Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Madam Speaker, I too join with my colleagues, especially the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) in introducing House Resolution 300, in recognition of the South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company.

Madam Speaker, as a member of the Committee on Financial Services, I want to join with all of my colleagues in supporting this legislation that gives due recognition to the South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company on its 50th anniversary.

I recognize the mutual insurance company both as a member of the Committee on Financial Services and as a member of the Committee on Agriculture, but Madam Speaker, even more so, I recognize South Carolina's Farm Bureau because I am a native of South Carolina, having been born on a farm in Aynor, South Carolina, raised in an agricultural community in the tobacco farming area. I have now fond memories, as I serve in Washington, often remembering my days of cropping and suckering and dragging and curing tobacco and then taking it to market in some of the areas around Mullins and Marion and Conway, South Carolina.

On December 19, 1955, the South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company was organized and began

selling greatly needed insurance products to farmers; and, today, the company is the largest domestic insurer in the State serving South Carolinians from many, many walks of life.

The South Carolina Farm Bureau Insurance Company came along at a time when South Carolina farmers were looking for better options in the way of obtaining good insurance coverage that was also affordable. Five decades later, the company supplies a diversity of insurance products to South Carolinians from all walks of life.

The weather-related disasters affecting the gulf coast, and now the new England area, gives us all evidence that mutual insurance companies are essential in helping communities rebuild. The South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company faced a similar tragedy in 1989.

That year, a category 4 hurricane named Hugo created over $7 billion in damage to the Palmetto State of South Carolina; and at the time, Hugo was the costliest hurricane in United States history. The mutual insurance company's staff worked days and worked nights, 24 hours a day, to help make sure its policyholders were dealt with and served correctly; and they settled over 16,264 claims.

In 1999, Hurricane Floyd struck the coast of South Carolina. The South Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company settled 90 percent of the reported claims within 1 week.

Today, the South Carolina Farm Bureau Insurance Company has a presence in every county in the State of South Carolina, which is one reason why they are able to provide such timely and quality service.

As its motto, ``Helping you is what we do best,'' suggests, the South Carolina Farm Bureau Insurance Company has provided a wide range of financial services to the people of South Carolina for a half a century. Five decades of growth and successful development is a wonderful milestone that should be recognized not only by South Carolinians but by all of us throughout this entire Nation as well.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may require to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt).

(Mr. SPRATT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise with indeed a heavy heart, as so many in America do. This is an extraordinary time in our country. My heart goes out to all of those thousands and thousands of people in the gulf area that have lost everything. This is one of our darkest hours, and let us hope some bright light can shine very, very quickly. But in order for that bright light to shine, Mr. Speaker, we must realize the importance of having an investigation quickly.

Let me hurry up and say that this investigation is not a blame game, because we already know where the blame is. It is for those individuals who had the responsibility. It has been a failure of leadership at the national level. Here in Congress, a failure of leadership. At the White House, a failure of leadership. The President, a failure of leadership. Our military, a failure of leadership. And our Homeland Security, a failure of leadership. In FEMA, a failure of leadership. And we must examine that now so that we can prepare quickly for the next disaster, because it is coming, or a terrorist attack. There have been mistakes after mistakes after mistakes. That is why we need a thorough investigation of what went wrong in the Federal response to Katrina, and why there was such a delay. Delay after delay after delay.

We must not try to skirt around and assume and put blame, unrighteous blame, on the city of New Orleans and their police department and mayor, who were victims. They were suffering from the flood. They were suffering from the hurricane. Here is a Category 5 hurricane coming at a city 6 feet below sea level and 30 percent of its population below the poverty level. Where was that plan? Their police departments immediately disseminated. Several of their policemen were killed in the flood. They were not able to do it. And then to hide behind and go to the Governor and say, where is the Governor in this? We cannot fault the Governor for this, nor the mayor. This was a national disaster, and the national leadership failed.

We must move quickly to get an investigation so we can determine what went wrong. The need for this investigation, like I said, is not simply to find blame, but it is to prepare us for future disasters and attacks. We cannot delay in this investigation, because time is of the essence. Questions must be asked and corrections in the system must be made while the timeline of the responses is still fresh in our minds of actually what happened and why, because we do not know how soon the next event will happen.

This was on television, Mr. Speaker, for everyone to see. We cannot run and hide from this one. And I tell my colleagues, in looking at the television, no matter what it is, this is not a Republican problem, it is not a Democratic problem; it is an American problem, and America is expecting us to stand up for America.

There are two essential questions that must be raised and answered. The first one is, why did it take the military so long? Six days. Bodies floating in New Orleans. Flooding up to the rooftops. People trying to get rescued. And on every television station, Fox News, Shepard Smith, my hat is off to him. Tears in his eyes saying, Where is our military? Where are people, Geraldo, cradling a baby, with tears coming down his face. Where is our President? Where is our Congress? Where is our FEMA? Where is our Homeland Security? A failure. We deserve to investigate this quickly, and get answers.

And then the other question, Mr. Speaker, that is on everybody's mind is this one: What role did race and poverty and class play in this?

We cannot hide behind the sensitivities of this. Some of these questions are very unpleasant. They were not created by you or me, but they are there. Those were black and poor people who feel that if those people were white, that would not be happening if they were white and middle class. I am not the only one asking this. African Americans are not the only ones asking this. White people, too, are asking this. We need an investigation to get to the bottom of this particular question.

And then this other question, Mr. Speaker: Why can an administration who can, without a declaration of war, without authority from Congress, invade another country, topple its government, and then can do it in 24 or 72 hours, but it took them 6 days to respond to sick children and people on ventilators who had passed away. We have to ask the question, Mr. Speaker, because the great tragedy here is not Katrina, it is the tens of thousands of American citizens' lives that were lost because their Federal Government failed them. We owe it to the American people, Mr. Speaker, to quickly put together a commission, just like we did with 9/11, with subpoena power, and get to the bottom of this and fix it so that we can put back together and protect this country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson) for yielding to me, and again I concur with all of our colleagues in expressing our partnership, our involvement, our support of the gentleman from Mississippi, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Davis), and certainly the gentleman from New Orleans and Louisiana (Mr. Jefferson).

I want to start out by certainly illustrating an opportunity that our President has to truly lead here. We know that there has been a failure in national leadership. We have talked about that. We have criticized that. But we are going forward now, and there are some important points that need to be made, and I want to appeal to our President because I think he has an excellent opportunity to make up some lost ground on regaining the position of national leadership on this issue because it is not too late because we have got to move forward.

And I think one of the first orders of business, Mr. Speaker, is that the President would reach out to the African American Members of Congress. We are the duly elected representatives who need to be involved in every critical process going forward. We all know the faces on the television cameras. The majority of the victims were African Americans and poor. We know that race and poverty and class play a part in this. Who better to make sure that this Nation is sensitive to that important fact?

It is not something to be brushed under the rug; it is something to be lifted up. For if it is true, there will be more than 10,000 or 12,000 individuals left, and as the water recedes in New Orleans, we owe it to those who have lost their lives, who because they were poor did not have a way to get out. And many in this Nation feel that our national leadership failed them.

Now is the time to pick up from there, and the first order of business would be to reach out to members of this Congressional Black Caucus and make sure that members of the Congressional Black Caucus are active in the investigation committees going forward, to make sure we are there to ask the right questions, to get the right answers, and there will be credibility going forward.

It is important for members of the Congressional Black Caucus to be on the spending committees. So far, there has been $10.5 billion put forward. There is another $50.5 billion that will be put forward later this week, possibly tomorrow. We must be at the table. We must help to decide where that money is going.

And then, Mr. President, here is a sterling opportunity to lead. It is going to take at least $250 billion or $300 billion, by all of the estimates that we have examined, and I have been on the phone to Harvard economists and others who have said that it is going to take at least $300 billion. We need a huge investment in New Orleans, in Louisiana. We need something there that will attract people to come back to New Orleans. One of the sad things I heard so many people saying is, I am going from New Orleans, I am not coming back to New Orleans. Fats Domino said it well: ``I am walking to New Orleans.''

All of us need to walk back to New Orleans. We need people coming from everywhere to walk back to New Orleans so New Orleans does not lose a beat; and in order to do that, we have to put a sizable investment in New Orleans. $200 billion, $300 billion, I do not know the figure, but it is certainly more than 50, certainly more than 100. I would think $300 billion. And we have to think that way. That is what it takes for public works and transportation.

Then we need to determine, what do the victims need to rebuild their identity. They have no license, they have no addresses, they have no money; and where can they get immediate financial help? We have an excellent opportunity for leadership. I look forward to doing it, as do all of us here in the Congressional Black Caucus. This needs to be a partnership and a two-way street, and we look forward to working to make this a positive out of a negative.

Mr. Speaker, as a strong supporter of our Nation's veterans, I support the additional $1.5 billion provided in the FY 2006 Interior Appropriations bill that addresses the current shortfall in funding for veterans' health care. These funds are urgently needed to care for troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the heroes from former conflicts who rely upon the VA for their health care. According to the Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, currently, there are 24.8 million veterans of the U.S. armed services. They served their country in one of the military branches--Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard--or in one of many smaller groups that supported the military services, primarily during World War

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to celebrate August 6, 1965, the day President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law the historic Voting Rights Act. It and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are two of the most significant civil rights statutes ever enacted. Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to protect the voting rights of all Americans and ended the techniques that had been used for decades to deny millions of minorities the right to vote.

Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, those in the civil rights movement worked to get basic civil rights and voting rights enacted into statute. The cost for those in the movement was high: church burnings, bombings, shootings, and beatings. It required the ultimate sacrifice of ordinary Americans: James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner who simply sought to register voters and Jimmie Lee Jackson whose death precipitated the famous march from Selma to Montgomery.

After the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted, those in the civil rights movement turned their attention to the importance of obtaining voting rights. The struggle for voting rights led nonviolent civil rights marchers to gather on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama on March 7, 1965--a day that would come to be known as ``Bloody Sunday'' when the bravery of the marchers was tested by a brutal response, with many marchers being beaten.

The Voting Rights Act provided extensive protections by prohibiting any voting practice that serves as an impediment to the right to vote, such as: intimidation, voter harassment, poll taxes, literacy tests, language barriers, racial gerrymandering and other tools of disenfranchisement. It also provided for criminal and civil sanctions against persons interfering with the right to vote.

It is clear that the Voting Rights Act has been a great success. Consider the statistics. At the time the Act was adopted, only one- third of all African Americans of voting age were on the registration rolls in the specially covered states, while two-thirds of eligible whites were registered. In some states, fewer than five percent of African Americans were registered.

Today, African American voter registration rates are approaching parity with that of whites in many areas, and Hispanic voters in jurisdictions added to the list of those specially covered by the Act in 1975 are not far behind. Also, thanks to the Voting Rights Act, today there are 81 members of Congress of African American, Latino, Asian and Native American descent, and thousands of minorities in elected offices around the country. Despite the progress from 40 years of enforcement of the Voting Rights Act, voter inequities, disparities, and obstacles still remain for far too many minority voters.

It is important that we recognize this significant anniversary because The Voting Rights Act is an expression of important American values--equality, nondiscrimination, fairness, and ensuring the full participation in our society by everyone. Therefore, I celebrate this anniversary with pride and reflection knowing that although we have come a long way, we still have great distance to go in order to fulfill our nation's ideals of equality and equal opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in recognition of Mr. Elmer Hamilton, a civil-rights activist, a crusader for labor rights, a loving husband, and a caring father and grandfather. On August 20, 2005, Elmer will retire from a 45-year career in community and public relations and the organized labor movement.

Mr. Hamilton's life of service began in 1953 when he enlisted in the Navy, eventually serving as a machinist mate. After his military service, Elmer's commitment to civil rights led him to work on voter registration drives in Alabama and Mississippi and organize against racial discrimination in Georgia. He also served as a special assistant to Southern Christian Leadership Conference leader Ralph David Abernathy during his congressional bid.

Elmer's served in various community relations capacities in New York and South Carolina providing educational and job placement services to community members. At one point he served as a community organizer for the Brooklyn, NY, Borough President.

After moving to Georgia, Elmer worked in public transportation as a bus operator for MARTA, the Metro Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority. He became the president of the Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 732 where he negotiated contracts for over 3,000 transit employees from MARTA, Cobb County Transit, and Gwinnett County Transit. When he retires, he will also leave his post as a board member of the AFL-CIO representing the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists.

Mr. Speaker and colleagues, please join me, Elmer's wife, Peggy, his six children and two grandchildren in congratulating Elmer on a fulfilling career. Best wishes, Elmer, and enjoy your retirement.

Mr. Speaker, one of the greatest challenges facing our Nation's health care system today is the medical malpractice insurance crisis. My State of Georgia is one of 18 States that have the highest, most significant medical malpractice insurance premium costs, and it is costing our Georgia and our entire country dearly. Because when our health care industry is in danger, we are all threatened.

Who among us is not a patient, who among us does not need and deserve quality medical care? At its heart, this crisis is a patient care issue. Every one of us wants ourselves and our loved ones to receive the highest quality health care possible.

We have to address the issue of medical malpractice insurance and the extremely high cost of health care. In 2000, Georgia physicians paid more than $92 million to cover jury awards. That amount was the 11th highest in the Nation despite the fact that Georgia ranks 38th in total number of physicians in the United States.

Forty percent of the State's hospitals faced premium increases of 50 percent or more in 2002. St. Paul, the State's second largest insurance carrier, stopped selling medical liability insurance last year. Remaining insurers have reportedly raised rates for some specialties by 70 percent or greater. Some emergency room physicians, OB-GYNs and radiologists have not yet found a new carrier.

Our health care system is suffering immensely, but some say that this moment in time will pass, that this crisis does not warrant taking serious action. But study after study proves them wrong.

Earlier this year, the Georgia Board for Physician Workforce released a study showing the effects of the medical liability crisis on access to health care for Georgia's patients. For example, the study shows that 17.8 percent of physicians, more than 2,800 physicians in Georgia, are expected to limit the scope of their practices which is by far the largest effect of the medical liability insurance crisis on access to medical care.

These physicians are expected to stop providing high-risk procedures in their practices during the next year in order to limit their liability risk. Nearly 1 in 3 obstetrician/gynecologists and 1 in 5 family practitioners reported plans to stop providing high-risk procedures, indicating that access to obstetrical care may be significantly reduced during the next year as a result of the medical liability insurance crisis.

In addition, nearly 11 percent or 1,750 physicians reported that they have stopped or plan to stop providing emergency room services. Six hundred and thirty physicians plan to stop practicing medicine altogether or leave the state because of high medical malpractice insurance rates. About 13 percent of doctors reported that they had difficulty finding malpractice insurance coverage.

In fact, at one particular Georgia hospital, the hospital could not give credentials to a surgeon and add that physician to its staff because the surgeon could not afford to buy medical malpractice insurance. In another instance, an obstetrician-gynecologist had to close his Georgia practice and work for a health care agency because he could not afford to buy medical malpractice insurance.

What happens to the patients that his hospital could have treated but now it cannot because it does not have the surgeons that it needs? What happens to the mothers who need a doctor to provide pre- and post-natal health care but cannot find one because doctors are leaving the profession due to the high cost of medical malpractice care?

In addition, Georgia is heavily dependent on other states to train physicians. Approximately 70 percent of participating physicians in Georgia completed training in another State. High costs of medical malpractice liability insurance may reduce the attractiveness of Georgia as a location for medical practice. High professional liability insurance costs are a significant financial problem for teaching hospitals, reducing the already limited funding available for faculty, residents, and other medical education costs.

Even more upsetting, the high cost of medical malpractice insurance for doctors and hospitals disproportionately affects seniors, minority and low-income patients. The physicians and hospitals who depend on Medicare reimbursements and who serve the over 44 million uninsured Americans every day cannot afford to pay higher insurance premiums. We need to ensure that these communities have access to quality health care and the best physicians or the health disparity that currently exists will continue to deepen and create a two-tier health care system.

But it is not only medical care in the present that is threatened, but also into the future. Many of the medical schools in our State are saying now that many of students are having second thoughts about even coming into the medical profession.

These statistics prove that Georgia's doctors cannot wait. More and more each day, good, principled health care providers are confronting the possibility of being unable to treat their patients because of out- of-control medical malpractice insurance premiums. There is no question that Congress must act, and act immediately.

I support H.R. 5 because doctors, hospitals, and the health care industry are caught in the middle between insurance companies and lawyers. Doctors are being squeezed by their medical malpractice insurance premiums and by the high amounts being awarded to injured patients. Doctors need to see results; they need to know that if this bill becomes law that their insurance premiums will go down. The message must reach the insurance companies that premiums have to go down so that the medical profession can survive and access to health care is improved. The health care industry must have relief and this bill, although not the final answer, is the first step in addressing the problems that affect doctors and the health care industry.

We must help doctors, physicians and dentists, hospitals, other health care providers, and, ultimately, American patients who are suffering in untold ways. Immeasurable damage is occurring in our Nation's health care delivery system because of the high cost of medical malpractice insurance. With the passage of this bill, the House of Representatives will send a clear and salient message to the insurance industry, and that message is: Bring down the cost of medical malpractice insurance for physicians and hospitals.

Mr. Speaker, tonight we stand on the precipice of doing something great for America. And I think we ought to pause for a moment and ask the question: What would the American people want us to do here tonight?

Well, I am here to tell you what I think the American people want us to do. The American people who are watching television tonight, they are hoping with their fingers crossed that finally, finally the Congress will stand up for America.

We stood up for Morocco, we stood up for Singapore, we stood up for China, for India. Now we are about to stand up for the nations in Central America. America is saying, when are you going to stand up for us, the workers, the backbone of America?

This CAFTA is fraught with weaknesses in terms of labor rights all throughout. Ever since we have had our trade agreements, just over the past 10 years we have lost 3 million jobs, manufacturing jobs. We have lost 2\1/2\ million jobs to China, to India in servicing.

I say to you tonight, stand up for America and America will be very thankful and very proud that we did. Vote ``no'' on CAFTA. Let us send it back, and let us fix it.

Trade agreements must benefit both workers and corporations. CAFTA benefits corporations but does not benefit workers. CAFTA fails to include adequate protections for workers. In fact, the U.S. State Department has documented numerous areas where CAFTA countries failed to comply with even the most basic minimum labor standards and worker's rights.

CAFTA will cost American jobs and this is the Achilles' heal in our approach to trade agreements which I find most disturbing. Were sending millions of jobs overseas and manufacturing plants are closing in America because of our trade policies. In the last 10 years, we have lost 3 million manufacturing jobs and nearly 1 million financial services and call center jobs to China and especially, India because of our trade agreements.

China & India are eating our lunch

We must fix this ``outsourcing of American jobs'' problem in this CAFTA bill before we move forward with it. During one of our Financial Services Committee hearings, I asked Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan what he thought was the big threat to the American economy and he said the `loss of

jobs, the loss of skilled jobs.'' We are lossing too many American jobs to overseas foreign markets and we are not investing in retaining, retooling our workforce for the technically skilled jobs of the 21st Century.

Finallty, we need to ask ourselves how the American people want us to vote on CAFTA tonight. All over the country, they are watching us to see what Congress is going to do. I am there to tall you that the people of America wants us to stand up for Americans, for change. In our trade agreements, they want us to keep American jobs in America, to protect workers' rights protect the environment, and stop out sourcing jobs to other countries.

Vote ``no'' on CAFTA so that we can go back and fix this imbalance. We can do this and still keep trade benefits for American corporations.

To night, let's stand up for American. Ladies and Gentlemen vote ``no'' on CAFTA.

Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in support of Title II of, H.R. 458 Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act. Title II of this measure regulates lenders who target the military and safeguards our armed services personnel from unscrupulous consumer credit lending and collection practices.

Many lenders have developed sales campaigns to market directly to military personnel. A few unscrupulous agents have made misleading pitches to `captive' audiences, by posing as counselors on veteran's benefits and soliciting soldiers while they were on duty. In some instances, lenders have garnished military personnel's wages or required them to agree to have their loan repaid through the allotment system. Title II of H.R. 458 would clarify that lenders cannot garnish a military salary or give the appearance that they are agents of the military.

Predatory lenders have contacted or threatened to contact the borrower's commanding officer in order to collect debt. In addition, some lenders have required borrowers to sign documents as a condition of obtaining the loan that purportedly waive their legal rights, including requiring the borrower to submit to mandatory arbitration of any dispute. H.R. 458 would prohibit a lender to contact a loan recipient's chain of command and the measure would ensure that the customer's rights are not waived.

Title II in H.R. 458 recognizes that many military personnel are not aware of their borrowing options or rights or how to manage their finances after taking out a loan. To remember this problem, under Title II, military lenders would be required to provide detailed disclosures prior to the consummation of a loan transaction.

Last year, as a member ofthe House Committee on Financial Services, I expressed concerns about unscrupulous military lenders in several hearings. Some of these reported scams occurred at Fort Benning in my state of Georgia and were made public through a series of articles in the New York Times.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that Title II of H.R. 458 takes strong steps to ensure that our military men and women are not treated as second- class citizens when it comes to financial transactions and loans.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to say that there are extraordinary discrepancies faced by African Americans and associate my remarks with the eloquent remarks of those who have preceded me from the Congressional Black Caucus.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to introduce legislation to honor the senior Member from the state of Georgia and my friend, John Lewis, for his work as an engineer of the civil rights movement. Along with my colleague in the other body, Senator Saxby Chambliss, I proudly put my name as the original sponsor of this bill to name a historic building near the center of the struggle for equality--Auburn Avenue in Atlanta, Georgia--as the ``John Lewis Civil Rights Institute.''

Without question, Congressman Lewis' work in the civil rights movement was crucial to the success of that struggle. He grew up in Alabama, and was inspired to get involved after hearing reports of the Montgomery bus boycott, orchestrated by the young Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. As a student at Fisk University in Nashville, Tennessee, Congressman Lewis began organizing sit-ins at segregated lunch counters. He also participated in the freedom rides, challenging segregated bus stations across the South. For these simple acts of non- violent resistance, John Lewis was often violently physically attacked. But his resolve did not waver.

Congressman Lewis served as Chairnan of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) which students of history recall as the central group working to organize and publicize the demonstrations by young people which were occurring across the region. This increasingly high-profile work lead him to be named as one of the ``Big Six'' leaders of the movement, and brought about his role as a speaker at the March on Washington in August 1963, a political and cultural event that changed the course of the nation.

But Congressman Lewis' life-threatening commitment to change did not end there. In 1965, Congressman Lewis led over 600 nonviolent protesters in the march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama. Through the gripping media coverage of this disturbing event, the rest of America was finally forced to confront the violence and injustice being perpetrated against African Americans.

And his work for civil rights continues to this day. From his work during the height of the

civil rights movement, to his time as a Presidential appointee during the Carter Administration, to his service as an elected official first on the Atlanta City Council and finally as a Member of Congress, John Lewis has never wavered.

The victories our country can claim in this fight are in no small part due to the selfless sacrifices of John Lewis. For his humble service, for his commitment to justice and equality for all people, he deserves to be honored in this small way. I call on my colleagues in the House of Representatives to join me in working for the swift passage of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to talk to the House about this deficit and about our failure and the consequences facing this Nation if we do not respond and put some brakes on our spending.

This deficit is our greatest problem and the greatest threat to the financial security of the United States, which means the financial security of the free world.

Just think of it, when this administration, when President Bush took office 4 years ago, we had over $2 trillion surplus. Now, 4 years later, we have over a $4 trillion deficit, running up nearly $400 billion as we speak here this afternoon.

This is dangerous. It is not in the best interest of this country. Just think of this one fact: just on paying the deficit, paying the interest on what we are borrowing, 90 percent of which we are borrowing from foreign countries, China, Japan, India, 90 percent of our debt is being held by foreign interests. How insecure is that? And just the amount that we are paying, the interest is more than what we are paying for our own national security.

America, we need to wake up. We need to understand what is at stake; our future is what is at stake. And who is going to pay this debt? Not me. Not anyone in this room. Our children, our grandchildren. I have children; I have two young grandchildren. Is it right to saddle them with this deficit?

Just recently on the issue of Social Security, the President's answer for Social Security is to do what? Borrow more money to set up private accounts. That will do absolutely nothing to deal with the solvency of Social Security.

Something is wrong and this House must move to correct it. Not long ago or at a time of great crisis in this country, two great men sat here right here in Washington, D.C. One was Robert E. Lee and the other was Abraham Lincoln. They sat on the balcony of the White House and looked out at all the devastation that the Civil War had brought.

These are two great Americans. Abraham Lincoln said to Robert E. Lee, It is not incumbent upon us to complete the task. Robert E. Lee finished the sentence and said, But neither are we free to desist from doing all we possibly can.

Are we doing all we possibly can on this deficit, on this debt? No, we are not. We are on that side, and we are on this side, and we are on this corner. The American people are expecting us to come together, solve this deficit, pay as you go, put some strong fiscal responsibility in this House and solve Social Security.

There was a recent poll on Social Security that I bring of interest. It was just out in yesterday's paper. It had an interesting point. Sixty-two percent of the American people feel that the Republicans will do too much to solve the Social Security problem and sixty-one percent of the American people feel that the Democrats will do too little. Therein lies our challenge, but also lies our opportunity, from this side to come and from that side to come and we can come together and solve this issue.

Mr. Speaker, let me conclude with this statement, a very important statement. On the bleached bones of many past great civilizations are written those pathetic words: Too late.

Will that be our epitaph? When the history books are written, what did this Congress do to save Social Security, to pay down the debt?

Let it not be that the history books will write of us ``too late.''

Mr. Speaker, I want to just, first of all, thank our distinguished Minority Whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for the distinguished leadership that he has been providing on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss what is one of the what I call tragic burdens, one of the greatest tragic burdens on the American family, and this is the costly, complex Tax Code. This Friday, April 15, is tax day for millions of Americans who will spend countless hours this week trying to comply with our unbelievably complex tax laws.

At the outset, I want to make something very clear, Mr. Speaker, to the American people tonight. Let me make it clear that it is Democrats who you will see tonight who are taking the leadership. It will be Democrats on this floor of the Congress tonight who are taking the leadership to make our tax system fairer, less complicated, and simpler.

Now we all know that over the last 4 years this government has been getting bigger under the Republicans. The deficits have soared under the Republicans. Social Security is coming under direct attack and attempting to be dismantled and privatized by the Republicans. And our tax system has gotten more complicated, more unfair and complex under the Republicans.

There has been a growing unfairness in the Tax Code and an astronomically exploding national debt, trillions upon trillions of dollars, and growing each year.

But, Mr. Speaker, it is Democrats who are here tonight providing the leadership for tax fairness, for tax relief, for tax simplification and, most importantly, for reducing taxes on working American families.

Americans are double-taxed by the time and expense that it takes to do their taxes. For example, individuals, businesses, tax-exempt public and private entities spend nearly 6 billion hours complying with the Tax Code.

Nearly 60 percent of taxpayers currently use a tax professional to prepare their taxes, compared to only 40 percent in 1990. A typical taxpayer knows that a competent tax professional does not work for free, so it is costing taxpayers an estimated $100 billion each year in accounting fees and the value of their time to complete their tax returns.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I am reading a very interesting book by Thomas Friedman, and it is called ``The World is Flat''. And in this book, he talks about a phenomenal situation that takes place largely because of the paperwork and the complexity of our tax returns and preparing them.

He points out very clearly in a chapter called ``While I Was Sleeping'' that over in India a burgeoning industry is taking place, preparing Americans' taxes, outsourcing jobs. In 2001, it was 50,000; 2002, it was 100,000; 2003, it was 400,000; and 2005 it is projected to be over one million. Not just jobs, but our precious preparation of our taxes being outsourced.

I am here to tell you that our failure to simplify our Tax Code is causing a major transformation of our accounting profession. Taxpayers are losing money due to the complexities of the system.

The Government Accountability Office estimates that Americans overpay their taxes by an estimated $1 billion a year because they fail to claim deductions. About a quarter of Americans who are eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit fail to claim it due to complexities.

Mr. Speaker, this is terrible. It is a tragedy, and we must make our Tax Code easier for the American people, make it easier for them to figure it out.

As an entrepreneur who started a successful small business, I was not surprised to learn that the IRS estimates that the average self- employed taxpayer has the greatest compliance burden of almost 60 hours to prepare his or her taxes. It is no wonder that small business owners overpaid their taxes by $18 billion in 2000 and 2001, according to the

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1077, the Realtime Investor Protection Act. This legislation will make it faster and easier for investors to obtain information about the brokers with whom they entrust their savings and retirement funds.

Since 1990, the NASD has been required to provide investors with registration information on individual brokers by toll-free telephone call or in writing. The system has provided valuable information on a broker's disciplinary history, including customer complaints, that an investor can use in selecting a broker.

While that system has worked well, the NASD would like to be able to provide this information directly to investors over the Internet where the information will be more accessible to investors and can be provided in a manner that will make it easier for investors to understand and compare among brokers.

Of the over 2.5 million plus inquiries the NASD received last year, approximately 96 percent were through the Internet, and less than 4 percent were by telephone. Because of the narrow language of the existing statute, however, NASD has not been able to put disclosure information online. Rather, investors must request and wait for a written disclosure report to be mailed or e-mailed to them.

Under the bill, the NASD would be required to make the information it maintains on brokers available to investors over the Internet, as well as by toll-free telephone call. The NASD would be held harmless for information disclosed or withheld in good faith through the expanded system, just as it is under the current statute for information provided over the telephone or in writing.

Additionally, the bill would require the NASD to establish an administrative process to address disputes over the accuracy of information, ensuring procedural fairness and an opportunity for a broker to correct errors or dispute information provided by a securities firm to the NASD. The bill also authorizes the Securities and Exchange Commission to designate the NASD to provide investor access to registration information concerning investment advisers, providing investors with another potentially valuable source of information when shopping for a financial professional.

Mr. Speaker, given the extent to which consumers have come to rely on the Internet for the information they need in making financial decisions, it is clearly time to make this information more accessible to investors. I urge support for H.R. 1077.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 436, the Increased Capital Access For Growing Businesses Act. I want to commend the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) for bringing this matter to the committee's attention, as well as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for their support in expediting the consideration of this measure. With this legislation, we have an excellent opportunity to help more small businesses access capital so that they can expand and grow their businesses.

Business development companies, or BDCs, are unique investment companies authorized by the 1980 amendments to the Investment Company Act. They are publicly traded companies that invest primarily in smaller companies. Since 1980, BDCs have proven to be a valuable and effective source of funding for small companies, allowing growing companies access to both capital and managerial expertise.

In 1980 when BDCs were first authorized by Congress, about two-thirds of all publicly held companies were eligible for BDC investment. While the securities and financial services industries evolved during the 1990s, neither Congress nor the SEC acted to keep the BDC statute current. As a result, the number of public companies in which BDCs could invest has been reduced drastically, effectively eliminating the option of BDC investment for many small public companies.

It is important to understand that just because a firm has gone public does not mean that it can access the financing necessary for growing and expanding. Many small companies that went public in the late 1990s, for instance, found themselves unable to access the public markets for additional capital after the market bubble burst. These smaller, illiquid company stocks could benefit greatly from financing offered by BDCs. Instead, an out-of-date regulatory structure severely restricts such investments by BDCs.

The current standard for eligibility, whether or not a company has outstanding marginable securities, has proven unworkable as it is tied to a standard that is no longer relevant. H.R. 3170 creates a more workable standard to enable BDCs to provide financing to companies as originally intended by the 1980 amendments. The legislation provides an objective standard, based on a market capitalization test, to modernize the definition of eligible portfolio companies.

H.R. 3170 modernizes United States security laws to reflect changes in the marketplace. Small and growing companies are often widely regarded as engines of economic growth and job creation. Allowing BDCs to invest in more companies in need of capital will provide more opportunities, more jobs, and contribute to the economic expansion. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation critical for small businesses and the entire United States economy. Mr. Speaker, I urge support of H.R. 436.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.