Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Reverend Jose Eugenio Hoyos, a distinguished member of our community who has dedicated his life to serving the less fortunate through his vocation in the Catholic Church.

The Rev. Hoyos began his commitment to exemplary community service over 20 years ago when he was ordained into the priesthood at the Cathedral of St. Pedro in Buga, Colombia. From there he continued his studies at the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, IL, where he earned his master of divinity.

After completing his studies, he returned to Colombia where he became an associate pastor at the Parish of St. Juan De Avila in Bogota and taught both philosophy and religion at nearby colleges. He remained in Colombia for several years until he was relocated to Northern Virginia where he is currently serving as director of the Spanish Apostolate for the Diocese of Arlington.

Since arriving in Northern Virginia 16 years ago, Rev. Hoyos has dedicated his life to serving the public community in many different ways. Beginning in 1992, Rev. Hoyos envisioned an organization with the purpose to recruit and organize professionals to assist immigrants as well as the neediest people in the community. He founded Marcelino Pan Y Vino, Inc., a nonprofit organization that has earned worldwide recognition for its work with the National Institutes of Health in assisting those with leukemia, AIDS, cancer, and those in need of an organ transplant. Most recently, his organization raised $25,000 for Katrina disaster relief in the gulf coast.

Rev. Hoyos is the founder of the radio program called ``Catholic Newsletter'' and the TV show called ``Community and Religion Dose'' a program of prayer and faith that is aimed at spreading a positive message to alcoholics, gang members, and the troubled youth. He is also a columnist for various local and international papers that reach the Hispanic community.

Not one to forget his roots, Rev. Hoyos founded and is president of Colombia Integra, an organization that gives Colombians, who have fled their native land, the tools needed to become active members of our society.

Over the years, Rev. Hoyos's deeds have not gone unnoticed by the community he cares so deeply about. He has been recognized as ``Hispanic Man of the Year'' by the staff of ``Diario Nacion'' a Washington, DC, newspaper. The Alexandria Police Department named him ``True Community Hero.'' He has been selected as ``Washingtonian of the Year'' by the Washingtonian Magazine. Last, but not least, Rev. Hoyos was granted the honor to carry the Olympic torch from the Atlanta Olympics through the streets of Arlington.

Mr. Speaker, the Reverend Jose Eugenio Hoyos has been responsible for touching thousands of lives over the course of his career. He is truly a beacon of light putting his faith into action. For his dedication, the people of northern Virginia are genuinely grateful.

Madam Speaker, at the beginning of the 21st century, America stands as the greatest economic and military power in the history of the world. We have been blessed with tremendous resources, wonderful natural resources. But the most precious of all of our resources is the human potential of America's workforce.

But we have to sustain the investment in that potential. Today, half of our students will not graduate from high school. And here we have a budget proposed by the President that has some of the deepest, most dangerous cuts ever proposed, eliminating vocational education, eliminating 36 other programs designed to help teachers and students, cutting billions of dollars from college student loan programs.

In fact, 3.7 million children will not even get the reading and math help they were promised under the Leave No Child Behind Act. This is not going to sustain our economic power, Madam Speaker. It undermines our economic strength, and, in fact, it is bound to shortchange our children's future.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend from the Appropriations Committee and my good friend from California. I want my colleagues to consider some facts.

One is with this amendment that we will have now spent as much as we did in the entire Vietnam War. Does anybody think that that $400 billion was well spent in retrospect? Consider the fact that 82 percent of the Sunnis and 69 percent of the Shi'a want us to withdraw immediately. In fact, the majority say that our presence is hurting rather than helping Iraq's future. Consider what happened when the British concluded their occupation.

The first people the Iraqis went after were those who cooperated with the British, considering them collaborators. Then they went after the foreigners that were trying to exploit the situation. We have a responsibility to get those foreign terrorists, al-Zarqawi and all of the al-Qaeda.

But the Iraqi people were never a threat to the United States. They are not now. Let us work with the Iraqis, get rid of the foreign terrorists, but not establish any permanent bases in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, in 2 months, about 10 million senior citizens are about to get a Bush Medicare tax imposed on them for the rest of their lives. If they don't sign up for the Medicare prescription drug bill by May 15, then they can't sign up again until the end of the year, and for the rest of their lives they will pay a 7 percent higher premium than their neighbors under exactly the same circumstances just because they couldn't figure out this myriad of dozens of different plans that they are presented with.

This is wrong. The Republicans and the Democrats need to get together to extend the deadline to the end of the year, regardless of what the President decides. It is time for Congress to act and to save these 10 million Americans from having an unfair tax burden on their shoulders for the rest of their lives. It is wrong. Let's fix it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend the distinguished minority leader of the House Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Chairman, a lot of us on this side and virtually everyone on the other side are going to vote for this bill, but we should do so with considerable reservations.

First of all, two-thirds of it goes to fund the Iraq War; even though, after 4 years, there is still no end in sight. You wonder if this is not more good money going after bad or at least after a mission that has yet to be defined.

We will now have spent $490 billion from fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2007. Mr. Chairman, the cost of the entire Vietnam War, adjusted for inflation, was exactly the same cost that we have now appropriated.

Mr. Chairman, the most credible poll that was just taken showed that three-quarters of the American troops believe that we should withdraw within the year, and over half said it should be within 6 months.

Even more telling, a poll that was conducted on January 28 of this year among Iraqi citizens showed that 82 percent of Sunnis and 69 percent of Shi'a want U.S. troops withdrawn immediately. These are the people that we are trying to save for democracy, and in fact, the majority of both Shi'a and Sunnis believe that the U.S. will hurt, that is their word ``hurt,'' Iraq over the next 5 years unless it withdraws immediately. Mr. Chairman, we need an exit strategy that is going to work and that has the support of the people we're trying to help.

Now the other reservation we have is over the way in which this money is being spent. We are told that about $8.8

billion has been used inappropriately of Iraqi reconstruction funds that we appropriated. It is unaccounted for, according to the Inspector General in Iraq. There are 50 investigations going on. A Halliburton subsidiary just acknowledged, admitted, that they overcharged the government by $63 million for a contract.

We need a Truman Committee-type investigation. It saved the American taxpayer tens of billions of dollars in the 1940's. It was rejected in the full committee, but it should be made part of this bill.

Now another major part of this bill deals with Hurricane Katrina. I was just down there in Louisiana, Mr. Chairman, on my own tab, for what it is worth what I learned about the contracting process down there is just stunning. It makes you wonder whether we should be providing any money unless we can get a handle over the way the money is spent.

Let me give you a thinly-veiled hypothetical example. One contract, for example, we give it to a prime contractor to fix roofs for $25,000 a roof. Eighty percent of it goes to a subcontractor, then 60 percent to another subcontractor, to another subcontractor, and, finally, it gets down to a company that actually puts the roof on for $1,200 a roof. You do the math, Mr. Chairman. Virtually all of the money goes to these contractors who never banged a hammer on a nail, and you know how we found out about it? Because the actual undocumented aliens who did the work contacted a FEMA person on the field, wondering how they were going to get paid. You go figure, Mr. Chairman.

Another contract went for debris removal, prime contractor, subcontractor, down again through reiterations, finally goes to the company that is already doing the very work for the City of New Orleans for a fraction of the cost but they never saw 90 percent of the money. These are things a Truman Committee could look into and fix.

Beyond the need for more oversight on the contracting process of the Federal Government, Mr. Chairman, we have some other issues that should have been part of this bill. The members of the full committee in the last omnibus appropriations conference had put the bill to bed, finished it up, when the majority leader of the Senate came over and added 45 pages providing liability exemption for drug companies.

We wanted to rectify that by striking the language we never approved. That was not done.

The third issue that we debated in full committee, and unfortunately it lost, was to give Medicare recipients an extra 7 months within which to make a decision as to whether to participate in Medicare part D. If Medicare senior citizens don't sign up by May 15, they have to then wait for another 7 months and they will pay an extra 1 percent a month. That means there will be a tax, if you will, a penalty of 7 percent for the rest of their lives applied to their insurance premiums.

It is too confusing a program. They need more time to decide. We ought to give them another 7-month extension so that they can make that decision by the end of this calendar year. If we don't ten million seniors will pay this penalty for the rest of their lives.

Mr. Chairman, there are so many other issues in this bill that we could discuss. Some of them will be discussed. But the bottom line is that it is an awful lot of money. It is the largest supplemental we have ever passed in this body. The largest appropriation as a supplemental ever considered. We have to provide it, but we ought to show more scrutiny towards the way the money is being spent.

And finally, Mr. Chairman, there is a provision here with regard to Dubai Ports World attempted purchase of American ports. I know I am in the distinct minority. It was a 62-2 vote, and I was one of the two that opposed this language. We have to identify our friends, and Dubai is our friend. The fact is that the Homeland Security Secretary said if this deal goes through it will strengthen port security, yet we ignore that information as well as the reality of the fact that Dubai is doing everything to be a bridge to the moderate Arab world. We blew up that bridge in committee, as far as I am concerned, Mr. Chairman, and I would hope we will try to rectify some of that damage.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my good friend from Maryland.

Mr. Chairman, I have no illusions about the results of this vote. It is going to be pretty much proportionate to the 62-2 vote that we took in the full Appropriations Committee, Mr. Kolbe and I being in the minority. But I want to share with my colleagues why this is the wrong thing to be doing.

The fact is that Dubai is our natural bridge to the modern, peaceful and progressive Arab world, and, with this amendment, instead of crossing that bridge, we blow it up.

The fact is that we currently have over 600 ships that are using Dubai, U.S. naval vessels. We have more than 77,000 military personnel who take leave in Dubai, and we have never had a security incident. In fact, more U.S. military personnel take liberty, port leave, in other words, in the United Arab Emirates today than in any other place in the entire world.

The UAE wants to be our friend. They want to invest some of those petro-dollars back in the United States. They want to modernize. They want, in fact, to trade with Israel. They want to trade with Europe. They want to trade with the United States. They are under a lot of political pressure, but, in fact, the emirs are standing up to that pressure.

Couldn't we be expected to do the same? Are we going to yield to the fear

and the prejudice that I think motivates this amendment? Because it is not reasoned judgment. In fact, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States was to be conducting a 45-day thorough investigation. Then we would be able to make an informed decision. At the end of that investigation they were going to make recommendations.

But the reality is there aren't a whole lot of things that need to be changed with this transaction. It is a financial transaction. U.S. longshoremen still handle the cargo. The U.S. Coast Guard provides physical security. The Customs Service inspects the cargo.

In fact, it was the UAE who was first, right away, to sign the U.S. Container Security Initiative. We asked them to. They are doing everything. And, my friends, the Director of the Department of Homeland Security, Secretary Chertoff, said if this deal goes through, it will make our ports more secure, not less.

Listen to the experts.

I thank my good friend. I rise in support of this amendment.

As I suggested in addressing the last amendment, we need to be driven by people with expertise, not by fear and prejudice. What Mr. Sabo is suggesting is that we get the facts on the table so that we can make the most informed judgment. That is all it is. We are not necessarily going to automatically reject anyone or accept anyone.

Let's have the facts on the table, take the time, let the experts on the Committee for Foreign Investment in the United States do a thorough investigation. I think it will satisfy our constituents' concerns, but it will also enable us to make much more responsible decisions that we have made in the last week. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Point of Order

Mr. Speaker, when future generations of Americans look back at this time in our Nation's history, they will have to conclude that this Republican Congress and White House has been the most fiscally irresponsible in our Nation's history.

In 5 years we have turned a projected $5.6 trillion surplus into a projected $3.5 trillion of deficit, a $9 trillion fiscal reversal. Seventy-seven percent of it is attributable to tax cuts, most of which benefit the wealthy, and to the so-called war on terrorism.

And why do I say the so-called ``war on terrorism''? Because in this budget, this President's budget, he would provide tax cuts for the top 1 percent of Americans, greater than the entire amount of money he wants to spend on homeland security. And when you consider the fact that half of America's students do not even graduate from high school today, you have to ask why the amount of money he gives to the top 1 percent of Americans is almost twice as much as the entire amount of money he wants to spend on the education budget; and it is almost three times what he would spend on veterans health care.

This is misplaced priorities and fiscal mismanagement.

Madam Speaker, it has to be said, now that we are going to consider another budget, that this has been the most irresponsible fiscal management of the Federal budget that we have ever seen in our Nation's history.

When you consider the fact that of all the 42 Presidents that preceded this President, if you added all of the debt that was bought by foreign nations, none of it comes close to the amount of money that we have now borrowed from foreign nations; almost half of our debt. China, particularly in the last 5 years, has increased their debt holdings of American securities by 300 percent.

But beyond that, when you look at who have been the beneficiaries, you see that there has been smaller job creation in this administration than in any Presidential administration since the days of Herbert Hoover, who experienced, of course, the Great Depression.

Madam Speaker, we need to change this budget around, and not in the direction that the majority wants us to turn.

Madam Speaker, it has to be said, now that we are going to consider another budget, that this has been the most irresponsible fiscal management of the Federal budget that we have ever seen in our Nation's history.

When you consider the fact that of all the 42 Presidents that preceded this President, if you added up all the money borrowed from foreign countries it is cumulatively less than the amount of money that this President on his own has borrowed from foreign nations; almost half of our outstanding debt is now held by foreign countries--you have to reach that conclusion. China, particularly in the last 5 years, has increased their debt holdings of American securities by 300 percent.

But beyond that, when you look at who have been the beneficiaries of this national indebtedness, you see that it is not the working class. There has been smaller job creation in this administration than in any Presidential administration since the days of Herbert Hoover, who presided, of course, over the Great Depression. The beneficiaries of this indebtedness has been the leisure class through tax cuts.

Madam Speaker, we need to change this budget around, and not in the direction that the President and the majority of this Congress wants.

Mr. Speaker, I plan to yield to several of my colleagues. Mr. Scott from Virginia is also going to speak, and as soon as Mr. Spratt, the ranking member on the House Budget Committee, comes out of an important hearing on the Dubai ports issue, he will be able to join us as well.

Mr. Speaker, the 2007 budget takes America down a wrong and unsustainable path. The decisions the President made in this budget favor the wealthy over the working class. These decisions reward those who live off what the IRS considers to be unearned income, while making those who have to work long hours every day, to support themselves and their families, pay far more in taxes. In fact, I think you would have found bipartisan agreement if we could have worked out tax cuts that were more in the interest of the working class and those hardworking families.

But, in fact, when you combine the focus of the tax cuts on those who live primarily off unearned income and the spending cuts that purportedly are necessary to offset the cost of these tax cuts, the majority of young people in this country will find it harder to go to college. It will be harder for low-income elderly to get the nutrition and health care they need, and it will be much harder for our grandchildren to pay for the future needs that their generation will face.

The decisions made in the President's 2007 budget, like his budgets since 2002, define a Nation, a community, if you will, that is not the America that we know. In fact, his priorities are just the opposite of what makes America great.

We heard from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle; they call it a so-called Republican truth squad. It boggles your mind.

But the fact is that the Bush administration has raised spending while they have cut taxes. You can't fight two wars on four tax cuts, ladies and gentlemen.

The gentlewoman from North Carolina suggested that the government never invests, it only spends. Well, what does she think is the purpose of the interstate highway system that enabled our economy to fulfill its potential during the Eisenhower administration and subsequent administrations, or the money that we have put into the public schools systems to empower our working class?

And that is what we are talking about, investment that will give us sustainable benefits versus tax cuts that are immediately lost, most of which seem to be invested overseas, and cuts in the real safety net that can make America achieve its greatness.

The conscious choices made in this budget reflect the flawed policies of an administration that has taken this country down a terribly wrong path, one that consists of waging an unnecessary and extraordinarily costly war, delivering huge tax cuts to the very wealthiest of this Nation, and taking the Federal debt to depths never before experienced, while reducing services to working Americans.

First, the 2007 budget is heavily impacted by the consequences of a reckless foreign venture, namely, the war in Iraq. The President's 2007 budget sets aside another $120 billion supplemental to cover the cost of waging this war in fiscal 2007. Of course, this is on top of a regular defense budget of over $450 billion. And, in fact, we have now allotted over $400 billion, when you look through fiscal 2007, primarily for this war in Iraq, and very little for the war in Afghanistan that was referred to by our colleague from Maryland.

The money that is requested in these Iraq war supplementals is $40 billion more than we request for transportation, $33 billion more than we request for education and training, more than $40 billion more than we request for the care of our military veterans, more than $90 billion more than we will set aside to protect our environment and natural resources, and more than $80 billion for what is considered diplomacy, but is spent on dealing with the AIDS crisis, on dealing with the ethnic cleansing, the genocide in Sudan and throughout the world, places where we could have such a constructive, positive effect.

The amount of money that is being requested in fiscal 2007 for this war in Iraq will bring the total amount requested by the Bush administration to $490 billion, an enormous sum. The American people have to ask, has this been worth it, given the results to date? But we know the results are more than 2,300 Americans who have lost their lives in Iraq; more than 16,700 who have been wounded; tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of Iraqi casualties; and yet Osama bin Laden is still on the run. Iraq now appears to be descending into an all-out civil war and al Qaeda recruitment levels are reportedly stronger than ever.

But while our men and women are risking their lives overseas, at the instruction of this administration, and of course, we have great regard for their courage and sacrifice, we are not being asked to sacrifice at home; and, in fact, the people who have been the most rewarded by this great economy--that was built on the investments that have been made in prior generations--they are being asked to sacrifice the least. In fact, they are actually being rewarded. The same time that these men and women are going to war, we are continuing trillions of dollars of tax cuts that primarily benefit the very wealthiest in our society. And yet these tax proposals are going to cost the American people about $3 trillion, $3 trillion over the next decade. The benefits from these tax cuts are heavily skewed toward the wealthy.

If they were to fix the alternative minimum tax for the middle class, that would be one thing. If they were to help working-class families deal with the vulnerabilities they face in providing for their families, that would be one thing. But that is not where most of it goes. More than half of these benefits go to the 4 percent of Americans who make over $200,000 annually.

Four years from now, in 2010, taxpayers with incomes of more than $1 million a year will receive average tax cuts worth $155,000, 100 times the tax cut that the average taxpayer will receive. Is that fair? Is that smart? I don't think it is appropriate, and I don't think it reflects America's priorities. And they come at a huge cost to the fiscal security of this Nation; causing massive amounts of annual Federal deficits.

Over the last 4 years, we have seen the largest deficits in the history of our Nation. Mr. Scott is going to show you what has happened over the last 5 years on a chart. I hope you will pay close attention. It is unbelievable.

The current fiscal year, 2006, is expected to produce the largest deficit ever in the history of our country at $423 billion. And this doesn't even take into account the supplemental spending requests that the President will send up to the Hill any day now which will increase the 2006 deficit to well over half a trillion dollars. And fiscal 2007 will be another year of historic deficits predicted to be $354 billion.

In fact, since President Bush took office, we have had the largest annual deficits in the history of this country, and those numbers are net numbers after you take the Social Security surplus and offset it against general fund deficits. So you can add another $200 billion annually to each of those numbers.

So we are creating debt of over $500 billion a year, Mr. Speaker. These deficits and the $8 trillion in debt we now

have as a result of prior deficits will place on our children and grandchildren an unprecedented level of debt burden.

Because of these policies, every child born today automatically inherits $28,000 as their share of the Federal debt. And under the President's budget proposals, a child born just 5 years from now will inherit a much larger share. In fact, they will be paying taxes for nearly the first 5 months of every year just to pay the interest on the debt that their parents' generation incurred.

The President's massive budget deficits also require us to borrow from foreign governments. Foreign investors now hold half of the country's publicly held debt. China alone holds $250 billion of the public debt, which is more than 300 percent the amount that China held only 5 years ago. They have a fiscal guillotine over our necks if they chose to use it. We are so dependent upon China's being willing to borrow all this debt that we generate year after year.

Let me just show you a chart, in fact, of this foreign debt; Mr. Kahn, our very able staff director on the House Budget Committee, has put this together. This is the aggregate U.S. national debt held by foreign countries.

Now, the debt was climbing during the Reagan years in the 1980s, continued to climb during the Bush years. During the beginning of the Clinton years, it started to top off, and then with President Clinton having adopted the pay-as-you-go policy of the first President Bush, having to pay for tax cuts as well as additional spending, we got the budget under control. We had an estimated $5.6 trillion surplus predicted for the succeeding decade. So foreign debt would have gone down just like this. And as our foreign debt went down, our national security would have gone up.

But this administration decided they did not want to adopt the policies of the father. They did not want any pay-as-you-go. They just wanted to cut taxes. The heck with paying it. We will send a credit card to the next generation. They can pay off our debt. That is their problem, not ours. We are going to live high off the hog. We are going to reward our contributors. And the fact is that that is exactly what has happened, and we have driven this Nation into debt.

But even more seriously, look at what has happened to foreign debt. Foreign debt has gone up like this to here. We are now at $1.5 trillion. Here we are at $1.175 trillion and here we are over $2 trillion in 2005, a substantial share being purchased by China, as I just said, a 300 percent increase in China's share of the foreign debt. But imagine what has happened to foreign debt since 2001 when this President took office. Talk about endangering national security.

Now, who pays for all of this? Well, what happens is that the American people obviously pay. Our children will pay most of it. But even today the sick and the elderly who need care that cannot be provided by their families will pay. We will have our college students pay in reductions in student loans, and basically the dignity and the upward mobility of the American working class is going to suffer for these policies. Mr. Speaker, this is a situation that is not sustainable, that has to be reversed.

Now, everyone is entitled to their own ideological opinions. I do not think they ought to be entitled to their own set of facts. This is factual information. You can check in any of these budget documents put out by the government. You can find that the amount of debt has skyrocketed. The amount of debt held by foreign nations has skyrocketed to an even greater degree. We are dependent on countries like China to keep us afloat.

And, in fact, the working class has suffered. Our children are going to pay the bill, and we are involved in a war that we are only paying for by borrowing from the future. We have not paid one dime of the cost of the Iraq war nor have we paid for the tax cuts that we have so blithely passed.

Mr. Speaker, with this, I would like to yield to Mr. Scott, who has been on the Budget Committee for several years, and he is going to show you some shocking charts as well.

I thank my good friend from Virginia. Let me just clarify a couple of points. In the Democratic plan, it was basically based upon the pay-as-you-go concept of 1990 with the first President Bush, a bipartisan plan to pay for any subsequent tax cuts, to have sufficient revenue to pay for whatever spending occurred, but to balance the budget each year. By those efforts to balance the budget, it actually created a surplus.

Now, I know that the gentleman voted after 9/11 to go to war in Afghanistan, to go after the people that attacked us, Osama bin Laden, as I did; but that is a small fraction of the money that we are spending on the Iraq war.

The gentleman knows a lot of people, men and women, who have been financially successful. Does he feel that if they had been asked to sacrifice to pay for the war to go after those people who attacked us on 9/11, that they would have readily foregone tax cuts so that we could keep the budget balanced and avoid deficits being passed on to future generations?

I thank the gentleman for illuminating those misplaced priorities, and I thank him very much for his extraordinarily illuminating set of charts and numbers.

Mr. Scott, do you have one further thing you wanted to share with the American people? I yield to the gentleman.

Unbelievable charts. So for all of those Presidents since Herbert Hoover who had a net loss of job creation because of the Great Depression, Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan and the first President Bush, and then President Clinton, of course, they all created far more jobs than this Presidency, the worst job creation record in our lifetimes, in the last, what, 65 years. So, it is an unbelievable record. We thank you for sharing it with us, Mr. Scott.

We will now hear from the gentleman from Long Island, New York, Tim Bishop, a member of the Budget Committee, and very much concerned about the fiscal policy of this administration.

Mr. Speaker, we are very appreciative of the gentleman's comments. Thank you very much, Mr. Bishop.

I yield to the very distinguished gentleman from Washington State, Brian Baird.

I thank the very astute gentleman from Washington State. And now we have our very diligent, conscientious member of the Budget Committee from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Ms. Schwartz.

I thank the Congresswoman from Pennsylvania.

I am happy to yield to the Congressman from Alabama, Congressman Artur Davis. Thank you for your leadership, particularly on the Budget Committee.

I thank the gentleman very much, and particularly for revealing the real effects upon the hard-working people in your congressional district. Many of them are poor because they have not had the opportunities to be as prosperous as others. And that is a situation perhaps more pronounced in your rural district, but it is the case through so many parts of the country.

We need to be investing in as strong an America as we can possibly create. Our strength is in America's workers, and the education our children receive, in the roots that our families put into their communities.

And I know your total commitment to the people of your district as well as to the country and I appreciate your input. Thank you, Congressman Davis.

We now call upon the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy), the former State insurance commissioner who watches this budget very carefully. And he is going to share with us some of his concern about the direction our fiscal policy has taken over the last 5 years.

I thank the gentleman from North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy) for his extraordinary leadership and his very deep and genuine concern over the fiscal policy direction of this country.

Even beyond the immorality of this wild, profligate spending and then sending the bill to our children to pay, what American family would take a credit card, max it out, and then tell the credit card company, Do not worry about it. Send the bill to my kids after I die.

And that is what is going to happen. The amount of debt and even the interest on that debt is going to cripple generations to come.

I thank my good friend from Florida, the son of one of our most distinguished Members, who is rapidly becoming a leader in his own right.

I mentioned to him that yesterday I stood transfixed at the television set watching his speech on the floor, and it brought up the issue of security. And I trust the gentleman will underscore the national security implications of this budget deficit, because the only way that we are able to spend so profligately, get away with it, is that we have found people who are willing to buy our debt. Not here, but overseas. And for some reason, China seems just as happy as they could be to increase the amount of American debt that they hold by 300 percent over the last 5 years. Billions of dollars they hold; and all they have to do is to say, we do not think that we are going to buy your debt in the manner and to the extent that we have in the past, and our stock market, our economy would crumble.

Imagine putting this country into that kind of vulnerability where we are dependent upon a communist nation buying our debt just so we can continue this misguided fiscal policy.

I thank the gentleman for his leadership, and I look forward to watching him and reading his statement in the Congressional Record tomorrow too. You have been terrific on this. Thank you, Congressman Meek.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the United Service Organizations, whose world headquarters are located in my district and this year will celebrate its 65th anniversary of serving the men and women of our armed forces.

At the direction of President Franklin D. Roosevelt the USO was formed in 1941 as a means of promoting troop morale by providing entertainment, recreation and support. Relying solely on charitable contributions and the generosity of individuals, the USO has served troops in each American conflict since World War II.

Perhaps at its most well known during World War II, the USO provided over 400,000 shows and performances to our armed forces, sending 7,000 performers overseas and performing as many as 700 shows in a single day. It was during this time that the great Bob Hope first performed for our soldiers. His famous USO career spanned six decades, headlining over 60 tours and delivering countless one-liners. In 1997, the USO successfully worked with Congress to designate Bob Hope the first honorary veteran of the U.S. armed forces.

Today the USO is still going strong. In 2005, the USO sponsored over 50 celebrity entertainment tours, visiting nearly 200,000 service members in over 30 countries. The volunteer base has grown to over 12,000 people who donate over 450,000 hours of service each year.

The USO, however, provides more than just uplifting entertainment to our troops. Over 750,000 handmade care packages were sent to service members deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan last year. Additionally, the USO has made communication to the home front more affordable and accessible through the Operation Phone Home which distributed over one million prepaid phone cards to deployed troops.

All of this would not be possible were it not for the dedication of the USO staff and volunteers who so graciously give their time and energy to help those who are defending our Nation. Mr. Speaker, I ask that you join me in commending the USO and its members for all of their work and in congratulating them on 65 years of dedicated services to our troops.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to commend the Arlington County Civic Federation on the occasion of its 90th anniversary celebration.

Born from a handful of concerned citizens' groups devoted to creating better schools and roads, the Arlington Civic Federation has grown to over 80 organizations as the oldest and longest standing voice in the county devoted to improving residents' lives.

As the boundaries of new civic organizations that comprise the Federation have changed over the years, so too have the boundaries of issues, ideas, and actions the Federation has endorsed and successfully championed for its citizenry.

The Federation has battled for Arlington's citizens on issues ranging from school desegregation, affordable housing, operation of the airport authority, HIV/AIDS, Metro and interstate highways, as well as football and baseball stadiums. Standing up for the ordinary citizen with a non- political, nonpartisan, non-sectarian voice, the Federation continues to improve the quality of life for Arlingtonians and shape public policy from the local to Federal level.

Patrick A. Smaldore Jr., a lifelong Arlington County resident, career civil servant and Naval reservist, now serves the Federation as President.

He is joined by the leadership of Vice President--Jackie Snelling, Treasurer--Frances Finta, Secretary--Burt Bostwick, Chairman of the Executive Committee--Larry Mayer, Vice Chairman of the Executive Committee--Stan Karson and members Eileen Williams, Beth Offenbacker, and Frank Emerson. Their work, along with the 14 standing committees is responsible for engaging new issues as they arise.

With the Commonwealth's coming 400th anniversary, we are reminded of how intimate a role Arlington has played in the shaping of our Nation's history. George Washington, James Madison and George Mason all worked or owned land in the county. As the voice of its people, the Federation also reminds us of the innovation and leadership that will continue to contribute to our future.

Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in honoring the 90th anniversary of the Arlington County Civic Federation for its many contributions to public affairs and its ongoing commitment to the people of Arlington County.

Mr. Speaker, the budget the President unveiled this week takes from the poor, gives to the rich, and leaves all of us in a worse fiscal mess.

At a time of war, when our soldiers are risking their lives halfway across the world, where is the call for shared sacrifice? Do millionaires deserve $50 billion in tax cuts, paid for by reducing services for the lowest-income families? Can we afford to extend tax breaks for the wealthiest 1 percent when our fiscal obligations include spending over $1 billion a week in Iraq, the rebuilding of the gulf coast, and protecting the homeland from terrorist threats?

Instead of responsibly budgeting for these costs, we are in a fiscal free-fall, giving breaks to those who need it the least while slapping away the hands of those who need help the most.

This administration is the most fiscally irresponsible in U.S. history, responsible for the four largest annual deficits ever. We have gone from a projected 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion in 2001 to a projected deficit of $3.3 trillion, a reversal of $9 trillion.

Mr. Speaker, this budget lacks compassion, is fiscally irresponsible, and does not reflect the priorities of this great Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of America's working families and in opposition to the spending cuts included in the budget reconciliation conference agreement.

While I am committed to restoring fiscal discipline to the House, cuts to essential social services that aid the most vulnerable in our society are not the appropriate way to achieve this goal. Indeed, none of the savings from the cuts included in this legislation will be used to pay down the deficit, but rather to help finance reconciliation tax cuts for the wealthiest in our society.

Under this bill, $39 billion over 5 years will be cut from social services programs that aid families in need. These spending cuts will negatively impact an estimated 58 million Americans who currently participate in Medicaid, student loans, child support, and Medicare.

The package includes $28 billion in cuts to Medicaid over 10 years, 75 percent of which affect provisions that will increase the number of the uninsured and under-insured by raising co-payments and premiums, cutting benefits, and tightening access to long-term care. The misplaced priorities inherent in this bill will force the neediest in our society to pay more for health care, increasing the growing ranks of the uninsured in America.

In addition to facing higher costs, Medicaid recipients will also be required to submit a passport or birth certificate to maintain or gain eligibility. This provision may prove to be a barrier for vulnerable families who participate in the Medicaid program. It will certainly result in fewer adults and children accessing Medicaid services or having to unnecessarily delay access to critical doctor visits or hospital stays.

By cutting $12 billion in student aid programs, this bill will make it more difficult for students to afford a college education. It will raise the cost of college for students and their families through increased interest rates and loan fees. This bill will be the largest student aid cut ever and shows a lack of commitment by the majority party for the education of our next generation.

Families and children who rely on child support payments and other safety net programs will also be hurt by this legislation; $2.6 billion will be cut from child support enforcement, foster care programs, and Supplemental Security Income. Regrettably, the reduction in child support enforcement funds will result in the loss of billions of dollars in potential child support payments, reducing child support collections by $2.9 billion over 5 years and $8.4 billion over 10 years. This is directly taking money out of the hands of single parents struggling to raise their children on their own.

Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is that the shameful cuts offered by the majority hurt our Nation's most vulnerable citizens in a direct effort to provide more tax cuts for wealthy Americans. I, therefore, strongly oppose this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, this is wrong. It is indefensible. And the only reason that it is being done is because the majority has the power to do it. There are a great many Members of the majority, I can see them right now, that know that the defense appropriations bill is not the vehicle with which we should be establishing profoundly important environmental policy. Whether or not to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is an issue that has been divisive and contentious, that is bound to delay this bill and that has nothing germane to do with this defense appropriations bill. It should not be here. And yet we are going to do it because the majority can get away with it at 2:00 a.m. in the morning.

We have been debating this for decades, whether or not to allow our national wildlife refuges to be opened for drilling. Good people of good intention on both sides can make their arguments, but they should be made in the authorizing committee, not at 2:00 a.m. in the morning, not slipped into an appropriations bill when we are sitting in conference at the last minute just because the chairman can do it. He figures he can force Members to have to choose between supporting the troops and protecting the environment. That is a false choice. I do not believe that the policy is right. To save a penny a gallon, we are going to establish this precedent, we are going to drill in what is really the Serengeti of the Arctic meaning that our future generations will not be able to enjoy this wilderness in the same way because we have jeopardized the ecology of this pristine wilderness.

Beyond the fact that the policy is wrong is that the process stinks. It is indefensible to be doing this at this time on this bill, forcing Members into this kind of a false choice. This policy of protecting our wildlife refuges has been upheld through four Republican Presidents, three Democratic Presidents. It should. It is a very important environmental priority. The process you are using to change this policy does not show respect for the integrity of this body. That is why this rule should be defeated. This provision should not be part of the defense appropriations bill. It does not belong here. We should not be debating it at 2:00 a.m. in the morning. And just because

people can do it, because they have the power to do it does not mean it is right, and it will come back to haunt us.