Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the efforts of a group of local elected officials and constituents from my Congressional district to weigh in on our Nation's budgetary priorities. These individuals are all involved in local government and community organizations. They are appealing to President Bush to ensure a viable response to the Iraq conflict and that the Nation's domestic priorities are not shortchanged in the process. They come together to oppose the nation's use of unilateral and preemptive military activity and seek to promote a more peaceable foreign policy. I am also submitting a letter that was sent to President Bush and all Washington area Members of Congress showing their concern on this important issue. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to join me in supporting their commitment to our country and concern for the pressing social needs in communities.

Statement by Washington Metropolitan Area Elected Local Leaders To Be

Forwarded to President Bush and Washington Area Members of Congress

We are concerned for the effects of the United States'

involvement in Iraq on the Washington, D.C. metropolitan

area. So far, Congress has appropriated more than $160

billion for the Iraq conflict. These enormous appropriations

are causing the Federal deficit to reach dangerous levels.

They also will cause reductions in important Federal programs

that address transportation, infrastructure, and pressing

social needs within the United States. This is happening at a

time when serious budget problems are being experienced by

every state in the union, including those in the Washington

D.C. area.

Local governments already are feeling the effects of

Federal and state deficits and cuts to non-defense programs.

Local officials are being put in the difficult position of

having to either cut needed services to residents or pass the

expenses for such services to local taxpayers. Moreover, many

analysts believe that the United States' foreign policy

actions are strengthening and emboldening terrorist groups,

which puts the United States and all of its people--

particularly those in the National Capital area--at increased

risk. We want to do our part to fight terrorism, but the U.S.

must embrace a thoughtful and realistic approach which can

garner international support.

We honor and respect the sacrifices, the professionalism,

and the courage of our military personnel serving in the

Persian Gulf, and are especially mindful of those from the

metropolitan Washington area who have been put into

conditions of extreme hardship in that area. We hope and pray

that they may return safely home.

For all of these reasons, we ask that you move immediately

to promote a viable resolution to the Iraq conflict. We

further request that you forbid and refrain from funding

further unilateral and preemptive military activity,

including military strikes on any nation that is not directly

threatening the United States.

Your attention to this important matter is greatly

appreciated.

Mr. Chairman, I could take much longer than 30 seconds just to list the highest priority targets that are within the national capital region.

The reality of what this is going to lead to is that you are going to have to substantially expand the amount of money available for homeland security or draw from other parts of the country to adequately protect the Capitol, the White House, the CIA, the Pentagon and the immediate suburbs of Northern Virginia, Maryland and, particularly, the District of Columbia; you have got to provide adequate resources. This is where the terrorists are going to target. This is ground zero. This is where the money needs to be concentrated.

If we had enough money, we would love to go beyond that area. I do not think we can afford to.

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 Employees 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 strongly support its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Menendez substitute.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Menendez substitute because I believe that its provisions, like those in the Shays-Maloney bill, better reflect the recommendations contained in the bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report: To improve our intelligence gathering and analytical capabilities and create ``an enhanced system of checks and balances'' to adequately protect civil liberties.

I regret, however, that the options before us today fail to fully embrace available technologies to modernize our driver's license and identification systems. Some States are taking action, for example, as some of my colleagues may have read in today's Washington Times and Washington Post; a plan to use embedded chip technology is currently under consideration in the Virginia legislature. Still, the pace of change remains slow and problems in our driver's license system persist.

The holes in our system continue to support a thriving black market for fake IDs, create security risks that are national in scope, and therefore warrant adequate Federal resources to repair.

The September 11th hijackings illuminated many holes in our domestic security, for example 13 of the 19 hijackers were able to obtain driver's licenses or ID cards, some from black market ``brokers'' who often charge $2,000 for a single fake license.

Utilizing chip technology and biometric identifiers will make a quantum leap in the efficiency of the system and make it significantly harder for criminals and terrorists to obtain fake licenses. Unfortunately, neither side of the aisle took full advantage of this opportunity to utilize on-card biometric technology to repair holes in the system.

In light of the currently available technologies, the bills being considered on the House floor today simply do not go far enough.

The on-card biometric technology we need to adopt in our driver's license system is not entirely new. Private companies and government agencies currently utilize embedded chips in their ID cards. The smart cards have been in use for years in the military with the Common Access Card, or CAC, and Congress sanctioned the use of on-card biometric technology in the US-VISIT visa program.

Both the 9/11 Commission Report and its predecessor, the Markle Foundation Task Force Report, hailed on-card biometrics as an excellent example of how technology can be used to improve the integrity of a number of identification documents.

Why not use it on our driver's licenses? The legislative solution I have proposed retains traditional State authority over non-commercial driver's licenses, but recognizes that disparate standards, outmoded technologies and inadequate security features create risks that are national in scope and therefore justify Federal resources and technical assistance.

Many states are open to adopting the technology, but they need Federal assistance to implement it.

Mr. Chairman, we must not delay any further. The time to act has come. A driver's license is a dangerous tool in the hands of a criminal, or worse, a terrorist. It allows them to easily travel on our roads, open bank accounts, rent vehicles, and take domestic flights. The driver's license has come to represent more than authorization to operate a motor vehicle; it imparts a stamp of legitimacy and is often taken as unquestionable proof of identity. Possession of a driver's license allows terrorists to easily travel and blend into the population.

Of course there are many out there who fear new uses of technology. Civil libertarians, conspiracy theorists and absolutists will attempt to characterize smart cards as a threat to individual privacy. In fact the opposite is true. By reducing identity theft (clearly a privacy concern), controlling access to personal data through encryption and proper regulations, and making it easier to create a digital paper trail on government employees who access your data, smart cards will actually reduce privacy violations.

Smart cards will not allow the government to track people's movements; the chips don't work that way. The best government could do in tracking your movements is maintain records of where and when you are asked to show your license, something it already does by writing down your driver's license number.

Of course it is difficult to completely allay the concerns of civil libertarians and privacy advocates, lest we do away with all forms of identification. But smart cards will not create invasion of privacy risks that do not already exist today. They will, however, significantly reduce the risk of identity theft, and correct current widespread abuses in the system. As an added benefit, the technology will make it easier for law enforcement officials to do their job by eliminating wasted time filling out paperwork, but it will not magically transform every law enforcement officer or civil servant into a voyeur or jackbooted thug bent on harassing you at every turn.

Mr. Chairman, I urge this Congress to take the next logical step and implement smart card and biometric technology in driver's licenses and ID cards. I look forward to working with relevant committees in advancing this important policy. In light of the serious problems that persist, we can't afford delay.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall Nos. 495 and 496, had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Wolf and I rise today to remind our colleagues that this week, October 3 through October 9, is Nuclear Medicine Week. Nuclear Medicine Week is the first week in October every year and is an annual celebration initiated by the Society of Nuclear Medicine. Each year, Nuclear Medicine Week is celebrated internationally at hospitals, clinics, imaging centers, educational institutions, corporations, and more.

We are particularly proud to note that the Society of Nuclear Medicine is headquartered in Reston, Virginia. The Society of Nuclear Medicine is an international scientific and professional organization of more than 15,000 members dedicated to promoting the science, technology and practical applications of nuclear medicine. We commend the Society staff and its professional members for their outstanding work in the field of nuclear medicine and for their dedication to caring for people with cancer and other serious and life-threatening illnesses that can be diagnosed, managed, and treated with medical isotopes via nuclear medicine procedures.

With nuclear medicine, health care providers can use a safe, noninvasive procedure to gather information about a patient's condition that might otherwise be unavailable or have to be obtained through surgery or more expensive diagnostic tests. Nuclear medicine procedures often identify abnormalities very early in the progression of a disease--long before some medical problems are apparent with other diagnostic tests. This early detection allows a disease to be treated early in its course, when there may be a more successful prognosis.

An estimated 16 million nuclear medicine imaging and therapeutic procedures are performed each year in the United States. Of these, 40- 50 percent are cardiac exams and 35-40 percent are oncology related. Nuclear medicine procedures are among the safest diagnostic imaging tests available. The amount of radiation from a nuclear medicine procedure is comparable to that received during a diagnostic x-ray.

Nuclear medicine tests, also known as scans, examinations, or procedures, are safe and painless. In a nuclear medicine test, small amounts of medical isotopes are introduced into the body by injection, swallowing, or inhalation. A special camera, PET or gamma camera, is then used to take pictures of your body. The camera does this by detecting the medical isotope in the target organ, bone or tissue and thus forming images that provide data and information about that area of your body. This is how nuclear medicine differs from an x-ray, ultrasound or other diagnostic test--it determines the presence of disease based on function rather than anatomy.

Recently, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced its decision to approve coverage of positron emission tomography or PET for Medicare beneficiaries who have suspected Alzheimer's disease. This decision will allow physicians to obtain an early and more definitive diagnosis and to begin treatment at the time when it provides the best chance of prolonging cognitive function for our Medicare beneficiaries.

Some of the more frequently performed nuclear medicine procedures include:

Bone scans to examine orthopedic injuries, fractures, tumors or unexplained bone pain;

Heart scans to identify normal or abnormal blood flow to the heart muscle, measure heart function or determine the existence or extent of damage to the heart muscle after a heart attack;

Breast scans that are used in conjunction with mammograms to more accurately detect and locate cancerous tissue in the breasts;

Liver and gallbladder scans to evaluate liver and gallbladder function;

Cancer imaging to detect tumors and determine the severity, staging, of various types of cancer;

Treatment of thyroid diseases and certain types of cancer;

Brain imaging to investigate problems within the brain itself or in blood circulation to the brain; and

Renal imaging in children to examine kidney function.

Unfortunately, the field of nuclear medicine is not attracting enough incoming students to fill the current demand for nuclear medicine technologists--usually called NMTs. Currently, there is approximately an 18 percent vacancy of NMTs as determined by the American Hospital Association, AHA. By 2010, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, BLS, projects that the U.S. will need an additional 8,000 NMTs to fill the projected demand created by the aging workforce and expanding senior population. Over the next 20 years, the BLS expects that there will be a 140-percent increase in the demand for imaging services. The use of diagnostic imaging services has been increasing by approximately 4 percent a year, even as the number of certified NMTs and registered radiologic technologists has remained stable. As a result, imaging technologists often work longer shifts, and patients can face weeks of delay for routine exams.

A similar situation is developing for nuclear medicine physicians. According to the American Board of Medical Specialties, there currently are 4,087 certified nuclear medicine physicians in the United States. At the same time, the number of physician training programs is also declining, exacerbating the future shortage.

Over the next 20 years, the number of people over the age of 65 is expected to double at the exact same time when the Nation will face shortages of medical personnel--including nurses, NMTs, physicians, laboratory personnel, and other specialists. With an increasing number of people needing specialized care--such as nuclear medicine-coupled with an inadequate workforce, our Nation quickly could face a healthcare crisis of serious proportions with limited access to quality cancer care, particularly in traditionally underserved areas.

We encourage our colleagues to support Nuclear Medicine Week and to support increased funding for programs so that our nation will have a sufficient supply of nuclear medicine physicians and technologists to care for all patients in need of nuclear medicine procedures and related care.

Mr. Speaker, today we are pleased to introduce the Driver's License Improvement and Security Act of 2004, or DLISA, which will create a six state pilot project to standardize and modernize state-issued driver's licenses and identification cards. Two years ago I joined my colleague, Tom Davis, in sponsoring legislation to create nationwide standards for driver's licenses and identification cards.

Our previous attempt to address fundamental flaws in the driver's license system may have been rather ambitious, but existing vulnerabilities in our identification system present a clear threat to our Nation's security and allow criminals to subvert our laws. A pilot project will allow the Secretary of Transportation and participants in the program to work out interoperability and logistical concerns on a smaller and more manageable scale.

Today's legislation is the product of several years of hard work, input and research by state motor vehicle authorities, policy, technology, and identification security experts. As my colleagues prepare to consider comprehensive legislation to overhaul our national intelligence institutions, I strongly urge them to consider the following question: Why has it taken so long for us to repair a gaping hole in our identification system that leaves us vulnerable to criminals and terrorists? Reform should begin with the obvious--basic vulnerability issues.

I agree with the 9/11 Commission's conclusion that institutional national intelligence reform is necessary, but I am dismayed by the lack of attention being paid to chronic and correctable shortcomings in our driver's license and ID card system. The legislative solution we are proposing today retains traditional state authority over non- commercial driver's licenses, but recognizes that disparate standards, outmoded technologies and inadequate security features create risks that are national in scope and therefore justify Federal resources and technical assistance.

A driver's license is a dangerous tool in the hands of a criminal. It allows them to easily travel on our roads, open bank accounts, rent vehicles, and take domestic flights. The driver's license has come to represent more than authorization to operate a motor vehicle; it imparts a stamp of legitimacy and is often taken as unquestionable proof of identity. Possession of a driver's license allows criminals to easily travel and blend into the population.

Problems in our identification system were evident before 9/11. A thriving criminal enterprise learned to exploit the lack of standardization, the hodgepodge of loosely enforced rules, and antiquated security features, to serve a growing demand for fake licenses. The black market in fake licenses was, and remains, quite lucrative, commonly yielding $2,000 for a single fake license.

Many of the 9/11 hijackers used black market ``brokers'' to illegally obtain driver's licenses. 13 of the 19 hijackers were able to obtain driver's licenses or non-driver ID cards. Like illegal gun dealers, those who profit from this illicit racket ask few questions and care little about the consequences of their actions.

Since we first introduced legislation to remedy this problem, two reputable commissions have called for Federal government action. The Markle Foundation Task Force on National Security in the Information Age and the 9/11 Commission recommended that the Federal government should take action to standardize and improve the integrity of our driver's license and ID card system. Since the 9/11 commission's report was released, other legislative proposals have been unveiled, but none of them would fully implement the biometric and smart card technologies recommended by the Markle Task force and 9/11 Commission. Our bill takes full advantage of available technologies and addresses specific logistical, interoperability and policy concerns revealed by countless studies and reports on the subject over a number of years. DLISA draws upon these findings and balances some outstanding concerns about privacy, states' rights and the need for greater uniformity.

The technology embraced in our bill is far from nascent. Private companies and government agencies currently utilize smart card and biometric technologies in their ID cards. Smart cards have been in use for years in the military with the Common Access Card, or CAC. Congress sanctioned the use of smart card biometric technology in the USVISIT visa program.

DLISA will not create a national ID card. Instead, it preserves state authority and takes advantage of the existing state motor vehicle infrastructure and system of linked networks. In fact, DLISA is a step back from earlier congressional legislation. Congress created uniform standards for commercial licenses when it passed the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986, paving the way for the Commercial Driver's License Information System, or CDLIS. Congress has also recognized the need to assist state licensing authorities in a non-commercial context when it created the National Driver Register; which, like this bill,

was implemented first as a pilot program. DLISA is entirely voluntary, only states that wish to participate in the pilot project must adhere to the guidelines. In setting the authorization amount, we relied on the states own cost projections. States will not incur any expense under DLISA.

Of course there are many out there who fear change. Civil libertarians, conspiracy theorists and absolutists will attempt to characterize DLISA as a threat to individual privacy. In fact the opposite is true. By reducing identity theft (clearly a privacy concern), controlling access to personal data through encryption and proper regulations, and making it easier to create a digital paper trail on government employees who access your data, smart cards will actually reduce privacy violations.

Nor will my bill adversely harm immigrants. Congress has long been trying to improve the system to verify worker eligibility, and smart driver's licenses will make a quantum leap in the efficiency of that system, which will in turn make it harder for illegal aliens to get jobs with honest employers. Many people consider this an undesirable side effect of improving the driver's licensing system; after all, the vast majority of immigrants are hard-working people trying to make better lives for their families. The solution, however, is to change the rules governing immigration, not to preserve the fraud in the ID system.

Finally, DLISA does not allow the government to track people's movements. Smart cards do not work with satellites to track your movements. The best government could do in tracking your movements is maintain records of where and when you are asked to show your license, something it already does by writing down your driver's license number. For example, when you enter a government building for a meeting, the security guard may record your information in a log.

It is difficult to completely allay the concerns of civil libertarians and privacy advocates, lest we do away with all forms of identification. But this legislation will not create invasion of privacy risks that do not already exist today. It will, however, significantly reduce the risk of identity theft, and correct current widespread abuses in the system. As an added benefit, the technology will make it easier for law enforcement officials to do their job by eliminating wasted time filling out tickets and paperwork, but it will not magically transform every law enforcement officer or civil servant into a voyeur or jackbooted thug bent on harassing you at every turn.

Taken as a whole, the potential benefits of smart licenses far outweigh the potential risks. The vast majority of Americans understand that privacy is a tradeoff rather than an absolute, and will accept the risks in exchange for the benefit--added security.

I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this bill, and give this issue the urgent attention required to correct serious flaws in our driver's licensing and ID card system.

Mr. Speaker, today we stand on the floor of the people's body, the United States House of Representatives, with the intention of writing discrimination into the U.S. Constitution for the first time in our Nation's history.

It is not so troubling that this is politically driven, what is so troubling is the mean-spirited nature of this legislation. The marriage protection amendment; what a cruel joke. It does not do anything to protect marriage in this country. It does not suggest to individuals the importance of communication in a successful relationship. It does not reduce promiscuity or stop unwanted pregnancies. It does not strengthen people's resolve to work through the difficulties that always come within a marriage. It does not do any of that.

What it does do is to single out one group of people for discrimination, declaring them forever unworthy of the same legal protection that all other Americans enjoy. Further, this amendment would usurp the will of the people in States that have used their traditional States rights authority to define civil marriage and civil union laws. State laws passed by elected representatives in places like Vermont will be wiped clean off the books. In situations where a loved one is sick in the hospital, same-sex couples will once again lose the right to sit bedside and help nurse their partner back to health. These couples' ability to plan their financial future together and to share health care benefits will also be forever taken away.

Mr. Speaker, we already have sufficient legislation to allow individual States the ability to retain and structure marriage laws the way they see fit. I opposed and continue to oppose the Defense of Marriage Act which passed the House back in 1996, but this law is still fully functional and in effect. No State in the Union has to accept any other State's laws with respect to same-sex marriage. Since the bill's enactment 8 years ago, it has not been successfully challenged in any court anywhere in the country.

Why, then, do we need to preemptively amend our Constitution? Our Constitution was meant to be a sacred document by which we protect and expand individual rights, not to take them away, not to restrict them. That is not what our country is about, and thus that is not what the Constitution is about. That is why we ought to stand in opposition to this crass attempt to politically divide the American public in an election year. We ought to vote against this. We ought to vote for the Constitution. We ought to uphold the vision of our forefathers and expand the Constitution, use it as a document to protect individual rights, not to restrict and destroy them.

Mr. Speaker, in a few minutes this body is going to vote on this amendment. There will be women voting as well as men. There will be the grandsons and granddaughters of slaves; and, yes, there will be several gay people voting because in our diversity, we are representative of this great society.

But there is one thing we all have in common, we are here to fulfill the spirit of our Constitution. That is a sacred, generous document whose purpose was to protect and to expand the individual rights and liberties of its citizens. It was never intended to be a mean-spirited tool to punish people who happen not to be in the majority. To legalize committed, caring relationships between people who love each other is consistent with the spirit of that Constitution. This amendment is not, and that is why it should be defeated.

Mr. Speaker, I have one question for those who want to strip D.C.'s elected Mayor and City Council of any ability to regulate firearms in our Nation's Capital: Are you insane?

It is unbelievable that the House Republican leadership would push this kind of a bill. We are spending billions of dollars trying to protect our Nation's Capital from terrorists because we have the highest concentration of potential terrorist targets in our Nation's Capital, and you want to arm every D.C. resident with every firearm imaginable, from handguns to Uzis to AK-47s, and enable them to walk around our streets to go into churches, theaters, schools and public buildings?

This is unbelievably irresponsible. I cannot believe that the Republican leadership would promote this kind of a bill, just to give the NRA the kind of vote that asserts its dominance over this House.

Last year, the District of Columbia confiscated 1,982 firearms from criminals. This year, so far 1,400 have been taken from criminals because it is illegal to carry a gun here. Virtually all of them would be able to carry around those firearms without any regulation if this bill was passed.

This is not the Wild West of the 19th Century. This is our Nation's Capital in the 21st Century. Please do the decent thing and defeat this radical affront to the citizens of our Nation's Capital.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to legislation that has been introduced to usurp the District of Columbia's home rule and greatly exacerbate an already very serious gun violence problem here in our Nation's Capital.

I am baffled at what the so-called ``District of Columbia Personal Protection Act'' introduced by the gentleman from Indian, has to do with personally protecting anyone in Washington, DC. To the contrary, if enacted, this legislation would work to increase homicides and gun violence in a city that has a history of struggling to protect its citizens from crimes involving firearms.

Leaders in the District of Columbia have long recognized that they have a serious crime and gun violence problem. Therefore, since 1976 they have seen fit to enact strict gun control laws in the District.

Last year, DC police confiscated a whopping 1,982 firearms from criminal suspects. So far this year, 1,385 guns have been recovered. If the aforementioned legislation were in place, most of those guns would still be on the streets and in the hands of criminals looking to use them to do harm.

Even more disturbing, the gentleman from Indiana's legislation doesn't stop at just repealing important DC laws such as those preventing the sale of assault weapons. No, it even goes so far as to prevent DC elected officials from enacting any regulation addressing the ownership or use of a firearm. That would mean no restrictions in the District on carrying concealed firearms in churches, movie theaters or shopping centers, no local requirement for gun safety training and no ability whatsoever for local officials to take action that will help keep guns out of the hands of gang members, terrorists or criminals.

Public officials on the ground, working in the District, know the needs of their constituents and the best means to protect them from gun violence. This legislation is a total affront to the concept of ``Home- Rule'' and a slap in the face to the people of the District of Columbia. Coming on the heels of the repeal of the Assault Weapons Ban, the House is leading the charge to strip the District's ability to protect its citizens by repealing popular and life-saving gun control measures.

Mr. Speaker, we've got a war raging right now in Iraq. We don't need to open another front right here on the city streets of our Nation's Capital. I oppose this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I very much thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the chairman of the committee, who I know felt very strongly about Martha, having served with her, and was a close friend to her.

As my friend said, on September 17, Fairfax County lost one of its most important and influential citizens ever. Martha Pennino was known as Mother Fairfax. Through her leadership, Martha Pennino helped oversee development of Fairfax County into one the most successful jurisdictions in the entire country. She was a kind and compassionate public servant who made sure that all people were treated fairly, regardless of their circumstance.

Born in Roanoke, Virginia, as the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) said, she grew up in Gloucester, Massachusetts. She lived for many

years in Massachusetts and went to Emerson College in Boston.

Early on she had dreams of becoming a ballerina or an actress. She did have a flare for the dramatic. But her plans changed upon meeting Walter Pennino. She says she knew at the outset that she would be with him for life. They moved to Vienna, Virginia, in the 1950s after her husband took a job at the Pentagon and began searching for a typically American place to live.

What she did not know when she moved to the small town of Vienna, Virginia, in Fairfax County was that through her work she would help transform the county into one of the premier locations, attracting thousands of families from all over the country.

Knowing that she wanted to get involved in her community, not just wanting to stand on the sidelines, Martha Pennino began her public life by serving three terms on the Vienna Town Council. In 1968 she was elected to the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors as a representative of the Centreville District. As the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) said, she served for many years with him. At the time of her election, though, she was only the seventh woman elected to office in Virginia, paving the way for women throughout Northern Virginia.

She continued to serve on the Board of Supervisors until 1991, including 17 years as vice chairman. By the time she left the board, she was the longest-serving woman in office in Virginia. During her tenure, she was involved in most of the major decisions affecting the county and was instrumental in seeing Reston develop into a successful planned community. From the moment she saw Reston as conceived by its founder, Robert E. Simon, she was determined that Reston would be a place where all people would be welcomed and no one would be excluded.

Through her commitment, she saw the very rapid development of projects that included the Dulles Toll Road, South Lakes High School, and the Reston Regional Library, among many other things. She helped create a true sense of community for all those living in this new area.

Martha Pennino also helped establish the Fairfax County Human Rights Commission to help fight discrimination throughout the county. Having lived through the Jim Crow era, she knew that too often people were being treated differently because of their income level or their race, and Martha wanted to ensure that past discrimination had no place in her community.

Martha Pennino will best be remembered by the citizens of Fairfax County for her commitment to the poor and to the homeless in her community. As the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) has said, she opened her office at night for people without a home and provided them a bed and a warm place to rest. She also ensured that with the enormous development occurring in Fairfax County, there would be low-cost housing options for those who needed them and that these buildings would be as aesthetically pleasing as other housing options in the area.

One story that has followed Martha Pennino and perhaps best characterizes her style involves former President Jimmy Carter. When then-Governor Jimmy Carter was running for President, Martha Pennino hosted a party for him. During the party, they ran out of ice. As only Martha could, she asked Jimmy Carter to run out and pick up some more ice at the 7-11, and he did.

I would also like to take a minute again to thank my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Chairman Tom Davis), for his efforts in seeing this legislation come to the floor, and my colleague and friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis), who has helped us bring so many good pieces of legislation to the floor. I know that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) was a close friend of Martha Pennino, and I know that he as well as we regret her passing.

So in honor of her work to help all residents of Fairfax County, for being an instrumental part in managing the growth of the county, I ask that the Reston Post Office be named after Martha Pennino. In doing so, we honor and remember this remarkable woman so future generations can know what one person can do and what this very special person has accomplished for the benefit of her entire community.

Mr. Speaker, on September 17, Fairfax County, Virginia lost one of its most important and influential citizens when Martha Pennino, known as ``Mother Fairfax'', passed away. Through her leadership, Mrs. Pennino helped oversee the development of Fairfax County into one of the most successful jurisdictions in the Nation.

From 1968 to 1991 Martha Pennino served on the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, including 17 years as the Vice Chairman. As the representative of the Centreville District, Mrs. Pennino worked tirelessly for her constituents. During her tenure she was involved in most of the major decisions affecting the County, and was instrumental in seeing Reston develop into a successful planned community. Her work also saw the development of projects including the Dulles Toll Road, South Lakes High School, and the Reston Regional Library. She helped create a sense of community for all those living in her district.

Martha Pennino will best be remembered by the citizens of Fairfax County for her commitment to the poor and homeless in her community. She opened her office at night for people without a home and provided them a bed and a warm place to rest. She created a homeless shelter in her district and ensured that with the enormous development occurring in Fairfax County there would be low-cost housing options for those who needed it. Martha Pennino also helped establish the Fairfax County Human Rights Commission to help fight discrimination throughout the County. While Fairfax County grew, she wanted to ensure that every person could be a part of this vibrant community.

In honor of her work to help all the residents of Fairfax County and for being an instrumental part in the growth of the County, I ask that the Reston Post Office be named after Martha Pennino. It is imperative that we honor and remember this remarkable woman.

Mr. Speaker, on September 17th, Fairfax County, Virginia lost one of its most important and influential citizens when Martha Pennino, known as ``Mother Fairfax'', passed away. Through her leadership, Mrs. Pennino helped oversee the development of Fairfax County into one of the most prosperous and diverse jurisdictions in the Nation.

From 1968 to 1991 Martha Pennino served on the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, including 17 years as the Vice Chairman. As the representative of the Centreville District, Mrs. Pennino worked tirelessly for her constituents. During her tenure she was involved in most of the major decisions affecting the County, and was instrumental in seeing Reston develop into a successful planned community. Her work also saw the development of projects including the Dulles Toll Road, South Lakes High School, and the Reston Regional Library. She helped create a sense of community for all those living in her district.

Martha Pennino will best be remembered by the citizens of Fairfax County for her commitment to the poor and homeless in her community. She opened her office at night for people without a home and provided them a bed and a warm place to rest. She created a homeless shelter in her district and ensured that with the enormous development occurring in Fairfax County there would be low-cost housing options for those who needed it. Martha Pennino also helped establish the Fairfax County Human Rights Commission to help fight discrimination throughout the County. While Fairfax County grew, she wanted to ensure that every person could be a part of this vibrant community.

In honor of her work to help all the residents of Fairfax County and for being an instrumental part in the growth of the County, I ask that the Reston Post Office be named after Martha Pennino. It is imperative that we honor and remember this remarkable woman.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt), the ranking member on the Committee on the Budget.

The people in the audience may wonder, what is the problem? Why are you getting so excited about this issue? Well, the problem is that, within another couple weeks, this fiscal year will have concluded, and according to the White House, the Congressional Budget Office and pretty much anyone who studies these numbers, we will have spent $422 billion more than we took in, a $422 billion deficit.

Now when President Bush took office, they estimated for this fiscal year we would have a $397 billion surplus. So, more than an $800 billion reversal has occurred just this year. The real impact is not going to be felt so much by the Members of Congress, those of us in our fifties and sixties, some of us; the real impact is on those who are in their twenties and thirties or just starting out raising a family, acquiring a home, looking forward to a bright future.

I do not think there has been any generation that has left a more challenging future for its children than our generation, the baby boom generation. It did not have to happen. But when Members consider a $422 billion deficit, that is 132,000 times more than the average young person is ever going to earn in their lifetime. It is an enormous figure.

Of course, all that contributes to a cumulative debt. It will be $6.7 trillion. And given the policies that the majority has put into place, recommended by the President, it will be a $13.3 trillion public debt by 2014, in 10 years.

Again, not our problem for those in the baby boom generation who will be retiring, doubling the number of people dependent on Social Security and Medicare; it will be primarily the problem of the next generation. But imagine what fiscal irresponsibility, to take all of the political credit for cutting taxes, for giving people everything they want and then passing the bill on to our children.

This election, in fact, I would suggest is really about that next generation. Even though they may not be the ones primarily voting, they are going to be the ones most adversely affected.

We had a hearing just last week. The gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) convened it. We brought in some young people that very well represented their age group, and we shared with them some numbers, that, in fact, the average college graduate now has a debt of $19,000. That is a student loan debt of $19,000. People in their twenties face an unemployment rate of 9 percent and a third lack health insurance. So, obviously, there is going to need to be more investment in education and making higher education more affordable, more investment in health care, making health insurance more affordable for the working class.

Clearly, there is a need to keep interest rates down, and yet what is going to happen, according to the Congressional Budget Office, if we make permanent all of these tax cuts, if we keep spending on defense primarily, but if we keep spending at the rate that this administration and the House and the Senate of the same political party obviously have been spending, and those are reasonable assumptions, that within a little more than a decade, there are only going to be three programs in the Federal Government; there will be

Social Security, Medicare and defense, and interest on the public debt.

That interest we estimate, by 2014, is going to be $350 billion, more than a thousand dollars per person, and if the President's policies are all implemented as he wants, it will be over $400 billion per year for nothing, to pay off the interest on the debt that the next generation's parents incurred. And they are going to get nothing back.

Where are they going to find the money to educate their own children and make health insurance affordable? Where are they going to find the money to send their kids on to college? I do not know. I do not know where they find the money for public transportation, health research or any of the things that have made this country great, but those are the issues that this deficit is all about. That is why we are making such a big deal about it. It is so wrong, so irresponsible.

We will have spent a couple hundred billion dollars in Iraq. We will have spent money on homeland security, maybe $30 billion a year. But those are not the principal reasons we have the deficit. About 60 percent of this deficit, way over the majority of the deficit, is attributable to tax cuts, to a policy that has been irresponsible from the very beginning. There is nothing wrong with giving people child tax credits. There is nothing wrong with accelerating depreciation in plant and equipment and so on, but there is something wrong when the average 20-year-old gets about $300 from a tax cut, and that is about 1 percent of what millionaires will get out of this tax cut. That is wrong.

This tax cut did not go to those people who needed it the most; it went to those people who needed it the least. And it is so doubly wrong to be paying for it on the backs of the working class by borrowing from Social Security and Medicare trust funds, by sending the debt to our children's generation and then retiring on Social Security and Medicare, leaving them to pay for our Social Security and medical costs, leaving them to pay the interest on the debt we accumulated and leaving them with virtually no resources to invest in their own children's education, health care, transportation, law enforcement and the like. It is just unbelievable how irresponsible this economic policy has been.

We would never treat our own children like this, but somehow, as a country, despite all our rhetoric to the contrary, this body has left a debt on the backs of our children that we know they can never, ever recover from, and it did not have to happen. That is why we are on the floor today urging this administration, urging this House of Representatives to do the right thing, not to continue to make permanent tax cuts that cannot be paid for, that are not necessary to stimulating this economy; not to continue a policy that is based upon turning the debt over to the next generation. It is irresponsible, it is un-American, and it is wrong.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) for clarifying the context in which this Special Order was made. I know that the gentleman supported President Bush, the 41st President's policy of PAYGO. If we are going to cut taxes, we have to show how we are going to pay for it.

We have got to balance the budget. President Bush the 41st set us on to that path of fiscal responsibility. President Clinton, in the 1993 Balanced Budget Act, made it work. He put tight spending limits. He made sure that if we cut taxes, then we are going to offset it so that we can continue to keep that balanced budget. And, boy, it worked. For 8 years it worked. And I know how strongly our ranking member on the Committee on the Budget supported that policy.

But now I know that the ranking member has supported just as strongly trying to sustain that policy; and yet for some reason, the other side, apparently, the majority of this Congress, feels that that policy, even as successful as it was, should not be continued.