolina predicts will shorten the time it takes funds to get from the Federal to the local level by about 6 months.

The bill also will significantly improve how we assess threats by taking the decision out of the hands of DHS and creating a task force made up of experts from the Federal, State, and local levels and the first responder community to create a comprehensive means of assessing risk.

So I feel this bill has a great deal of potential. It could be a very important step in the right direction. But I warn my colleagues that we will fail in our efforts to protect the homeland if we do not take some additional steps, in particular to avoid a trade-off down the road between protecting ourselves against terrorist attacks and preparing for and responding to natural disasters.

As we vote on this bill, we are dealing with a presidential budget that would slash Federal funding for our local police by close to 40 percent through massive cuts in Homeland Security and Justice grant programs.

The Bush administration continues its trend of shifting money from natural and general disaster preparedness programs. For example, the Committee on Appropriations was recently forced to cut FIRE grants, one of the most successful Federal grant programs in existence, by over $100 million, at a time when our Nation is expecting more than ever from our understaffed and ill-equipped fire departments.

So while I applaud the committee for its work in crafting a strong bill, we ought to make clear that voting for this bill is not enough. When it comes time to make some harder choices and pay for these first responder programs that we happily authorize, we will need the same bipartisan support for those on the front lines that we see here today.

Mr. Speaker, ``Take care and watch yourselves closely so as neither to forget the things that your eyes have seen nor to let them slip from your mind all the days of your life; make them known to your children and your children's children . . .'' (Deuteronomy 4:9)

Mr. Speaker, it is ironic, or perhaps hypocritical is the right word, to be passing a Small Business Bill of Rights when in fact our Republican friends are gutting the very programs that support small businesses in this country. We will very likely pass this so-called bill of rights, but the danger is that in this Congress, this will become a smoke screen for inaction or worse.

The Bush administration can find a trillion here and a billion there for tax cuts of questionable benefit to the economy, but they cannot find the funds necessary to help our small businesses that have time and time again proven their power to create jobs and spur economic growth.

The Small Business Administration budget proposed by President Bush would provide the SBA with just over half the funds they had during the final year of the Clinton administration. That is like taking money right out of the hands of our small business owners.

One out of every three small business loans in this country has been provided by 7(a). Last year the Bush administration eliminated funding to subsidize this critical program, and for the life of me I cannot figure out why.

The return on this government investment is staggering. In 2004, 7(a) loans returned an estimated $12 billion on an $80 million investment. That is a more than a 100-fold return to the economy. It does not take a genius to realize that is good business and it is good common sense.

Despite this, the President says he thinks it is not the government's business to support this program. Instead, he wants to pass the cost along to small business owners, significantly raising the fees they pay to use the program, up to $50,000 in some cases. That is ironic coming from a President who claims that any change in his tax policy will stall our economic recovery.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats understand small businesses and their need for accessible capital. In vote after vote, we are willing to support this vital sector of our economy. If the Republican leadership of this body feels the same, I suggest we stop wasting our time with feel-good resolutions and start putting our money where our mouth is.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I have been listening, listening over in my office initially and now here on the Floor to the discussion, and it strikes me that what the Republicans have given us is a worst-of-both-worlds budget.

The Ranking Member on the Committee on the Budget has described to us very convincingly how this budget takes us over the cliff fiscally. There is no question. We are looking at $400 billion, $500 billion deficits as far as the eye can see; just unprecedented deficits and debt piling up on this country.

One would like to think that if we are incurring that kind of deficit, we are at least getting some bang for the buck, right? We would like to think that we are getting adequate funding for domestic needs, for example. We would like to think that the economy is getting some juice, some stimulus. Yet, we are not getting that, either. We are getting the worst of both worlds. We are going over the cliff fiscally, yet we are not addressing these priorities.

Mr. Speaker, the political premise seems to be, and the gentleman from Maine was getting at this; the political premise seems to be that we are going broke in this country because we are doing too much for education, or because we are building too many highways, or because we are doing too much cancer research, or because too many loans are available to small businesses. I think that is irresponsible, and ``irresponsible'' is a kind word for that kind of political pitch, that we are getting from our Republican friends these days.

The fact is that these domestic expenditures account for very little in the way of our budget difficulties, yet they are being required to bear the brunt of the administration's budget policies. If it is not domestic discretionary expenditures, what is it? I would like to ask the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, we are stuck here in the Congress not able to pass a transportation bill. Our communities are crying out for highway maintenance, for modernizing our highway system, for bringing transit on line. The administration has stood in the way of a congressional accommodation on a transportation bill that would invest in our future. Is highway spending part of that equation?

Yes, in Iraq, but not in this country. We are not going broke because we are building too many highways in this country or doing too much in the way of infrastructure development. In fact, it is very, very foolish to cut back on those things in the name of fiscal balance when the problem in truth lies elsewhere.

Well, if the gentleman will go further, what is the tax side of this equation?

Does the gentleman yield?

I spoke to the Raleigh Kiwanis Club just as tax filing deadline approached a couple of weeks ago and said something about the alternative minimum tax, that if the Members in this room have not figured that alternative minimum tax, you had better do it because I, for one, and sounds like the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) had the same experience, I found just exactly how this is biting, and there were many heads nodding in that room. This alternative minimum tax is reaching deep into the middle class. And as the gentleman says, the President's budget takes no account of the need to fix that.