Floor Statements

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

I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1025, the Mortgage Servicing Clarification Act. I would like to thank my colleague from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski) for his leadership on this bill. My thanks also go to the lead Republican sponsor of this legislation, the gentleman from California (Mr. Royce), who has worked in a very strong bipartisan way to bring this bill to the floor. I commend him for that. I also want to thank the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Financial Services, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), and the other cosponsors of the bill from both sides of the aisle for their support and help with bringing this bill before the House.

The bill before us is largely technical in nature and seeks to address a change in market practices not anticipated by the original Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, or FDCPA. The bill addresses a conflict between the disclosure requirements of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, or RESPA, and

the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, FDCPA. This conflict only applies to a limited number of companies that act as both mortgage servicers and collectors of mortgage-related debt.

Section 6 of RESPA requires that any entity that is assigned or acquires servicing rights to a mortgage must notify the borrower of the transfer of mortgage servicing. The new entity must identify itself as the new loan servicer and disclose to borrowers that they have the right to dispute or obtain additional information about the terms of the debt being transferred.

Section 807, part 11 of FDCPA requires that any person seeking to collect a debt must identify themselves in any initial communication as a debt collector, identify the debt to be collected, and notify the debtor of their right to validate the debt and other protections provided by FDCPA. Since mortgage servicers often acquire servicing rights for entire portfolios of loans, a number of loans are likely to be in default at the time of transfer. Subsequent efforts by the acquiring servicer to collect on the defaulted debts have at times been thwarted on technical grounds with claims that the collection effort violated FDCPA. This is so because the initial communication received by the debtor was the notice of servicing transfer rather than the required notice of debtor rights.

The compromise that was negotiated 3 years ago to address this problem and which the House has previously passed under suspension would create a narrow exemption from the requirement to provide a notice of debtor rights under the FDCPA for a mortgage service who acquires responsibility for servicing a mortgage by assignment, sale, or transfer.

Under this exemption, a mortgage servicer could not be held liable for not providing a notice of debtor right for any loan that is actually in default at the time of the transfer of servicing rights. This means that the exemption is narrowly drawn so as to affect a very small number of mortgages.

Mr. Speaker, this is a fine bill. I urge support for H.R. 1025.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, the Republican's 2006 budget resolution makes the wrong choices for our Nation. It reflects skewed priorities and runs counter to our deepest held beliefs. The budget embraces disastrous economic policies while at the same time failing to put forward a vision of what the United States should be. What America needs instead is responsible policies that reflect our values, help bring our Nation together, and invests in the future by expanding opportunity. Many programs important to Georgia are cut, including $800 million from the Centers for Disease Control, funding for

firefighters by 30 percent and $26.7 million in Homeland Security Funding for Georgia. These programs provide front-line protections to Georgia communities. Further, this budget hurts my state's military installations and veterans by cutting $60 million from last year's spending for military construction projects and cutting healthcare for 2 million Georgian veterans.

Communities are harmed by cutting Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) by $211.9 million over the next four years. Representatives from the cities of Riverdale and Powder Springs told me this week that their plans for building community centers depend on funding of CDBG. The budget will also eliminate the HOPE VI program, which is revitalizing public housing in Georgia. The Section 8 housing vouchers cut would remove 8,700 families from the program in Georgia.

This budget proposes to cut vital domestic investments and services for the middle class and poor, while continuing to accumulate huge budget deficits. Education is cut by $366.8 million affecting 91,050 Georgia children by under funding the No Child Left Behind Act. TRIO programs by almost $13 million for Georgia, affecting 13,000 students and vocational and adult education in Georgia would be reduced by $173.7 million from 2006-2010. Healthcare would be affected by an estimated $7.9 million cut to Southern Regional Hospital. These Medicaid cuts hurt Clayton County where 24.2 percent of the population in 2003 utilized Medicaid. About 10 percent of Clayton County is below the Federal Poverty Level.

Despite these cuts, every Georgia family's share of the national debt has been increased by $38,281.

The federal budget should be an honest blueprint for the spending priorities of the government. However, this budget is not honest. It is passing our obligations, responsibilities and challenges to our children and grandchildren, while cutting programs that benefit the poorest among us.

We need not accept a federal budget that singles out hard-working middle-class families, those who have served our Nation, and our society's most vulnerable citizens. Americans deserve an honest budget that reflects their priorities and that honors their hard work. I urge my colleagues to reject these unnecessary cuts and work to improve the capacity of programs to address critical community needs.

Mr. Speaker, the 2006 budget that we just passed that now moves to a conference committee makes the wrong choices for our Nation. It reflects secured priorities and runs counter to our deepest held beliefs. This budget embraces disastrous economic policies while at the same time fails to put forward a vision of what this great country of the United States should be.

What America needs instead are responsible policies that reflect our values and helps bring our Nation together and invests in the future by expanding opportunity. But this budget proposes to cut vital domestic investments and services for the middle class, for our veterans, for our seniors, for our children, for the needy among us, while continuing to accumulate a huge budget deficit.

And, Mr. Speaker, there is no State in the union that is hurt more from this budget, from the cuts of it these budgets, than our State of Georgia. And keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, this is a State that just recently voted overwhelmingly for the President. But yet here we are in Georgia suffering more from this budget than any other State, $800 million cut from the Centers For Disease Control when we need all of the help we can get to fight the mounting diseases, life threatening diseases, that are moving across our Nation.

Sixty million dollars have been cut from last year's spending for military construction projects in Georgia, $366.8 million dollars from 91,050 Georgia children by underfunding No Child Left Behind, $26.7 million in homeland security funding in Georgia has been cut under this budget, $7.9 million has been cut from the Georgia Regional Hospital; TRIO programs for almost 13 million Georgians, affecting 13,000 students and many of these students from impoverished backgrounds, many of these students first-time members of college from families. Thirty- seven million dollars have been cut in Perkins scholarships in Georgia. And one particular project, Mr. Speaker, $75,000 has been cut from an educational and recreational center in Powder Springs in Cobb County, Georgia, in the midst of construction, which halts the construction of this badly needed project.

And let me turn to HOPE VI, one of the most successful housing programs this Nation has ever produced. It is being eliminated completely from the budget, which revitalizes public housing. And in Atlanta, Georgia, in the metropolitan area, HOPE VI is the greatest success story among HOPE VI projects in the entire Nation, but it is costing our community $120 million in economic loss, not to count the millions that is lost from leveraging those badly needed dollars and improving the surrounding communities. Heartless and cruel are words that come to mind.

Section 8 families are cut by 8,700 in Georgia. Community Development Block Grants, which our cities and our counties and our local communities live by, cut by $211.9 million. And health care for 2 million Georgia veterans cut. Funding for firefighters cut by 30 percent.

This is not a budget of vision. This is not a budget of hope. This is a great country. This budget does not reflect the vision of a great country. This budget cuts nearly $2 billion out of Georgia's economy. And on top of that in spite of the cuts, each Georgia family's share of the national debt has been increased by $38,281. This budget is irresponsible, and the cuts are going to hurt an awful lot of America's precious people.

As a member of the Blue Dogs, we have repeatedly said we must pay as we go. We have repeatedly said that the Federal budget should be an honest blueprint for spending of priorities of the Federal Government. However, this budget is not honest. It is passing our obligations and responsibilities and challenges to our children and our grandchildren while cutting vital programs. This budget increases the national debt. It increases the deficit while cutting important programs.

Now we must work, Mr. Speaker, and implore this House/Senate joint conference committee to do the responsible thing for America and let us move with the vision, the courage that the people of America expect us to do and restore these cuts and move forward with a responsible budget.

Mr. Speaker, what a sad occasion. We come to pay a great tribute to a great American. And I want to join with my colleagues who are all here in recognition of this.

Ossie Davis personified all that is good and what is right about America. Coming out of the backwoods of Georgia, Cogell, Georgia, he soon became recognized as a renaissance man, to do so many things so well, actor, playwright, writer, civil rights leader, humanitarian, all of these things.

I happened to know and got to know him through his work in the Alliance Theater in Atlanta and on the trips he made down to Florida A&M University. And on so many occasions when he spoke, everybody listened. And one of the things he enjoyed most was a poem that I think best personifies Ossie Davis. And he would use this poem at the end of everything that he would say.

He would say, ``Well, son, I'll tell you, you know, life for me ain't been no crystal stair. It's had tacks in it and splinters and boards torn up, no carpet on the floor, bare. But all the while I's been aclimbing on and reaching landings and turning corners and sometimes going in the dark where there ain't been no light. So, boy, don't you stop. Don't you sit down on the steps because you find it's kinda hard. Don't you fall now. For I's still climbing. I's still going on, honey. You see, life for me ain't been no crystal stair.''

Life was no crystal stair to Ossie Davis. And, you know, the Lord works in strange and mysterious ways; this is Black History Month, and He chose this month to bring Ossie Davis home.

We salute you, our shining black prince.

Mr. Speaker, I want to spend just a few minutes talking about these private accounts and emphasizing two groups, young people and African Americans.

I want to state first out that President Bush insists that he is undertaking this drastic dismantling of Social Security for the good of our young people. He wants Americans to believe that private accounts are a great deal and a good deal for those under age 55. But the President is wrong. Privatizing Social Security not only does not help; it is a hindrance to the financial security of young people for several reasons.

First of all, these private accounts will not be monies handed to young people to invest as they see fit. Plans will be chosen for the young people, and these plans will be complex, complicated; they will have certain restrictions and limits, and then there is that troublesome annuity requirement.

All I say to young people across America today is to look at this privatization and examine it very, very carefully. I want young people to do something else. I hope that most young Americans will think about how their lives will change if their parents do not have Social Security on which to rely. In fact, without Social Security, their parents will likely have to rely on them for a portion of their income. And caring for aging parents is difficult enough for adult children without the added burden of having to replace income from promised Social Security benefits, which will be lost due to the President's privatization plan.

As a senior Bush administration official admitted last week, ``Private personal accounts will do absolutely nothing to fix Social Security's fiscal problems.''

The President claims he will not cut benefits for current retirees to fund his proposal. He claims he will not raise payroll taxes. Well, the only thing left is to borrow the money, thereby increasing the deficit, a deficit that will have to be paid, of course, you guessed it, by younger workers, the very group that the President is saying he is trying to help.

Another sad misrepresentation of the President's plan is his insistence that young people will be able to invest their money as they see fit. In reality, the plan will only allow workers a choice from among a handful of investment options, not the entire stock market, and not as you see fit. If young people believe they will have the ability to invest their payroll taxes in any stock or mutual fund they choose, they are wrong.

Once again, this plan is not what it seems, and I hope the young people will realize the problems inherent in the privatization of Social Security. Look for yourself. This may be a Trojan horse.

Now, I want to say that I like President Bush personally. I have been one of those few Democrats who have worked with the President on many of his proposals. But I have been recently disturbed when President Bush said that since black men die sooner than whites, Social Security is a bad deal for them and private accounts is a better deal.

Well, I agree with Columnist Paul Krugman, who noticed recently that President Bush has blatantly manipulated the facts and made false assertions, all in the hope of convincing African Americans that this is a good deal for us. The claim that black people get a bad deal from Social Security because of a shorter life expectancy is wrong.

Mr. Bush's use of this false argument is doubly shameful. I do believe he is getting some bad advice on this, because I know the President, and I know that he is a decent person. But inadvertently, when he makes the claim that Social Security is bad for black people because they die younger, he is exploiting the high black youth mortality rate to promote this privatization plan instead of trying to remove the deep inequities that remain and that black people face in our society.

The black population's low life expectancy is largely due to high death rates in childhood and young adulthood, before we even get started. The childhood infancy mortality rate among black people is three times the national rate. We are there before we even get started.

So when the President makes this kind of statement, it is sort of like cutting the legs out from under a man and then condemning him for being a cripple. We know that when African American men make it to 65, they collect the same amount of benefits and they live 14 or 15 years additionally, almost up to the 16 years of white Americans.

In conclusion, I would just like to say that Social Security is a good program for all Americans. The President's proposal to privatize the program is not. Social Security gives people with lower earning a greater return on what they paid. I just want to say to the American people to look very carefully and let us stand up for what is right; let us stand up for what is good about America. And what is right and what is good for America is to strengthen Social Security, not weaken it. And these private accounts will weaken it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much, my distinguished colleague from Florida (Mr. Meek) for yielding.

I certainly want to congratulate him and of course my distinguished colleague from Ohio; and we are at a crossroads in America, and we need to pay very, very close attention to what is happening.

I want to talk for just a few moments some plain, kitchen-table talk because these are kitchen-table issues. These are issues of substance. It is how your tax dollars are being spent with the budget. It is also how we are going about to fix the most effective, most meaningful government program that has ever been created in Social Security; and when I get to the Social Security part, I want to stress an emphasis on young people and African Americans because there have been some very significant misleading statements and bad information that is being put out.

First, let me just say a few words, if I may, on this budget, because it is very, very problematic.

First, the Draconian cuts in discretionary spending do not reduce the deficit. In fact, the deficit continues as far as the eye can see. This budget is not honest because it omits many important priorities, thus negating President Bush's promise to cut the deficit in half by 2009.

Further, this budget has the audacity to raise taxes on our veterans. As Shakespeare's Julius Caesar said to Brutus, ``Et tu Brutus, yours is the meanest cut of all.'' I am here to say, in this budget, the meanest cut is to our veterans, when we need to be doing more for our veterans, not less, and certainly not raising taxes on our veterans, as this budget does.

Veterans, wake up. I have got so many veterans in my district down in Atlanta, Georgia. I just spoke to the American Legion in Jonesboro, Georgia, and they said, David, you have got to do more for the veterans, and I said we would.

Then I come back here and see that this budget that President Bush has submitted raises the taxes on our veterans, and then this budget also hurts our farmers by cutting back on badly needed farm programs. Our veterans, our farmers, no two groups of people stand for what is right and good about this country more than our veterans and our farmers. That is how we got started, with our farmers; and that is how we sustain and grow our freedom in America and around the world for the price that our veterans paid.

This budget is not balanced. In fact, this budget creates a new record deficit of $427 billion for fiscal year 2006. This administration's budget continues a record of deficits and rising debt over the last 4 years. For the third year, the administration's budget creates a new record deficit, while offering no plan to restore the budget to balance.

The $5.6 trillion 10-year surplus inherited by this administration from the Clinton administration, which should have been used to strengthen Social Security, instead has been used and squandered and replaced by a deficit of $4 trillion over the same period from 2002 to 2011.

One goal of the deficit reduction accomplished during the Clinton administration was to save for the retirement of the baby boomers. We have had our eye on this problem for a long time. This is not just a problem coming and all of the sudden this administration finds that it has all the wonders in the world. We Democrats have been grappling with this problem of Social Security and the baby boomer generation coming for a long time, but we vowed that we will solve the Social Security problem without cutting benefits and without raising taxes and without robbing the Social Security trust fund of $2 trillion to set up private accounts.

Instead, this administration has run up mountains of new debt which just passes the bill for today's policy choices on to our children and our grandchildren.

Under the administration's policies, the annual burden of the Federal debt on the typical American family will more than double over the next 10 years, with each family's share of the Federal interest payments on the debt rising from just over $2,000 per year to around $5,000 per year. This is not the kind of legacy we should be leaving to our future, to our children. This debt transfer is essentially a birth tax.

This budget is not honest. Several of the President's top priorities are omitted from this budget. What surprises me is that these projects that he is omitting from his budget this week were signature points in his State of the Union speech last week. These omitted policies, including debt service, add $2 trillion to the 10-year deficit.

Not included in this budget are transition costs for privatizing Social Security. If we are going to privatize Social Security and set up the account, we have got to have $2 trillion. Where is that in the budget? How is the President going to pay for it?

By delaying the start of the President's new Social Security plan until 2009 and then phasing in over 3 years, the budget manages to avoid showing most of the costs, but they are going to be substantial. Social Security actuaries have estimated that the cost would be about $750 billion over the 2009 to 2015 period alone.

Also not included in the budget are funds for the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Listen, we are at war. We have got our troops over there. We asked for $81 billion for them. It is not even in this budget. I ask my colleagues, is that responsible? Just think, the additional $81 billion being asked for this year for our soldiers, for their armor and for the military are not even in this budget; and according to the Congressional Budget Office, costs for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan could run as high as $400 billion more than the budget includes.

Another thing, the alternative minimum tax which protects middle- income taxpayers is not in the budget, $640 billion.

Then the veterans, my heart goes out for our veterans. They will not be able to even go into a hospital without first of all paying a fee of $250. This budget imposes a $250 annual enrollment fee for veterans without service-connected disabilities who also have incomes above the VA means-tested levels, and the budget also increases pharmacy copayments for our veterans from $7 to $15, over 100 percent. Veterans, wake up. Get on the phone and call your Congressman and see what they are doing to our veterans in this budget.

Both of these veterans taxes were proposed in the last two budgets; but we in Congress rejected them and I assure my colleagues, under Democratic leadership we will reject them again this year.

This Federal budget should be an honest blueprint for the spending priorities of the government. However, this budget is not honest. It is passing our

obligations, responsibilities, and challenges to our children and grandchildren; and that is immoral. Let us stand up for the honesty and goodness of our Nation and reject this budget.

I want to talk for just a moment on the Social Security; but as we can see, it is very difficult for us to even before we get to the Social Security, we have got to explain to the American people what is happening with this budget and the unmerciful cuts.

Despite what the President claimed in his State of the Union speech, his proposal to privatize Social Security hurts everyone. His plan will cut guaranteed Social Security benefits by more than 40 percent in the coming decades, risky private accounts which will cut retirement, disability and survivor benefits of millions of Americans and will not help Social Security; but it will begin the process of dismantling it.

And somewhere I really believe that that might be the intention.

Social Security needs a solid source of funding, not a plan that makes the problem worse by draining $2 trillion away from this important program and forces Americans to borrow millions of dollars from foreign governments, as my friend from Ohio pointed out. Why do we want to mortgage this country to China, to India, to Japan, to Saudi Arabia? Because all of our debt is being handled by them; 90 percent of our new debt is in the hands of foreign governments. And just the interest alone that we are paying them is more than what we in our own country pay for national security.

America, wake up. Social Security needs a solid source of funding and not a plan that will make it worse. This President insists he is undertaking this drastic dismantling of Social Security for the good of our young people. Well, young people, I want you to listen to me tonight. And if you know any others, please get other young people on the phone. Go to the phone and call them and get them to listen to this debate tonight.

The gentlemen from Georgia, Ohio, and Florida want to set the record straight for our young people, because this administration wants Americans to believe that private accounts are a great deal for those under age 55. The President is wrong. Privatizing Social Security not only does not help, it is a hindrance to the financial security of young people, for several reasons:

First, these private accounts, young people, listen to me, these private accounts will not be monies that will be handed to you so that you will be free to invest however you see fit. There will be a few plans chosen for you and handled for you, plans that are complex, have restrictions and liabilities on them. And then there is the annuity issue that needs to be addressed.

Again, I hope that most young Americans will begin to think about how their lives would change if their parents did not have Social Security on which to depend. In fact, without Social Security, their parents would likely have to rely on them for a portion of their income. And caring for aging parents is difficult enough for adult children without the added burden of having to replace income from promised Social Security benefits which were lost through the President.

Young people must realize that the problems inherent in privatizing Social Security are there, and they must reject them.

Now, finally, I must say how disappointed and how disturbed I was when President Bush said this. He said since black men die sooner than whites, Social Security is a bad deal for them, and that private accounts is a good deal for them. Now, I like President Bush personally, and I assume he is a decent man. I have to assume also that he must be getting some very bad information.

I agree with columnist Paul Krugman, who noted recently that President Bush has blatantly manipulated the facts and made false assertions all in the hope of convincing African Americans that this is a good deal for them. The claim that black people get a bad deal from Social Security because of a shorter life expectancy is wrong. And Mr. Bush's use of this false argument is doubly shameful because he is exploiting the high childhood mortality rate and the high black youth mortality rate to promote his privatization plan instead of trying to remove the deep inequities that remain and that black people face in our society every day.

Blacks' low life expectancy is largely due to high death rates in childhood and young adulthood. It is because of the lack of health insurance and other health disparities. What the President is talking about is like cutting your legs out from under you and then condemning you for being a cripple.

What really is shameful about Mr. Bush's exploitation of this disparity is that it is taken for granted. The persistent gap in life expectancy between African Americans and whites is but one measure of the deep inequalities that remain in our society, including highly unequal access to quality health care. We ought to be trying to diminish that gap, especially given the fact that black infants die three times more often than whites.

In conclusion, my colleagues, let me just say that the President is wrong on this Social Security issue and the private accounts. We have a problem with Social Security, but that problem must be solved in a way that stands for what is good and what is right in America. And what is good and right in America is that we protect and strengthen Social Security. And you do not do it with the private accounts.

Absolutely.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct, and it is very important for the people to know that we have a surplus in Social Security as we speak today. And the only reason we will be having a problem is because we folks have borrowed from Social Security to pay other bills. And we have had IOUs, which are Treasury bonds, but they are good all the way up through 2052. And then beyond that, of course, we will even be able to pay 80 percent of it.

But I think this kind of system with the President is that you create as much of a crisis as you can. But I do not think the American people will be fooled on this one, as they were with the crisis over the weapons of mass destruction.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to emphasize that the young people need to realize that if you were to make this move into a private account, you will correspondingly have benefits cut down the road. You are going to lose in benefits far more than you would in the accounts with the risk-taking involved and because your Social Security investment is protected from inflation, it is guaranteed, and when you have those cuts taken away as a result of going into the private accounts, it should make one stop and think a little bit before even entertaining the idea of going into private accounts because they would correspond in the cuts.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important that we reflect and understand the purpose of Social Security. This is an insurance program. We have investment programs for the stock market. We have 401(k)s in which an employer and an employee contributes. We have other kinds of alternatives. But, remember, it was the Democratic Party that birthed Social Security. It has been the Democratic Party that has protected Social Security. Social Security has been the bulwark of making America have the highest standard of living.

Let us not forget the words of the gentleman who produced Social Security, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who said we want to make sure that at no time in America will any of our people, as they get old, succumb to the throes and the woes of poverty.

It is an insurance program, plain and simple. If they want private accounts, there is nothing wrong with investing in the stock market. There are opportunities to do that. They have 401(k)s. But Social Security is there.

And I just say we are addressing most of our remarks to 20-somethings and 30-somethings, but our 20-somethings and 30-somethings will soon be 40-somethings and 50-somethings and 60-somethings. At the end of the day, we need to make sure that we do not disturb that cushion that has provided America with the highest standard of living in the world, and that cushion is Social Security.

Mr. Speaker, I have several problems with the President's budget. First, the Draconian cuts and discretionary spending do not reduce the deficit. In fact, the deficit continues as far as the eye can see. This budget is not honest and omits many important priorities, thus negating the President's promise to cut the deficit in half by 2009. And further, this budget has the audacity to raise taxes on our veterans.

And as Shakespeare's Julius Caesar said to Brutus, ``Et tu Brutus, yours is the meanest cut of all.'' This is the meanest cut of all in this budget: to cut our veterans, to raise taxes on our veterans. We need to be doing more for our veterans, not less. And certainly not raising taxes on our veterans as this budget does.

And this budget also hurts our farmers, cutting badly needed programs. The budget is not balanced. In fact, this budget creates a new record for a deficit $427 billion for fiscal year 2006.

This administration's budget continues a record of deficits and raising debt over the last 4 years. For the third year in a row, the administration's budget creates a new record deficit, while offering no plan to restore the budget to balance. The $5.6 trillion 10-year surplus inherited by this administration from the Clinton administration, which should have been used to strengthen Social Security, instead has been squandered and replaced by a deficit of $4 trillion over the same time period from 2002 to 2011.

Our goal of the deficit reduction accomplished during the Clinton administration was to save for the retirement of the baby boomers. Instead, this administration has run up mountains of new debt, which just passes the bill for today's policy choices on to our children and our grandchildren.

Under the administration's policies, the annual burden of the Federal debt on the typical American family will more than double over the next 10 years, with each family's share of the Federal interest payments on the debt rising from just over $2,000 per year to around $5,000 per year. This is not the kind of legacy we should be leaving to our future, to our children and grandchildren. This debt transfer is essentially a birth tax.

Another thing, this budget is not honest. Several of the President's top priorities are omitted from this budget. What surprises me is these projects that he is omitting from his budget this week were signature points in his State of the Union address last week. These omitted policies include debt service, and add $2 trillion to the deficit.

Not included in the budget are transition costs of privatizing Social Security. By delaying the start of the President's new Social Security plan until 2009 and then passing it on over 3 years, this budget manages to avoid showing most of the costs, but they are to be substantial. The Social Security actuaries have estimated the cost could be about $750 billion, and these are the President's people, over the 2009 to 2015 period alone, and between $4 trillion and $5 trillion over the first 20 years of full implementation.

Also not included in this budget are funds for appropriations and operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just think: the additional $81 billion being asked for this year for our soldiers for their safety, for their hardware, for their armor and the military, is not even in this budget. Is that responsible? According to a scenario developed by the Congressional Budget Office, costs for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan could run as much as $400 billion more than what this budget includes.

The budget also includes no funding to repair the Alternative Minimum Tax, which protects middle-income taxpayers, which is another $64 billion not accounted for in the budget.

The budget also imposes a $250 annual enrollment fee for veterans without service-connected disabilities who also have incomes above VA means-tested levels. What this means is even before some of our veterans can even get into the hospital, they are being taxed $250. The budget also increases pharmacy copayments for our veterans from $7 to $15. Both of these veterans taxes were proposed in the last two budgets, and we rejected both of them in Congress.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this Federal budget should be an honest blueprint for the spending priorities of this government. However, this budget is not honest. It is passing our obligations, responsibilities, and challenges to our children and grandchildren; and that is immoral. Let us stand up for the honesty and goodness of our Nation and reject this budget.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mrs. Maggie Katie Brown Kidd, a loyal and loving wife and mother who has devoted her long and wonderfully blessed life to her family. Mrs. Kidd will be celebrating her 100th birthday with her family on November 26th in my congressional district.

Maggie was born on December 8, 1904 to Lucy and William ``Doc'' Brown of Stephens, Georgia; the eleventh of twelve children. William received the nickname ``Doc'' from his neighbors because of his reputation for helping anyone in need. His neighbors used to tell everyone to ``go see Doc'' if they were ever in trouble. Maggie began to develop a similar reputation as she grew up as she never hesitated from sharing whatever she had, even when she had little.

Lucy and Doc owned a farm in Stephens where the whole family was welcomed when they needed a place to live. Maggie continued this tradition when she took over the farm, offering a home to all of her relatives that needed one. She even helped raise her grand-niece. The people who lived close to her farm knew her as a good neighbor. Her parents joined Mt. Zion Baptist Church in Stephens where Rosalyn worshipped and studied when she was a child. She still maintains a membership at the church today.

On November 30, 1940, Maggie married Willie Kidd. They had two children, Rosalyn and John and continued to work on her parent's farm. Maggie and Willie worked the farm until 1961, when she and Willie decreased the size of their farm and began gardening. Willie passed away in 1962 from complications due to diabetes. She lived on the same land until 1989. Now she lives with Rosalyn in Riverdale, GA where she continues to make beautiful quilts when her health permits. She is blessed to have four grandchildren and three great-grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me and Maggie's family in wishing her a happy 100th birthday.

Mr. Speaker, I am so proud to stand in this well as a Democrat, and I hope that the people of this country are taking good notes tonight, because it is the Democrats in this Congress who are standing up for sound fiscal responsibility. I think it is very important for us to realize and never forget that it was President Clinton who left a huge surplus that has been squandered in these last 4 years.

Here are the facts. This is the third time in 3 years that the debt limit has been increased for a grand total of more than $2 trillion. The last hike was nearly $1 trillion. But it took less than 18 months for the government to hit the new rate ceiling. By way of comparison, the entire Federal debt in 1980 was just less than $1 trillion. We are on a runaway train without any brakes. And all we are asking for is pay-as-you-go so that we can be responsible.

I will tell you really just how irresponsible you are being on the other side of the aisle. Do you realize that 90 percent of this new debt that you are creating is being purchased by foreign countries and foreign interests? And just the amount of the interest that we are paying on it, just the cost of borrowing this money from these countries accounts for more than 10 percent of all of Federal spending, which is more than what we are spending on our own homeland security. You talk about irresponsibility. It is truly irresponsible for us to turn over our debt, our fiscal security, to foreign interests, let alone the irresponsibility we are showing for passing on this debt to our children.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Mrs. Maggie Katie Brown Kidd, a loyal and loving wife and mother who has devoted her long and wonderfully blessed life to her family. Mrs. Kidd will be celebrating her 100th birthday with her family on November 26th in my congressional district.

Maggie was born on December 8, 1904 to Lucy and William ``Doc'' Brown of Stephens, Georgia; the eleventh of twelve children. William received the nickname ``Doc'' from his neighbors because of his reputation for helping anyone in need. His neighbors used to tell everyone to ``go see Doc'' if they were ever in trouble. Maggie began to develop a similar reputation as she grew up as she never hesitated from sharing whatever she had, even when she had little.

Lucy and Doc owned a farm in Stephens where the whole family was welcomed when they needed a place to live. Maggie continued this tradition when she took over the farm, offering a home to all of her relatives that needed one. She even helped raise her grand-niece. The people who lived close to her farm knew her as a good neighbor. Her parents joined Mt. Zion Baptist Church in Stephens where Rosalyn worshipped and studied when she was a child. She still maintains a membership at the church today.

On November 30, 1940, Maggie married Willie Kidd. They had two children, Rosalyn and John and continued to work on her parent's farm. Maggie and Willie worked the farm until 1961, when she and Willie decreased the size of their farm and began gardening. Willie passed away in 1962 from complications due to diabetes. She lived on the same land until

1989. Now she lives with Rosalyn in Riverdale, GA where she continues to make beautiful quilts when her health permits. She is blessed to have four grandchildren and three great-grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me and Maggie's family in wishing her a happy 100th birthday.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss what in my opinion is the absolute heaviest burden on the American people and the American family today, and that is this costly, confusing, complex and complicated Tax Code.

I want to start my comments by commending our distinguished House Democratic Whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), for his steadfast leadership on this issue of the need for tax reform. I thank the gentleman for leading on this issue. He has not just started leading on this issue. He has been leading on this issue for a number of years.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that Americans are double-taxed, and that the time and expense that it takes to file their taxes creates an additional cost to our taxpayers.

The current Tax Code is riddled with confusion, complexities, ambiguities and unfairness of staggering magnitude. We need to make drastic changes now. Our current Tax Code is beyond reason and basic common sense.

For instance, the Federal income tax code has grown from 45,662 pages in 2001 to 60,044 pages today. Mr. Speaker, at that rate, at that number of pages, it would take over a year just to read the current Tax Code, and that is only if you were reading an average of 1,215 pages every week and doing it at least 8 hours every day. That is absolutely incredible.

Our four common tax forms, 1040 and Schedules A, B and D, take an estimated 28 hours and 30 minutes to prepare. As our distinguished leader pointed out, in 1988, when the IRS began tracking this information, the average paperwork burden was 17 hours and 17 minutes. That is an increase of over 10 hours in just 6 years. Unbelievable.

Mr. Speaker, Alexander Hamilton, one of our great founders of this country, perhaps the primary architect of our taxing system and our first Secretary of the Treasury, said, ``In order for our Nation to succeed, our taxing system must be simple, literate and fair, and I tremble for the future of my country if we fail in this endeavor.'' And I tremble indeed for the future of our country also, as Mr. Hamilton did 200 years ago, if we fail to reform our Tax Code.

Indeed, I predict a serious taxpayers' revolt in the very near future because of complexity, because of expense, because of unfairness, if we do not move with haste now to reform the Tax Code.

It now costs taxpayers $100 billion each year just in fees for our taxpayers just to complete their tax returns. Individuals, businesses, tax exempt, public-private entities, spend 6 billion hours each year just complying with the Tax Code. It is a loss to our economy and it is a loss to our productivity, and it is staggering.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, as an entrepreneur that has started a successful business, as I have, as a small business owner, I believe that tax reform proposals that simplify the Tax Code merit serious consideration, and to that end I am a cosponsor of H.R. 1783, the Freedom Flat Tax Act.

Let me just tell you for a minute what this flat tax will do. It will take the complexity out of our Tax Code. It will ensure fairness by closing creative loopholes that allow some unscrupulous persons to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.

This measure would phase in a flat tax over a 3-year period with a 19 percent rate for the first 2 years and a 17 percent rate in subsequent years, and it will allow for no deduction loopholes, but will allow for personal exemptions, including a $5,300 exemption for each dependent.

I do not believe that the flat tax is perfect, but at least it is a starting point to do 2 essential things: give our taxpayers back their time and give them back some of their money. That is what the American citizens are asking for.

This current Tax Code is mesmerizing in its confusion and unfairness. For example, there are 5 different tax breaks for families with children: dependency exemption, head of household filing status, the child tax credit, the child independent care tax credit, the EITC, and all 5 of these define a qualifying child differently. How confusing.

Taxpayers overpay their taxes by an estimated $1 billion a year because they fail to claim itemized deductions, opting for the standard deduction instead, according to the General Accounting Office, because they say the Tax Code is too hard to understand.

About one-quarter of taxpayers who are eligible for the earned income tax credit, which is designed to help the working poor, fail to claim it because they say it is too complicated. Our Tax Code is terrible.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot wait any longer. The time for tax reform is right now. We must not tinker around the edges of the Tax Code, but go right to the heart of the problem. The American people are depending upon us, and we Democrats must provide the way and the leadership on this critical issue of tax reform. The American people need and deserve a tax system that is simpler, fairer, and more efficient, just as the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) stated, and we must give it to them now.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I want to thank the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Madam Speaker, I rise to support House Resolution 1914, which is the Jamestown 400th Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act of 2003. The year 2007 will be the 400th anniversary of the founding in 1607 of Jamestown, Virginia, the first permanent European colony in the United States and the capital of Virginia for 92 years. H.R. 1914 authorizes the minting and sale of commemorative coins honoring this distinguished event.

The Jamestown Settlement, which brought together people from throughout the Atlantic basin, had a substantial impact open the development of the United States of American, establishing the tradition of English common law and the English language, as well as cross-cultural relationships.

Congress established the Jamestown 400th Commemorative Commission in 2000 to ensure a suitable national observation of the founding. Surcharges from the sale of the commemorative coins, which are conservatively estimated to be $3 million, will be paid to the National Park Service, the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities, and the Jamestown-Yorktown Foundation of the Commonwealth of Virginia to support their efforts for the 400th anniversary.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 1914, the Jamestown 400th Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act.

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, this is indeed an honor for me today, to stand on this most important bill in recognition of our Marine Corps, and I want to start my remarks by recognizing a distinguished Marine himself, the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha), who is the primary author of this legislation.

Today, Madam Speaker, we take up the Marine Corps 230th Anniversary Commemorative Coin Act, H.R. 3277. This measure passed the Committee on Financial Services by voice vote with my support.

November 10, 2005, marks the 230th anniversary of the United States Marine Corps. The United States Marine Corps has, over the course of its illustrative 230-year history, fought gallantly in defense of the United States.

This commemorative coin bill will direct the Secretary of the Treasury to mint 500,000 $1 coins with the emblem of the warrior ethos of the United States Marine Corps. The surcharge proceeds from the sale of this commemorative coin, which would have no net cost to the taxpayers, will raise valuable funding for the construction of the Marine Corps Heritage Center.

In 2001, the Congress authorized the construction of the Marine Corps Heritage Center. The facility will be used for historical displays, curation, and the storage of artifacts, research facilities, classrooms and offices. The Marine Corps Heritage Center is scheduled to open on November 10, 2005.

I strongly support the Marine Corps, especially since in Georgia we have a Marine Corps presence at the Marine Corps Logistics Base, in Albany, Georgia. The base comprises a depot maintenance complex that provides world-wide expeditionary logistics support to the Fleet Marine Force, and other forces and agencies.

The repair facility operates as a multi-commodity maintenance center. The maintenance center is an integral part of the Marine Corps Logistics Base and works closely with other organizations in carrying out the mission of the base, which is to provide logistics support to Marine forces that will maintain continued readiness and sustainment necessary to meet operational requirements.

The Marine Corps Maintenance Center, MC, is capable of supporting Marine Corps ground combat and combat support equipment, as well as other customers with similar needs. Personnel are cross-trained to apply common skills to work on a variety of equipment and different commodities. This affords the Marine Corps MCs the flexibility to rapidly realign their work force to meet the changing requirements of the FMF and other customers. It should be noted that while the MCs' capacities for each major commodity is highly flexible, their total capacity is relatively constant.

The Marine Logistics Base in Albany, Georgia, is critical, because during the late 1990s, Marine Corps units deployed to several African nations, including Liberia, the Central African Republic and Zaire in order to provide security and assist in the evacuation of American citizens during periods of political and civil instability in these nations.

Humanitarian and disaster relief operations were also conducted by Marines during the 1998 situation in Kenya and in the Central American nations of Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala.

In 1999, Marine units deployed to Kosovo in support of Operation Allied Forces.

Soon after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on New York City and here in Washington, D.C., Marine units deployed to the Arabian Sea and in November set up a forward operating base in southern Afghanistan as part of Operation Enduring Freedom.

Today the Marine Corps stands ready to continue in the proud tradition of those who valiantly fought and died at Iwo Jima, in the Chosin Reservoir and Khe Sanh, combining a long and proud heritage of faithful service to this Nation, with the resolve to face tomorrow's challenges, and will continue to keep the Marine Corps the best of the best.

Madam Speaker, from the foundation of this country, from the Revolutionary War, to the War of 1812, to the Mexican-American War, to the Civil War, to the Spanish-American War,

World War I and World War II, to the Korean War, from the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, from the jungles in Vietnam to the hot sand in the Middle East, our Marine Corps has been there, on the cutting edge, standing strong and fighting and dying for our freedom and freedom around this world, and oftentimes standing when there is nothing left to do but stand and die for a noble cause, freedom and democracy.

Madam Speaker, I know that every American in this country joins me in recognizing the Marine Corps with this 230th commemorative coin that will go a long way in simply saying thank you, our Marines.

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans).

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I certainly want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) for his eloquent remarks concerning Mr. Marshall.

I rise in support and I am happy to be a cosponsor of this bipartisan legislation, H.R. 2768, which authorizes the minting and sale of commemorative coins honoring the great Chief Justice John Marshall.

A Virginian, John Marshall served as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court for 34 years, from 1801 through 1835, which was the longest tenure of any Chief Justice.

Chief Justice Marshall served this country with distinction in all three branches of government. After serving General George Washington as an artillery captain during the Revolutionary War, he studied law and was elected as a Member of Congress from Virginia and was Secretary of State when President John Adams named him Chief Justice.

Chief Justice Marshall is widely regarded as the person who elevated the Supreme Court's status to that of an equal partner with the legislative and executive branches.

In the landmark Marbury v. Madison decision, written 2 years after he became Chief Justice, Marshall laid the legal groundwork for modern-day constitutional law and established the doctrine of judicial review.

Surcharge proceeds from the sale of these coins, which can conservatively be estimated at $1.5 million, are to be paid to the Supreme Court Historical Society. The Society is a nonprofit association dedicated to collecting and preserving the history of the Supreme

Court and to providing public education on the history of the Constitution and the judiciary.

Specifically, the surcharges will be used to enable the Society to support historical research and education programs about the Court and the Constitution and related topics to support fellowship programs, internships, and documents of the Court, and to collect and preserve antiques and artifacts and other historical items related to the Court and the Constitution. John Marshall, a most deserving recognition for a most deserving American.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, so I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am very delighted to join my colleagues in rising to offer great support for this resolution. It is so important and so timely at this time that this Congress of the United States stand united in their support of Israel.

I was over in Israel just a few months ago, and I had a wonderful visit; but your heart goes out for the tenacity and the strength of Israeli people. They are at the forefront in this world fight on terror, have been there for a long time. So it is very important for us to recognize the heroic role and the heroic struggle for world peace that Israel is in the forefront of, and it is very important for us to recognize their struggle and to give them the support as our strongest allies in the region of the Middle East.

It is a great honor on my part to be able to stand and give support to this resolution to a great nation that is fighting an extraordinary cause under extraordinary circumstances.