Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the gentleman if the revenue numbers also include the surplus that is coming in from FICA taxes, from Social Security. Because what this administration has been doing is really masking the seriousness of the deficit that they have created, because they have been taking the Social Security surpluses and offsetting it against the actual deficit to make the deficit appear much smaller.

Mr. Speaker, what I am getting at is, I remember, as the gentleman does, when the Clinton administration acquired a substantial surplus and was projecting at the end of the year 2000 about $5.5 trillion of surplus. To meet the Social Security obligations for the next 75 years, what they were going to do is to take the Social Security surplus and put it back into the Social Security trust funds, so we would not have this issue with regard to supposedly bankrupting Social Security. All of that could have been avoided if we had followed through on those policies. Unfortunately, what this administration did was to promptly pay out that money in tax cuts.

We have been talking about these high numbers, trillions and billions; in fact, I wish the people, if there is anyone watching at home, they might write down what $1.7 trillion represents. It is 1 comma 7, and then 11 zeroes.

Mr. Speaker, $1 trillion is a thousand billion; a billion is a thousand million. This is an enormous amount of money that we have reduced our revenue by as a result of tax cuts, most of which went to the people who needed it the least.

Now, what is most troubling, I think to many people that we represent, is the cuts that are going to occur in the lives of people dependent upon programs. I want the gentleman to conclude his points, but when we talk about cutting $60 billion out of Medicaid nursing home costs and health costs for children and eliminating vocational education, all of it relates back to this policy, and it seems almost as though it is an excuse to cut domestic social programs that represent only 16 percent of the deficit, and yet almost 100 percent of the cuts are coming out of these domestic social programs.

But I would like to address that, and I would like to elaborate on that in a bit. I know the gentleman wants to conclude his comments and hear from our friend, the gentleman from Maine, as well.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today because February brings to mind a time of year dedicated to hearts in the form of chocolates, cards, candies and sweet mementoes. Very little attention, however, is given to the health and the condition of the actual heart these candies and mementoes symbolize: the human heart of a loved one. It is imperative that we pause during this season to recognize the importance of cardiac health in our children, families, and loved ones.

There are nearly one million adults and children living with Congenital Heart Defects (CHD) in the United States alone, and his number continues to rise as nearly 40,000 children are diagnosed each year. Despite these figures, very little recognition is given to the victims and families of those suffering from CHD. Many of the children born with CHD are not diagnosed until days or even months after birth. This lack of detection endangers those who live without knowledge of their illness.

Among the many infants affected, the symptoms drastically range in severity and medical costs. Some children are barely affected by their defect, requiring nothing more than occasional monitoring. However, there are also families placed under the heavy emotional and financial burden of a severe heart defect that requires lifelong medical attention. The cost of multiple open heart surgeries, drugs, and raised insurance premiums becomes a special problem for low income families. Numerous organizations provide these families with support and financial aid to protect their loved ones, but these groups are only able to help a small percentage of people due to the lack of national recognition of CHD.

Raising a national consciousness about the defects and their effects will provide hope and comfort for those who have struggled with heart defects. Jeanne Imperati, the loving mother of a child with a heart defect, had the foresight in 1999 to begin a campaign focused on spreading awareness through a Congenital Heart Defects Awareness Day on February 14. On a day already dedicated to hearts, it is a simple and meaningful endeavor to remind the nation of this worthwhile cause. More attention can be given to the regularity of the defects and research about their possible cause. Creating a network of informed people throughout the nation is a simple way to provide support for survivors and their families.

While we go about the tradition of honoring loved ones this Valentine's Day, let's also give our support to those affected by Congenital Heart Defects and their cause. Awareness is the first step toward saving lives and protecting those whom we love.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this measure, which supports the goals and ideals of National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day, which was February 7, 2005. This measure recognizes the fifth anniversary of National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day and encourages the President to emphasize the importance of addressing the HIV/AIDS epidemic among the African-American community, especially among African-American women.

The statistics on HIV/AIDS in the African-American community are alarming. Over 172,000 African-Americans are living with AIDS and this population represents 42 percent of all cases in the United States. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also estimate that 69 percent of all children born to HIV-infected mothers were African- American. On a whole, African-Americans

have the poorest survival rates of any racial or ethnic group diagnosed with AIDS, with 55 percent surviving after 9 years compared to 61 percent of Hispanics, 64 percent of whites, and 69 percent of Asian Pacific Islanders.

Another goal of National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day is to encourage State and local governments, including their public health agencies, to recognize this day and to publicize its importance among their communities as well as to encourage individuals to undergo testing for

Mr. Chairman, the problem with this bill is that it is an immigration bill posing as an identification bill. Instead of listening to what the States told us needed to be done to make driver's licenses more secure, what we have done is to basically make State motor vehicle employees unwitting immigration agents. It does little to improve homeland security, and it is certain to prove overwhelming and ineffective.

Now, I support what the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis) is trying to do to improve the integrity of driver's licenses, but I find it curious that the leadership of the House has chosen to largely ignore the multiple references in the 9/11 Commission Report to the value of on-card biometric technology in improving the integrity of identification cards. The problem is that these digital images are not sufficient. Matching the image with the face is more prone to error than the technology that would use biometric data. Two fingerprints transformed into numeric algorithm, that works.

What we have here does not work. I think we are going to find the States letting us know that. Unfortunately, it will be too late. We will miss an opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, tonight is another historic opportunity for the President to give direction to this country through the State of the Union address. I know we will all be watching, and we will all be hoping that he provides the kind of direction that we need, both internationally and domestically.

Internationally he certainly deserves credit for the kind of turnout that was experienced in Iraq. It was at least equal to, if not more than, most people expected. He still needs to reassure us that there is a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq and that, in fact, he has plans to make this a safer world by dealing with truly critical situations in North Korea, in Russia in terms of its retreat to greater control of the economy and the society through a more repressive attitude. And particularly in light of the fact that there are still thousands of nuclear warheads in Russia, we need to make sure through programs such as the Nunn-Lugar bill that those nuclear warheads will never be accessible to terrorist groups.

There are a great many challenges internationally. Hopefully, he will rise to the occasion and provide leadership in the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, which is still the prism through which most Arabs and Muslims really throughout the world view our willingness and determination to provide balanced, just, and effective leadership in bringing about the kind of economic and social interdependence that will stabilize that part of the world and protect Israel from its enemies and enable Israel to continue to be a true democracy and, in fact, a model for the other regimes in that area in terms of full democratic participation.

These are all important objectives internationally, and we trust that the President will provide the kind of leadership we need, and I am confident that the Democrats will hold him fully accountable for the results in 4 years.

But we start out now with a President that has just been elected with a clear majority, something that did not happen 4 years ago. We need to work together. And what we are told on the domestic front is that the emphasis is going to be upon deficit reduction and primarily upon reforming the Social Security system. This is not where the emphasis needs to be in terms of the Social Security program.

Clearly, the budget deficit is in a crisis situation. We need leadership to lead us out of that crisis situation. We are currently spending 20 percent of the gross domestic product and bringing in only 16.8 percent in revenue. The President needs to show us where he is going to be able to come up with the kind of revenue to match the spending. The President, we suspect, if past is prologue, is going to identify a number of domestic programs; but all told those domestic programs, if we would eliminate all of them with the exception of the defense budget, they do not equal the amount of the annual deficits. So we need some clear plans on how we are going to reduce this deficit, hopefully through a PAYGO plan that requires offsets against tax cuts as well as spending increases.

But I want to emphasize particularly the Social Security program. The President is going to suggest it is in crisis. Mr. Speaker, it is not in crisis. In fact, he needs to reassure the American people that there is plenty of money currently in the Social Security system to take us out at least to the year 2052, according to the Congressional Budget Office; and there is enough to provide 73 percent of the benefits for another 40-plus years.

Right now we have about $1.7 trillion in reserves. That amount is going to go up by hundreds of billions each year so that we will have over $4 trillion in reserves by 2015. By 2018 it starts to tip as my generation, the baby boom generation, starts to retire, and then we need to make some plans for the future. But let me suggest that the tax cuts that we have enacted in 2001 and 2003 total 2 percent of the gross domestic product. The Social Security system needs only 4/10 of 1 percent to cover the shortfall for the next 75 years. Even the taxes just on the top 1 percent are 6/10 of 1 percent more than we need to cover the Social Security shortfall.

That is where the emphasis needs to be. We trust that the President will provide that kind of leadership this evening.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the ``No Attainment--No Trade bill.''

This legislation amends the Clean Air Act to prohibit powerplants and other major point sources of nitrogen oxide (NOx) pollution that are in an ozone non-attainment area from participating in EPA's emission trading program.

In 1990 Congress passed amendments to the Clean Air Act to deal with the issue of acid rain deposition.

Harmful acid rain was destroying our buildings, personal property and turning freshwater lakes into dead zones.

The new law established an innovative emission trading program to reduce the precursors of acid rain, harmful nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxides emitted by coal-burning powerplants and major industrial boilers.

Since its establishment, the trading program has worked extremely well, better than even proponents of the 1990 amendment to the Clean Air Act ever expected.

While nitrogen and sulphur dioxides have been reduced, and reduced by millions of tons, an unanticipated new wrinkle has emerged as States and localities work to reduce urban smog and bring ozone non-attainment areas into compliance with other requirements in the Clean Air Act.

States and localities are bumping into the emission trading program for nitrogen oxides.

Not only are nitrogen oxides the precursors of acid rain, they also mix with hydro-carbons and form unhealthy ground level ozone.

Giving power plants in an ozone non-attainment area the authority to buy a credit from elsewhere and avoid nitrogen oxide reductions may help EPA meet its national acid rain reduction goals, but it can frustrate state and local efforts to lower ozone and urban smog and be in compliance with the Clean Air Act.

I speak from experience.

Just across the Potomac River in Alexandria we have a power plant operated by Mirant that was in violation of its operating permit.

Aptly named the ``Potomac River Plant'', the coal-fired facility was built in 1949.

Because it was approaching the end of its useful life expectancy, Congress agreed to exempt it and other older plants from the tougher modern emission requirements under the Clean Air Act.

The exemption was probably a mistake.

Unfortunately, too many utilities found it cheaper to keep these antiquated and dirty plants operating beyond their useful life than replace them with costlier but cleaner power plants.

Had this region replaced all of exempt power plants with modern facilities, this region might be in compliance with the Clean Air Act ozone standards.

Instead, this region has had greater challenge to bring this region into compliance and imposed only modest emission reductions on the Potomac River Plant.

This attainment plan faced a serious setback during the summer of 2003 when the Potomac River Plant violated its clean air emission limits by more than 1,000 tons of nitrogen oxide, double the tonnage allowed under its permit.

Initially, Mirant claimed it could come into compliance by purchasing credits of emission reductions from sources elsewhere, outside this region, to meet its emission reduction goal.

``Not so,'' said the Commonwealth of Virginia.

The state's position, however, was on less than firm legal ground and it took extensive enforcement action and the threat of a state- initiated lawsuit before an alternative remedy was agreed upon.

I am pleased that the state held firm and was able to reach a settlement, that while not ideal, will reduce emissions at the Potomac River Plant and the other three local coal-fired plants operated by Mirant.

The agreement will contribute substantially to reduce NOx emissions throughout the metropolitan Washington, D.C. region and bring it into compliance with the Clean Air Act.

The legislation I am reintroducing today, however, is still necessary.

It gives states the clear legal authority they need and discourages power plants from challenging state ozone implementation plans in court.

This legislation will give other states the authority they need to block power plants in a non-attainment area from engaging in NOx emission trading and avoiding their responsibility to reduce ozone and urban smog.

It makes no sense, to force this region, or the jurisdictions of any ozone non-attainment area, to rachet down nitrogen oxides from other sources, beyond what may be necessary, simply because a few large sources are able to buy their way out of compliance.

It isn't fair, and it is not in anyone's best interest to do so.

My legislation puts an end to it.

It deserves consideration.

Mr. Speaker, this past Saturday, our country lost two beloved public servants. Representative Robert T. Matsui and former Representative Shirley Chisholm leave us behind, but our national consciousness will never forget their considerable contributions to pursuing equality and social justice for all Americans. Representatives Matsui and Chisholm dedicated so much of themselves to others, and the outpouring of support demonstrates the deep impact each had on the lives of others.

Both leaders rose from humble beginnings to the heights of Congress. Representative Matsui, one of the thousands of Japanese Americans taken to an internment camp during World War II, became an influential member on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee. His passion for social justice shaped the core of his being, reverberating through his promotion of adequate job training, equal access to health care coverage for children, and the preservation of Social Security for our nation's seniors and disabled citizens. In 1988, he helped win restitution from the U.S. Government for the internment program that negatively affected many surviving Japanese Americans.

Representative Chisholm too overcame great obstacles. As the product of the working neighborhoods of Brooklyn, Shirley Chisholm became the first African American woman elected to Congress in 1968. Her advocacy on civil rights issues, particularly women's rights, was unparalleled as she reached out beyond her local constituency to all Americans. Never willing to allow America to mire in the status quo, Representative Chisholm again broke new ground by offering herself as the first woman to be considered for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1972.

Though I never had the honor of serving with Representative Chisholm, her legacy echoes throughout the halls of Congress. I witness her strength in my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus, which she helped establish in 1969. I hear her voice in our continued pleas for justice in underserved communities. And I see her focus and passion

in the eyes of American children who won't accept discrimination or barriers to opportunity.

Connected by the common bond of their love for humanity, Representatives Matsui and Chisholm treaded down unmarked paths with determination, fortitude, and notable grace. As a generation of civil rights activists move into the twilight of their advocacy, we must honor their work by passing along their vision for what we our country can still become, a land of equality and opportunity for all Americans. Though we have lost these dear friends too soon, we continue to be led by their unmistakable footprints.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a man who spent his life devoted to scientific discovery, and whose accomplishments resonate throughout the fields of holography, medicine, and art. Dr. Stephen A. Benton, inventor and imaging pioneer, passed away on Sunday, November 9, after a lifetime of teaching, creating, and enriching the lives of others with his indomitable spirit of wonder.

Following his undergraduate work at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Benton earned his Master's degree in Science and Ph.D. from Harvard University. He had a passion that extended beyond academia; Benton's interest in holography--the use of laser light to produce three-dimensional images--stemmed from his fascination with the visual presentation of the world. While a student at Harvard, Benton initially worked with holographs for Polaroid Corp., immersing himself in the vision research laboratory that spawned numerous technological advancements for the field of photography.

Believing that he could stretch the boundaries of the artistic and scientific application of holography, Benton explored the most innovative optical uses of his generation. His work with holography extended beyond the exploratory and into the practical. Benton helped create three-dimensional composites of CT and MRI scans for medical diagnosis, provided retailers with viable options for credit card scanners, and advanced the capabilities of three-dimensional blueprints for architects and graphic designers. Perhaps his most significant achievement, Benton invented the rainbow hologram, a process that makes a hologram visible using common white light. The ``Benton hologram'' has been critical to the commercial success of image-based holography.

In 1980 Benton returned to MIT as a visiting scientist in the Laser Research Center, and became the founding head of the MIT Media Lab soon thereafter. He chaired the long-running ``Practical Holography'' meetings for the International Society of Optical engineering (SPIE) and found funding for both artists and scientists to attend and exhibit their work. He was instrumental in rescuing the Museum of Holography in 1992, bringing it to the MIT museum. His delight in the scientific and aesthetic applications of holography led to his 15 patents in optical physics, photography, and holography.

As we remember Dr. Stephen A. Benton as a pacesetter in the field of holography, I am particularly grateful for his vision that science and art could not only coexist, but benefit each other. May his memory be preserved for future generations of intellects, academics, and scientific freethinkers.

Mr. Speaker, we had inserted similar language to this bill in the legislative branch appropriations bill that hopefully we will approve tonight as well. It addresses the fact that dental and vision needs are some of the most expensive out-of-pocket expenses. We will now have it available for Federal employees in the executive branch, as well as the legislative branch; this is a very important accomplishment of the Committee on Government Reform.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 5295, the Federal Employees Dental and Vision Benefits Enhancement Act of 2004 and am proud to be a co-sponsor of this bill. As ranking member of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee, I was pleased to initiate efforts to establish a similar benefit for Members and congressional staff with House passage of the Fiscal 2005 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act (H.R. 4755). Combined, these two initiatives represent one of the most significant changes to health benefits under the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan in recent years.

The Federal Employees Dental and Vision Benefits Enhancement Act would establish a voluntary program under which Federal employees, retirees and annuitants may purchase supplemental dental and vision coverage. The legislation grants the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) the authority to select the appropriate combination of nationwide and regional companies and a variety of benefit packages to meet the diverse needs of our Federal employee, retiree, and annuitant population.

Greater access to dental and vision care is an area where major improvement is needed and should be an essential component to any comprehensive health care strategy. Many Federal employees whom I hear from tell me that their greatest health care expenditures go towards dental and vision care. Federal employees need and deserve increased access to dental and vision benefits.

FEHBP has long been regarded as a model health care program. I am confident that with the addition of a supplementary dental and vision coverage program, the Federal government will set an example for other employers to expand their health care offerings to include dental and vision coverage for their employees. Additionally, I believe this new benefit will serve as a recruitment tool for the Federal government in attracting and keeping the best and the brightest in the government.

Mr. Speaker, I thank Chairman Davis on the Government Reform Committee for moving this important legislation, and I strongly support its adoption.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform for yielding me time, but particularly for his leadership on this bill and the preceding bill.

This bill provides opportunities to young people who have already not only graduated from high school, but showed exceptional academic achievement. Many of them had to overcome social and economic barriers that we would never want or expect our own children to be able to cope with, let alone overcome. It's not fair that in the District of Columbia they do not have the opportunities that many of our children in the suburbs have. To make at least this very important access to higher education available to them at a very reasonable cost is a terribly appropriate thing to do.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the leadership of the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) on behalf of her constituents and the leadership of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) on behalf of the Congress to make sure that this legislation gets through.

Mr. Speaker, this Republican leadership has presided over a historical fiscal reversal from record surpluses to now record deficits. Their lack of fiscal discipline has placed our economy in a precarious position and straight jacketed future policy options.

The most troubling aspect of this policy is that they are giving the current generation, especially the most wealthy, a free lunch while they run up debts that they have consciously decided to pass on to our children. At the current debt level, each newborn child inherits $85,000 in interest on the debt. This so-called ``baby-tax'' will rapidly increase unless we restore some sanity to our budgetary policies and practices.

The lack of a surplus makes it even more difficult to solve the impending bankruptcy of Social Security and Medicare, or even to enact a Republican tax reform agenda.

Pattern of Fiscal Mismanagement

Time and time again, this leadership has chosen to disregard its fiscal responsibilities and ignore signs of impending fiscal crisis in the hope that the problem will fix itself, or disappear altogether.

Clearly a policy of avoidance doesn't work, and it's certainly not what the American people expect from its elected leaders. You can't

simply stick your head in the sand and expect market forces to balance the national budget. That's the Congress' responsibility.

I can cite example after example illustrating how this leadership cares little about our Nation's fiscal state of affairs.

The pay-as-you-go rule, PAYGO, the budget enforcement mechanism devised to reign in deficits, worked very effectively in the nineties to bring the budget into balance and restore surpluses.

After PAYGO expired, the House leadership squandered multiple opportunities to renew it and refused to take action. It's no coincidence that we've seen record high deficits in the last 2 years.

And now this Congress is backed into a corner and forced to take action to raise the debt ceiling for the third time in 3 years, another record.

Worrisome Signs in the International Currency & Debt Markets

The Bush administration and leadership in the House say deficits don't matter, but in truth they do matter, and we are now staring crisis in the face. There is near unanimity among economists that our Nation's fiscal imbalance could put us in real economic peril.

In a study published just 2 weeks ago, economists Maurice Obstfeld and Kenneth Rogoff warned of ``current account collapse'' sparked by withdrawal of funds from international investors. They said that this issue should be ``problem number one on the President's international financial agenda.''

Alan Greenspan's comments today confirmed brewing concerns about the weakening dollar and decreasing appetite among international investors for ``adding to [their] dollar balances.''

We must heed these warnings and get our financial house in order or the delicate house of cards constructed by this Administration and Congressional leadership will come tumbling to the ground, and all Americans will pay a hefty price.

Already there are signs that the dollar's value is declining and other currencies, primarily the Euro, are slowly replacing the dollar as the favored currency among international investors. This week, the dollar reached an all time low against the Euro--one Euro is now worth $1.30.

Our nation needs to borrow around $2 billion a day, and 92 percent of debt securities sold over the last 4 years have gone to foreign countries. So obviously we rely heavily on foreign investment. The question is what happens if those countries abandon the dollar for another currency?

If foreign governments like China decide to divest its U.S. currency holdings; the consequences would be serious, especially considering the massive purchases by the Chinese Central Bank ever the last few years. In 2003, dollar purchases by foreign central banks were $617 billion, compared to $352 billion the year before. Total reserves of the emerging Asian countries rose by more than $350 billion between March 2003 and March 2004. Japan and China alone currently hold close to a trillion dollars of U.S. debt.

Unlike in years past, we cannot assume that no other currency comes close to rivaling the dollar's strength. The emergence of the Euro substantially changes the international currency market, because, despite the soundness and stability of the dollar, the Euro has become a true alternative, backed by reasonably sound monetary policies.

So the largest holders of foreign currencies in Asia could change their preference purely on the basis of financial, not political considerations.

This scenario is unraveling right now. Asian countries believe that our exceedingly high deficits are untenable and threaten the American economy. They worry that more buying could in turn destabilize their own economy.

Consequently, we increasingly find ourselves in the precarious position of having to convince these foreign governments to continue their purchasing.

Conclusion

The leadership has apparently backed away from its initial plan to include the debt ceiling increase in an omnibus appropriations bill. Hiding the debt ceiling increase in a larger bill would be a mistake because it would undermine the purpose of the statutory requirement-- accountability. Members of Congress should explain their decision to increase the national debt. The American people deserve to know what's going on.

The Republicans succeeded in framing the recent election in terms of cultural, moral and religious values. Democrats believe that balancing the Nation's books is a moral issue. If the Republican leadership believes that the American people will continue to be distracted by ``moral'' wedge issues while they run up debts that will bankrupt the Social Security and Medicare trust funds and significantly harm the quality of life of all Americans, they are seriously mistaken.

As Democrats step up efforts to fully inform the American people about the magnitude of Republican fiscal mismanagement, I am confident that most will put aside their cultural and religious differences in favor of an overriding value: economic security.

Despite larger working majorities in the House and Senate, I do not plan to subordinate my views and positions to accommodate this temporarily dominant majority. There will still be opportunities in the 109th Congress to advance an alternative and more fiscally responsible budget. I will continue to engage in this crucial issue and look forward to receiving your views on this and other matters in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate all of my good friends and female colleagues for speaking out on the Weldon-Hyde provision that is in this bill. But I think it is important also to show that this issue is not just related. It is not just a woman's issue. It is about our mothers, wives, daughters, sisters, and it is a bad provision. It is a discriminatory provision, and it undermines the U.S. Constitution that guarantees reproductive rights for all women. And that is the purpose of it. We are supposed to be the people's body, and yet this undermines what the vast majority of the American people believe in.

Seventy-six percent of the public opposes exempting hospitals from providing medical services to which they object on religious grounds, and yet this is the purpose of this provision which we are about to make law. Eighty-nine percent of the public opposes allowing insurance companies to refuse to pay for medical services on religious grounds. This Federal refusal clause is a sweeping new exemption from current laws and regulations pertaining to abortion services and information.

It undermines Roe V. Wade. It is very important. Not just foot in the door. It is getting the whole body of very radical opinion in the door, undermining what the vast majority of the American people believe in. It would change existing law to say that a Federal, State, or local government may not require any constitutional or individual health care provider to provide, pay for, or refer for abortions. It is so ambiguous that virtually any kind of action taken by a Federal, State, or local government could be banned. It is wrong. It should not be in this omnibus appropriations bill, and the public needs to know that there are many people who object to it very strongly.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 540, I was delayed in getting to the floor. Had I been present, I would have voted ``nay.''

Mr. Speaker, there are two reasons why we should vote against this debt ceiling limit. The first is that there is no plan to pay it off and the second is that what we are really doing is mortgaging our children's future. The reality is that when you talk about social spending, we could eliminate all social spending and we would still have an annual deficit. Tax cuts have equaled 17 times all domestic discretionary spending, and every child born in this country is now going to inherit $85,000 in interest costs on this debt, and that is what you are passing on to the next generation. That is immoral.

Also, bear in mind that 90 percent of this new debt is being bought by foreign countries. Forty-three percent of it is now owned by foreign countries. Imagine the situation that you are leaving to the next generation. This is the result of a $10 trillion fiscal reversal. We are going to offer a PAYGO proposal where we would look at revenue as well as spending. That is what you have to do. That is the only thing that has worked, and that is the only responsible thing to do tonight.

Madam Speaker, the Republicans have once again squandered opportunities, from international goodwill following the terrorist attacks on our soil, to managing the federal budget. The House leadership has compiled an abysmal record in the 108th Congress. Their fiscal performance, I regret to say, is the worse in recent memory.

This Republican leadership has presided over an historical reversal from record surpluses to now record deficits. Their lack of fiscal discipline has placed our economy in a precarious position and straight-jacketed future policy options.

The most troubling aspect of this policy is that we are giving the current generation a free lunch and running up debts that must be paid for by our children. Each newborn child now inherits $85,000 in debt. This so-called ``baby-tax'' will rapidly increase unless we restore some sanity to our budgetary policies and practices.

The lack of a surplus makes it even more difficult to solve the impending bankruptcy of Social Security and Medicare, or even to enact a Republican tax reform agenda.

Pattern of Fiscal Mismanagement

Time and time again, this leadership has chosen to disregard its fiscal responsibilities and ignore signs of impending fiscal crisis in the hope that the problem will fix itself, or disappear altogether.

Clearly a policy of avoidance doesn't work, and it's certainly not what the American people expect from its elected leaders. You can't

simply stick your head in the sand and expect market forces to balance the national budget. That's the Congress' responsibility. I can cite example after example illustrating how this leadership does not care about our nation's fiscal state of affairs.

The pay-as-you-go rule, the budget enforcement mechanism devised to reign in deficits, worked very effectively in the nineties to bring the budget into balance and restore surpluses.

Then the 108th Congress is sworn in, PAYGO expires, and the House leadership makes no serious attempt to restore it. It's no coincidence that we've seen record high deficits in the last two years.

And now this Congress is backed into a corner and forced to take action to raise the debt ceiling for the third time, another record.

Worrisome Signs in the International Currency & Debt Markets

The Bush administration and leadership in the House say deficits don't matter, but in truth they do matter, and we are now staring crisis in the face. There is near unanimity among economists that our Nation's fiscal imbalance could put us in real economic peril.

In a study published just 2 weeks ago, well-known economists Maurice Obstfeld and Kenneth Rogoff warned of what they called ``current account collapse'' sparked by withdrawal of funds from international investors. They said that this issue should be ``problem number one on the President's international financial agenda.''

We must heed these warnings and get our financial house in order or the delicate house of cards constructed by this administration and congressional leadership will come tumbling to the ground, and all Americans will pay a hefty price.

Already there are signs that the dollar's value is declining and other currencies, primarily the Euro, are slowly replacing the dollar as the favored currency among international investors. This week, the dollar reached an all time low against the Euro--one Euro is now worth $1.30.

Our Nation needs to borrow around $2 billion a day, and 92 percent of debt sold over the last 4 years has gone to foreign countries. So obviously we rely heavily on foreign investment. The question is what happens if those countries abandon the dollar for another currency?

If foreign governments like China decide to divest its U.S. currency holdings; the consequences would be serious, especially considering the massive purchases by the Chinese Central Bank over the last few years. In 2003, the dollar purchases by foreign central banks were $617 billion, compared to $352 billion the year before. Total reserves of the emerging Asia countries rose by more than $350 billion between March 2003 and March 2004. Japan and China alone currently hold close to a trillion dollars of U.S. debt.

Many countries are now beginning to favor the Euro, which puts us in a major dilemma and raises national security concerns. Foreign governments are now our largest creditors. We may be the most powerful nation in the world, but China, as the largest investor, has genuine financial leverage. This poses a real threat to our national security because the American economy now depends on the financial decisions of foreign governments.

Unlike in years past, we cannot assume that no other currency comes close to rivaling the dollar's strength. The emergence of the Euro substantially changes the international currency market, because, despite the relative soundness of the dollar, the Euro has become a true alternative, backed by reasonably sound monetary policies. So the largest holders of foreign currencies in Asia could change their preference purely on the basis of financial, not political considerations.

This scenario is unraveling right now. Asian countries believe that our exceedingly high deficits are untenable and threaten the American economy. They worry that more buying could in turn destabilize their own economy. Another very real concern is that their financial leverage could translate into political and diplomatic leverage.

Consequently, we increasingly find ourselves in a precarious negotiating position. We have to convince these foreign governments that the dollar is relatively strong and they should continue their purchasing.

I would conclude by saying that in tonight's special order my colleagues have discussed issues that need to be addressed in an honest debate on the floor of the House. The election is over. It's time to put aside wedge issues and start talking about fiscal problems that could have a devastating effect on the American economy for years to come.

The leadership has apparently backed away from its initial plan to include the debt ceiling increase in an omnibus appropriations bill. Hiding the debt ceiling increase in a larger bill would be a mistake because it would undermine the purpose of the statutory requirement-- accountability. Members of Congress should explain their decision to increase the national debt. The American people deserve to know what's going on.

We've heard plenty about cultural values in the last few weeks, and I think we get it now. But Congress cannot continue to simply ignore mounting fiscal problems, and expect they will go away. Because they will not. And I promise you that when the ``you know what'' hits the fan and we're facing a crisis, the American people will put aside their cultural differences in favor of one overriding value: economic security.