Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I am convinced action is needed to stabilize the delivery of health care, particularly for small communities and for medical specialties plagued by extraordinarily high premium rates. It is unacceptable to have prices spiraling so out of control that care is prohibitive for many doctors and patients. I am open to a range of alternatives to provide a long-term solution. This bill focuses only on capping damages to lower premiums, siting California's MICRA legislation as its model. Unfortunately, it ignores the other methods used in California, which may have had more impact over the long-term. The cap is eroding patients' rights by failing to provide for inflation and H.R. 5 suffers the same flaw.

The Republican alternative is simply an attempt to provide a partisan political response, rather than a serious effort at bipartisan legislative action. This bill is being rushed through the legislative process without an opportunity for amendment and with little relationship to the proposal that is likely to emerge from the Senate. Last fall, I voted against the same bill when it came to the floor. Unfortunately, the Republican proposal is still just a bargaining position, not a legislative solution.

It's very unlikely that this bill will be enacted into law, and if it was, it would be highly unfair to the people that I represent. I will continue to work with physicians and others in the health care community, and those who are involved and interested in patients' rights. We've missed an opportunity to advance more carefully crafted bipartisan solutions at this juncture, but there will be a time to do so in the future, and I look forward to participating in that fashion.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting this week that there is a proposal from the administration brought forward to exempt the Department of Defense from a series of environmental regulations.

Mr. Speaker, as somebody who has been working for the last 4 years to help the Department of Defense have the resources to clean up after itself with unexploded ordnance that is found in all 50 States, the UXO problem, slowly we are making progress, but it is a problem that Congress has not been providing clear direction to the Department of Defense or resources to clean up after itself.

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely the wrong message for us to be delivering to the Department of Defense at this point. What we ought to be doing, rather than providing short circuits for environmental protection, we ought to step up to the plate. Congress should not be missing in action when it comes to take care of the legacy of past military actions within our own borders, provide authority, provide money to help make sure that these sites are cleaned up and that our families are safe and healthy in bases and training areas around the United States.

I do hope that we are able to divert this action going down the wrong way, giving the military the wrong orders. When we give them the resources, the right orders, they do the job. We should do that when it comes to protecting our environment.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1047, debated and passed today, includes language that allows two streetcars manufactured in the Czech Republic to enter the United States duty free. These streetcars are additional to the recently opened and highly successful Portland, Oregon streetcar line. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Ways and Means Committee Members and staff for working with me to solve a problem that would have led to unnecessary tariffs on these two streetcars.

As Congress prepares this year to reauthorize the surface transportation act, TEA-21, we will need to continue to craft innovative solutions to help the hundreds of communities nationwide that are working to address transportation needs and options. Portland's success in creating new streetcar service to connect and revitalize its neighborhoods is a model being sought by dozens of other communities. Creating a trade import model that helps communities explore such transportation alternatives will greatly improve the livability of our cities.

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

Mr. Speaker, today, Congressman Mark Foley and I are introducing legislation to extend commuter benefits to bicyclists. This important legislation includes bicycles in the definition of transportation covered by the qualified transportation fringe benefit.

Currently, employers may offer a Transportation Fringe Benefit to their employees for commuting to work. Employees who take advantage of this program may receive a tax exemption benefit totaling $180 for participating in qualified parking plans or $100 for transit or van- pool expenses. Employees may also opt to take cash compensation instead, which is subject to employment taxes. The Bike Commuter Act would extend these same Transportation Fringe Benefits to employees who choose to commute by bicycle.

It's time to level the playing field for bicycle commuters. Bicycling is one of the cleanest, healthiest and environmentally friendly modes of transportation that exists today. At a time when communities across the country are seeking to reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality, and increase the safety of their neighborhoods, bicycles offer a wonderful alternative to driving for the more than 50 percent of the working population who commute five miles or less to work. The Federal Government should do its part to support these goals by providing transportation benefits to people who choose to commute in a healthy, environmental, and neighborhood-friendly fashion.

According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, bicycles are second only to cars as a preferred mode of transportation, demonstrating their potential for commuter use. Many Americans own one or more bicycles, but limit their use to recreational purposes. This legislation is an important step in making the Federal Government a better partner for more livable communities.

Mr. Speaker, the recent cavalcade of events surrounding the actions of the United States in Iraq and other foreign affairs has compounded the apprehension that many have felt these last 8 months. It is time for the United States collectively to slow down, take a deep breath, step back and consider our options.

Comments I have received from constituents at home, from my Web site, as well as just simply reading the many conflicting poll results, suggest that most Americans would appreciate a reflective pause.

Terrorism is the greatest threat to Americans at home and abroad, despite the recent obsession with Iraq. Notwithstanding the performance by the Department of Homeland Security, which resembled a ``Saturday Night Live'' skit with talk of duct tape and plastic, terrorism is still serious business.

I am not opposed to the United States using force when appropriate. I think most of us now wish we had done so to deal with the genocide in Rwanda. Previously, I supported military action in the Balkans when some of the

now-hawkish Republican colleagues of mine would not support force to stop genocide in the former Yugoslovia.

It is clear that we have mishandled the northern situation; that we have been less than diligent with Pakistan; that we have missed opportunities to retire weapons and nuclear material from the former Soviet Union. Moreover, the administration clearly did not provide adequate money for reconstructing Afghanistan in its most recent budget.

It is in an effort to highlight this situation that I have chosen to cosponsor a resolution offered by my colleague, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), to rescind Congress' authorization of force passed last year. Even though this proposal is unlikely to be approved by the House, it is important to send the right signal to the administration. It is not too late to be more strategic and to learn from our past mistakes.

Most important, especially if we are going to follow the route the administration is pursuing, a proper foundation is critical. If we expect multilateral cooperation and accountability from our friends, allies, and other world powers, we must demonstrate those characteristics ourselves. It would be outrageous if, as part of a deal with Turkey to secure their support, we end up selling out the Kurds in Iraq, the only people that have a modicum of self-determination.

Should we go to war, the American people are unprepared by the administration for the probable consequences of the inevitable United States short-term victory. Even supporters of the Bush policy admit that a post-Saddam situation in Iraq will very likely resemble Yugoslavia without Tito. There, after hundreds of thousands of lives were lost and billions of dollars spent, we still have 20,000 troops in the Balkans and the region remains a basket case. Our past actions should give people pause.

The United States gains little by rushing to war with Iraq. We should continue to work with our allies, pursue a program of coercive inspections, and marshall a much broader coalition in support of our effort.

Just as critically, we must try to stop the situation with North Korea from spinning out of control while reconnecting with South Korea. More time and money and effort should be expended on the Nunn-Lugar program to invest in decommissions of weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union. Pakistan and its activities with the North Koreans and potential links to terrorists need to be elevated in our awareness and policy issues. Nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction are much less likely to come from Iraq than they are from North Korea, from dissident elements in Pakistan, or remnants of the former Soviet Union.

Most important, we need to acknowledge that the threats posed to America at home and abroad come primarily from terrorism. We should provide resources for the cash-strapped States and localities that have been dealing every day since September 11 with the consequences and potential for terrorism at home. This is beyond homeland security, this is hometown security, and deserves priority.

Our actions overseas should be appraised carefully as to the impact on our efforts to track down terrorists and prevent future attacks. It is important that the administration and Congress level with the American people that this is an expensive, arduous, complex task. It will require money, commitment, and, most important, patience over the long haul.

We certainly should be clear about the costs of any action in Iraq, and prepare the American public for the likely consequences our policy will have in that volatile part of the world. Americans may be conflicted about Iraq and anxious as to terrorism, but I know they are willing, as never before in my lifetime, to come together for the protection of their communities and the greater good of our country and peace in the world. Should we not take advantage of their interest and intention, we will regret this lost opportunity for years to come.

Mr. Chairman, cloning for the purpose of reproduction is wrong, and I am confident my colleagues agree. I am supporting a proposal, offered as an amendment to H.R. 534, which clearly outlaws human reproductive cloning while not closing the door on future advancements in scientific research which have the potential to find cures for degenerative and life threatening diseases. This research is critical to advancing therapies and cures for diseases such as Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and diabetes, as well as conditions resulting from spinal and head injuries.

Most egregious, the underlying bill will halt important research on cures for these diseases, which kill over 3,000 Americans each year. The bill goes so far as to even bar the importation of overseas medical treatments developed using cell cloning techniques. Just because this type of scientific research does not fit the ultra-conservative views of some members of this body is no reason to withhold potentially life- saving treatments from millions of Americans suffering from debilitating and life threatening diseases. These citizens and their families deserve better.

This bill is a misplaced application of religious doctrine, imposing a narrowly held view of science and law on America. We can and should provide guidelines that prevent reckless experimentation on the development of humans and prohibit cloning for purposes of human reproduction, but Congress should not overreach in this area.

Mr. Speaker, I would hope that as we are dealing with some weighty matters here before us that we also may be able to pause for a moment and deal with one simple little item that can help bring us together. We are in the midst now of encouraging Members to renew their membership in the bipartisan Bicycle Caucus.

The gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly) and I have issued a letter that is circulating to the Members. Last year, we had over a hundred Members, representing 37 States, that worked to help promote cycling policies around the country, to do work here in Washington, D.C., to promote that opportunity to make the cycling-friendly environment and to have some positive experiences for Members, family, and staff using cycles here.

Next week, there will be a bicycle summit with participation from virtually every State in the Union, over 500 people. We encourage Members to renew their membership. They will get the certified bicycle membership pen, and we will have an opportunity to work together on something that we will enjoy that will be good for the environment, good for health, and good for our country.

Mr. Chairman, especially in these troubled economic times, the safety net, in the words of President Reagan, is critical for many families in Oregon and across America. Unfortunately, after months of delay, we are being presented with a TANF Reauthorization that shows little improvement from the bill presented to us almost a year ago, even though the economic situation has deteriorated dramatically in the last year, putting millions of Americans out of work. This bill does little to recognize the needs and challenges facing a growing number of Americans.

In Oregon, the new welfare system is getting its most severe test. Our statewide jobless rate is now 7.1 percent, the highest in the nation. Oregon's budget is in shambles, but we are not alone. At least 46 states are struggling to close a combined budget gap of $37 billion in the most recent fiscal year. Budget shortfalls are reaching record levels, and are projected to approach $85 billion. Some states have already made cuts to TANF-funded programs, including Ohio, the homestate of the author of this bill. At a time when states are facing serious budget crises and are being asked to do even more on hometown security, the federal government should be giving assistance, not retreating. Instead, this bill would create a series of unfunded mandates that in Oregon alone are expected to cost $100 million over the next five years.

This proposal also fails to address the critical need for childcare among families receiving assistance. A recent report by the Children's Defense Fund found that budget shortfalls have forced a number of states to reduce funding for child care, despite the pressing need for these services as economic circumstances worsen. Asking for increases in make-work hours without significantly increased childcare funding is shortsighted and ultimately destructive in the fight to help these families achieve self-sufficiency.

Finally, this bill fails to recognize the fiscal realities facing states and the mounting challenges facing a growing number of Americans. Instead of targeted tax cuts to those who are least in need; the federal government should step up to the plate and support welfare reform that will achieve a real reduction in poverty.

Mr. Speaker, in the past, I have often been reluctant to support omnibus bills, which package multiple pieces of legislation into one. It is poor policy to legislate in this manner. This particular omnibus appropriations bill, combining eleven appropriations bills totaling $397.4 billion is the worst example of this that I have seen.

Many of the individual bills were never brought before the relevant committees and we are barred from offering amendments on the floor. The final draft of more than 1,000 pages were first made available to the full Congress less than 12 hours before we are being asked to vote on it. Nobody knows the extent of the riders, earmarks and provisions that have been added to this bill. What we do know is in here includes some of the most egregious environmental riders imaginable: allowing nearly unlimited clear-cutting of our national forests; exempting the Administration's Tongass National Forest management plan from all judicial or administrative appeals; and, allowing preliminary work for drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--despite the fact that it is currently illegal to drill there.

Many of my constituents have expressed concern about the process that has taken place to get us to this point. I am not able to defend the process to them and, therefore, cannot support final passage of this bill. It is not fair to legislators or the people they represent to conduct Congress in this manner. I look ahead with promise to a new fiscal year when Congress can again return to legislating.

Mr. Speaker, amidst all the international drama and trauma, it is sometimes easy to forget that the primary goal of government is to provide a partnership where our communities can be livable and where our families are safe, healthy and economically secure. My hometown of Portland, Oregon, has received international acclaim as one of America's most livable cities, but actually, Mr. Speaker, ours is a region of two dozen livable communities. Under Oregon's unique land use system, each community is encouraged to develop its own special identity.

One of the unique places that deserves special attention is the city of Milwaukie, Oregon, as it now celebrates its centennial this month, an example that thousands of small communities across the country could look to. Milwaukie's hard-working citizens are keenly interested in making the next 100 years something that is even better.

The community of Milwaukie has played a key role in the history of our State. The city was actually settled in 1840 and played a critical role in shipping up and down the Willamette River. The commerce from those docks served to link Willamette Valley's pioneers with goods from the Hudson's Bay Trading Company and beyond. Oregon's founder, Dr. John McLaughlin, often supervised commerce on those very docks when he visited from his nearby home. Today, Milwaukie is the second largest city in fast-growing Clackamas County. It serves the Portland region as a transportation hub, hosting the intersection of two State highways and two freight railroads. But it is how Milwaukie has approached the future that is intriguing to me.

In the latter part of the 1990s, this city looked at how they were going to join the region's light rail system. Some had serious questions about what it would do to their community and how it was going to be compatible with how they wanted to grow with the rest of the region. Instead of joining the region's light rail system at that point, they took time out to reflect how they should grow and relate to the surrounding communities. In the course of the next 5 years, the community carried out literally thousands of hours of community meetings. Some were informal. There were scores of neighborhood association meetings and workshops.

As a result of this searching and introspection, the community, its neighborhoods and elected leaders, including some who were the most skeptical of earlier plans, are now among the most active and aggressive advocates of rail coming to their town; and not only light rail, but they are also supporting an innovative commuter rail system serving Milwaukie, as well. They are looking at other ways to make their community livable.

Milwaukie, Oregon, like so many communities across the country, made decisions early in its career that cut off its waterfront from the community. It is inaccessible now because of a State highway that makes pedestrian and other access impossible. This beautiful and historic resource is now out of their reach, home only to a treatment plant. Milwaukie residents are now working to overcome this barrier to connect their historic waterfront and natural resource with the heart of their downtown.

Milwaukie, Oregon is an outstanding example of how a livable community grapples with issues of growth, transportation, development, its past and its future. It is a community that other cities can look to for inspiration, how people of strong and varying opinions sitting down and working through their issues together for the common good can make a city safer, healthier and more economically secure.

I, for one, am proud to represent the ``City of Dogwoods'' as it celebrates its centennial. Congratulations, Milwaukie, Oregon.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in yielding me time and the kind words both he and the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Isakson) had.

It is an honor to recognize the outstanding achievement of the NCAA Women's Soccer champions from the University of Portland to share with the rest of the country the excitement in Portland as the Pilots brought home the university's first national championship.

It must be noted that this is not just an achievement of an outstanding group of young women. It is a symbol of the achievement of an outstanding institution in Portland, Oregon. Once a small regional Catholic college, the University of Portland has grown in prestige and esteem, drawing a diverse student body from across the United States and around the world. The U.S. News and World Report last year ranked the university as one of the top five regional universities in the Nation.

The faculty, students and trustees can be justly proud of the accomplishments of the last quarter century under the leadership of Father Paul Waldschmidt, the late Father Tom Oddo, and more recently, President David Tyson.

The leadership of these presidents and trustees has had a tremendous impact on the academic programs and the physical development of the campus. But the University of Portland's Women's Soccer Team symbolizes that level of achievement, commitment and dedication. The Pilots Women's Soccer Team has for over a decade compiled an outstanding record, six times reaching the highest levels in play-off competition. But one must understand that these players are students first.

The University of Portland has one of the highest rates of graduating student athletes among the NCAA Division I colleges and universities across the country.

The soccer program at the University of Portland has produced women athletes who are today household names in the soccer world like Tiffeny Millbrett, Shannon MacMillan, both Olympians. They are role models for our community, for young women in Portland and around the country.

I have watched my own daughter and her high school teammates be inspired by their example. I have watched these outstanding college athletes share their skill and knowledge of the game with children in the community. Part of this achievement is due to the outstanding coach, Clive Charles who, along with leading the Pilots to victory on the field, recently fought and won a difficult battle against cancer. He is one of only five coaches in NCAA history to win 400 games. All of those, we are pleased to say, are with the University of Portland.

Even by the university's high standards, this particular win was special. This determined team fought from the eighth seed in the tournament to take it all, as has never been done before in college cup history. While one hesitates to single out specific players on this outstanding team, four Pilots were named to the all-tournament team, including Sinclair, Arase, defender Lauren Orlandos, and midfielder Erin Misaki.

I would be remiss not to mention the numerous records that were broken by the team in this effort. Christine Sinclair set an NCAA tournament record with 21 points on 10 goals and one assist, shattering Mia Hamm's 1993 record of 16. Lauren Arase allowed just one goal in the 2002 play-offs, setting an NCAA record for play-off goals, an average of 0.016, allowing just one goal in six games. Her gutsy effort was recognized in a recent New York Times article chronicling her will to push on despite a terrible injury in the championship game, illustrating the continued significance of Title IX.

The Pilot women who brought this title are the pride of an outstanding university. There is no more fitting symbol of the power and purpose of women's athletics than their championship. I am pleased that President Bush will honor the team with a White House ceremony later this month, and I am pleased the House of Representatives is honoring them today with this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the city of Milwaukie, OR, on the 100th anniversary of its incorporation. This is a community in my district that has played an important role in Oregon's history.

While incorporated for 100 years it was actually founded in 1840. Milwaukie began to play an important role in riverfront shipping with the advent of docks on the Willamette River. The commerce from these docks served to link the Willamette Valley's pioneers with goods from the Hudson Bay Trading Company and beyond. Oregon's founder, Doctor John McLaughlin, often supervised commerce on those docks when he visited from his nearby home a mile away.

Oregon's third newspaper, The Western Star, was founded in Milwaukie in 1850. It quickly became Oregon's premier newspaper up and down the Willamette Valley for settlers as far south as Eugene. It gave the pioneers their only information on the Oregon Territory, the coming statehood, events at Champoeg, and the Civil War.

Reaching beyond Oregon's borders and to the rest of the world is Milwaukie's contribution to the American Produce market. A little known fact is that the Bing Cherry was first cultivated in Milwaukie. It was named after a Manchurian Chinese immigrant who worked for the Lewelling Family Orchards, in what is now the Lewelling Neighborhood.

Today, Milwaukie is the second largest city in Clackamas County with a population of 20,470. Its large employers include United Grocers, Oregon Cutting Systems, Dark Horse Comics, Warn Industries and Providence Milwaukie Hospital. It serves the Portland region as a transportation crossroads, hosting the intersection of two State highways, two freight lines, and hopefully a future light rail line.

I am proud to represent the ``City of Dogwoods''--Milwaukie, OR.

Mr. Speaker, today I am submitting to the House a resolution congratulating the University of Portland Women's soccer team on their winning the 2003 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I Championship. This title marks the first national championship in any sport for the University of Portland.

The championship game between Portland and reigning 2001 champion Santa Clara was hard fought, going down to a rare double-overtime. The victory by the Pilots brought their season record to 20-4-1 to tie the school record for wins in a season. The team's performance garnered other records as well; Christine Sinclair set an NCAA tournament record with 21 points on 10 goals and one assist, shattering Mia Hamm's 1993 record of 16; Goalkeeper Lauren Arase set a record for goals-against average, allowing just one goal in 6 games.

I want to commend the coaches at the University of Portland for their hard work and dedication to helping these young women grow and ultimately bring national recognition to their school and our state. Head Coach Clive Charles, Assistant Coaches Bill Irwin, Garrett Smith, Nyla Stuckey, Trevor Warren and Wynne McIntosh all deserve recognition for the work that they have done developing an outstanding collegiate sports program.

Coach Charles has built an impressive record over the 14 years that he has coached women's soccer at the University of Portland. Collectively, his men's and women's teams have won 12 conference championships, losing only 31 league games, and earned 16 NCAA playoff berths, including seven Final Four appearances, in a combined 27 seasons. Twenty-five Pilots have earned All-America status during Charles' tenure. Early in the 1998 season, Charles won his 300th career college game. The Portland men and women won on the same day, making him just the 11th coach in NCAA soccer history to amass 300 wins.

I am honored to represent many of these individuals in Congress and proud to have the University in my district. This resolution is a fitting tribute to the accomplishments of the coaches, players, and the University of Portland.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague helping shape the context for the important discussions that we will be having in the course of the week.

This is a very important time of the year. This is the time where the President of the United States has an opportunity to give his or her vision for our country. It is a unique opportunity. It is a time, particularly at the beginning of a new Congress, when we are coming together with fresh optimism and enthusiasm. People are just off the campaign trail. Hopefully, for a while, we can concentrate on the people's business.

There have been times when the President of the United States has come before this Chamber rallying the American people. I was one, Mr. Speaker, who was very impressed in the aftermath of September 11 with the challenge that was faced by our then new President, President Bush, how he came forward at a time of great tension and anxiety in this country, having been subjected to an unprecedented attack on our shore, and I thought that he rose to the occasion. I thought his message was direct, was forthright; and I noted in this Chamber that men and women in both parties came forward, making it clear that we were united in terms of dealing with our responsibility to the American people, working together.

I contrast what happened immediately in the aftermath of September 11 with what happened in last year's State of the Union and thinking about what has happened in the year since then.

We had an unfortunate notion dealing with the ``axis of evil,'' where we had an unfortunate, some would say reckless, rhetorical flourish that has sort of lumped together three of the most vexing problems we have in the foreign policy arena with North Korea, Iraq and Iran; and unfortunately, in the course of the last year, we have seen increasing problems because of an inability on the part of the administration to distinguish and have a clear and thoughtful approach to all three of those problems.

We have had a situation dealing with the issue of international terror, which is and remains the greatest threat to American security; and frankly, I think all of us in our heart of hearts has to admit that, as a result of the last year, America is no safer as it relates to terrorism, and in fact, there are questions and ambiguity. We have this great amorphous security agency, and we really have not addressed vexing problems between a lack of coordination between the CIA and the FBI. Now we have got a third entity with more questions than answers.

There was not a call in the last State of the Union asking Americans to step forward. There was not a sense of shared sacrifice and urgency. In the course of the last year, we have been dealing, frankly, with sort of misdirected economic policies, and we will be talking about those this evening.

I see our colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), from the Committee on Ways and Means who I think has something to say about it. We have the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), who has some significant information to share about the impact as it has to deal with poor people. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) can deal with impacts on children.

We will be dealing with the economy here in the course of our discussion this evening, but I think it important to note that we have got the economy, we have not addressed it; and in fact, the proposals that have been slowly leaked out and trial balloons that have been floated on some of the President's speeches do not give me any cause for comfort as I look at the problem of a State like Oregon, which has the highest unemployment rate in the country.

Nothing that has been proposed to this point is going to do anything to put these people back to work. It is not going to deal with investments in infrastructure and cleaning up the environment that could make a huge difference tomorrow, and there is not anything that speaks to the concerns and the problems of the vast majority of working Americans. We are going to be getting into that later this evening.

Last but not least, I hope to return to a brief conversation about the environment. Certainly, we have seen dramatic events around the world that present the problems we have to global climate change in terms of the economic devastation and that assault on human health in terms of what is happening to the environment; and sadly, sadly, this is an area that not only have we not had a series of positive initiatives that could make the world healthier, safer and more economically secure, but sadly, in the course of the last year, we have seen a series of below-the-radar assaults on the environment by this administration, which are going to have profound effects for years to come.

I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in yielding to me, and I look forward to participating with him and our other colleagues in the course of the evening, painting the context for what the American public needs, deserves, anticipates, and contrasting that with what it appears the administration is going to do and certainly what it has done.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. I do think the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) has sketched an interesting conundrum.

I mentioned the concern I have over what happened in the last year, but he raises an interesting dimension if we reflect back at what happened with previous administrations and previous Congresses 10 years ago.

Ten years ago, men and women in both parties, both the Republican and a Democratic administration, made hard choices to control spending, to not cut taxes even though it is fun, but the first President Bush worked with Congress, put forward a balanced program of some modest tax increase, some fiscal discipline in cutting. It was followed later by both Republicans and Democrats with the Clinton administration, so we got a balanced budget. We were able to turn things around. The economy was booming. Today we are turning our back on that story.

At the same time, the first President Bush, when he was involved in the Middle East with Iraq, painfully, arduously, worked and put together an international coalition of almost 40 countries of allies and some unlikely supporters dealing with that activity; and today, we are looking at a situation where the United States is not anywhere near that position and, instead, is relying on some rather aggressive rhetoric rather than the hard work in the trenches that characterized what happened with the first President Bush and the first Gulf War.

Let me, if I could, I would like to begin by recognizing some of my colleagues that are here. I know the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) has had a special interest dealing with the effects on young people and education. We appreciate her leadership and would welcome comments that she would care to give at this point.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentlewoman's tireless efforts on behalf of children in our society, and focusing our attention and making sure that people on this floor have this constantly brought to their attention. It is really deeply appreciated.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn to my colleague, the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), a gentleman who has been involved with some tough budget times as a local official and has been involved with a series of schemes here in Congress, and who has never been shy about sharing his opinions about what the appropriate approach should be from his perspective.

I appreciate the gentleman being here this evening, and I am pleased to yield to him now.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's passion and insights.

Another colleague from the Pacific Northwest, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), has served on the Committee on Ways and Means arm-wrestling with these proposals for a number of years and has particular expertise dealing with health care and the economic revitalization through tax policy.

If the gentleman would be interested in sharing a little of his insights with us in terms of what we can look forward to and what we should look forward to instead.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is interesting to consider what would have happened if such a challenge had been made last year, energy independence, for instance, instead of spending up to $230 billion on national missile defense. We have already put

an $8 billion downpayment this year. We are starting work in Alaska which, ironically, is something that is not going to make this country safe from terrorist attacks. If people in North Korea actually have a nuclear device, we are as vulnerable to somebody bringing a motor boat into the Puget Sound, into San Francisco Bay, into New York Harbor.

Instead of moving forward with a challenge like the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) talked about, instead this last year has been characterized by a systematic assault on the environment.

There was a classic cartoon by Gary Trudeau in ``Doonesbury'' in the Sunday paper which appeared around the country. The text of it that builds the momentum is ``For instance, Mr. President, we've produced new rules to speed up logging in national forests, rolled back protections of 58 million acres from roads and developments, eased pollution controls for power plants and factories, rejected new fuel- efficiency standards, sped up permit-granting for power companies, lifted a ban on snowmobiles in parks, proposed 51,000 new natural gas wells, removed limits on coal producers for dumping mountaintop fill in streams, reduced EPA fines of polluters by 64 percent, opened up Padre Island to drilling, halted funding for several Superfund sites, replaced scientists who don't support our views, rejected the Kyoto Global Warming treaty, and much, much more!'' Gary is not making this up. This is all part of the environmental legacy of this administration in the course of the last year.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens), the only librarian in Congress and a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce who has been dealing with questions of poverty, education, and how we get our communities rolling again.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's comments and focusing on what we could be doing, what we should be doing, as opposed to what it appears that the President is focusing on, an economic stimulus package that will create less than 200,000 jobs, which is only 10 percent of the jobs we have already lost in the last year, that will provide the top 1 percent of the taxpayers with 40 percent of the benefits, and will increase the deficit by more than $900 billion.

Mr. Speaker, I yield next to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), who is an experienced legislator with an impressive victory which brought him to this Chamber, and a Member who has impressed not only his constituents in Ohio, but also Members here in Washington with the way the gentleman has hit the ground running.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman joining us and the gentleman's focus on the plight of prescription drug coverage for our senior citizens. It continues to be, I think, an outrage and a shame that poor American senior citizens pay the highest prescription drug prices in the world. It is in this context that we are moving forward dealing with the economy, with the weakest economic growth in 50 years, over 2 million private sector jobs eliminated since this administration started, 2 million more employees out of work, the median household income being down, and the inequality gaps growing, and States facing huge deficits and having to cut programs. Then we are given an economic program on the Federal level which will actually reduce State revenues for the majority of States and not meaningfully deal with the problems that our States are facing.

I am hopeful that this Congress at least will respond to the efforts of the Democratic minority here in the House to make sure that we fully fund our commitments to State and local governments, local governments being the first line of defense against terrorist acts here at home.

Promises to local governments have been left unfulfilled.

I am pleased to turn to the gentleman from California (Mr. Honda), my colleague who has finished a distinguished career in the California State Assembly and who is now adding his voice here in our Nation's Capital dealing with the needs of the people of California and around the country.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I appreciate his focusing on the program that has been advanced by the Democrats in the House of Representatives. It is an immediate economic stimulus plan that will create 1 million jobs this year. It would put money and purchasing power in the hands of consumers, provide relief to 3 million laid-off workers. The House Democratic plan proposes a $300 tax rebate now for every working taxpayer, tax breaks to help small businesses and encourage business investment, and a 26-week extension of unemployment insurance. It would provide money to the States to deal with their fiscal crises, dealing with homeland security, transportation, and health care costs. All told, this Democratic plan which would put more on the table this year would cost far less than that of the President. We look forward to being able to carry this debate forward in the aftermath of this important week here in Washington, D.C.

I appreciate the courtesy, Mr. Speaker, of being able to be here on the floor this evening.