Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Workforce Reinvestment and Education Act.

This legislation fails to recognize what we all know: that there are over 8.3 million Americans who are out of work in this country. This is the longest stretch of job loss since the Great Depression.

With the unemployment rate now at 6 percent, it is reprehensible that this legislation, which some have said is a ``reinvestment in our nation's workforce,'' does not include an extension of federal employment benefits, especially as they are set to expire at the end of this month.

When we extended the program last January, the rate of unemployment was even lower than the rate today, and now we have reached near crisis point.

It has been estimated that more than 43 percent of unemployed workers are exhausting their state benefits without finding work, and this number will continue to climb if Congress does not address this issue soon.

This bill also does a disservice to our veterans. Many of our troops that are currently serving in the war in Iraq, will soon be returning home to an economy where jobs are disappearing at a fast rate.

Under the current bill, funds targeted toward veteran employment services would be pooled with other Workforce Investment funds and those services previously targeted to serve our troops become discretionary depending on how the individual state workforce investment board decides.

As we all know, these programs are already critically underfunded. They strive to meet the increasing demands placed upon them in an environment of increasingly inadequate resources. To be effective, these programs cannot sustain these devastating cuts.

Finally, the Workforce Reinvestment and Adult Education Act would eliminate the civil rights protections of Americans, by exempting religious organizations from anti-discrimination requirements.

The message that we are sending to the millions of Americans who are unemployed, who are veterans and those who are in need of economic assistance is that we do not care about keeping them from falling further into an economic crisis.

This bill is not a reinvestment in our workforce and fails to aid the millions of jobless Americans who need it the most.

I urge all my colleagues to vote against H.R. 1261.

I suspect, I know it is a very good question, that they figure the American people are never going to catch on to what they are doing, to what the real cost of these tax cuts are, to the fact that the real cost of these tax cuts is $4.6 trillion over the next decade, if you include the interest on the debt that has to be borrowed and if you do what we know is going to have to be done, which is to make all these tax cuts permanent.

No Congress is going to restore taxes, nor is it going to increase taxes. We know everybody wants to cut taxes, so they are not going to be reinstated. It is just like the ones passed in 2001. We know that, the Republicans know that, but the Republicans are assuming the American people are not going to catch on, and they can fit this in a budget resolution and purport to suggest that this is some kind of balanced budget. It is not. We have got deficits as far as the eye can see. Who is going to pay for them? Not us. We are going to be retired. It is our kids that are going to have to pay for them. Thousands of dollars a year they are going to be paying because of what we are about to do tomorrow.

This is wrong. This country cannot afford it. What this country can afford is getting people back on their feet, getting money back to States where they can generate $1.73 for every dollar invested, instead of 9 cents generated by the President's proposal.

We need to believe in America. We need to recognize what has worked in the past, what worked in the 90s, and what has not worked since President Bush took office. We have turned a $5.6 trillion surplus into trillions of dollars of debt, and it is mounting every year.

I know my colleagues are here, and they want to share their views as well; but I appreciate the gentleman yielding.

We had the strongest economy.

That is the operable phrase, my friend. If you are in a hole, and we are in a very deep deficit hole, you ought to stop digging. In 2001 we were told that the tax cuts of $1.3 trillion were going to revive the economy. They did nothing like that. What they did was to cause more unemployment and the financial markets

to lose confidence in the future, and it has hurt States and localities terribly.

I suspect, though, that the answer to the gentleman's question, why has this President Bush acted so differently than his father, is that he recognizes that although his father did the right thing in 1990, set this country on the course of a balanced budget, and really it was President Clinton acting consistently with that 1990 legislation in 1993, but the first President Bush deserves a lot of credit. But I suspect the people in the White House now feel that may have been why he lost the presidency.

But that ought not be the criteria. The criteria ought to be whether your years in service to this country have produced a better America, not only for your family and my family and the whole American family, but, most importantly, for future generations of America. That is what we are looking for. We are looking for that long-sighted economic policy that has worked in the past.

I thank the gentleman for his thoughtful, historical perspective; and I yield back to the gentleman so he may call on other colleagues.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis) for all of his fine work in protecting and enhancing the Federal civil service.

I am glad we have an opportunity to recognize the value of public service. Normally, these resolutions come and go and nobody pays much attention to them, but there is a particular benefit to having this opportunity right now, as the distinguished representative, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), explained earlier.

This is a pivotal time in the history of the Federal workforce. It is a time when half of that Federal workforce will be eligible to retire within the next 3 to 5 years. Of the 2.7 million people, half of them may retire. Many people will say, so what. Well, for those who are going to be so blase about the importance of the Federal workforce, then I would ask them to look at some of the other civil services throughout the world.

They will not find any other civil service that is as incorruptible, that is as productive, that is as responsible, as the Federal workforce. They are not perfect, but the vast majority of them went into the Federal civil service because they wanted to make other people's lives better, and they remain dedicated to that purpose.

But when most of them joined the civil service, it was held in highest esteem. In the 1960s, three-quarters of high school graduates said they thought it would be honorable to work in public service. Now it is about one out of 5. We have diminished the value and the prestige of the Federal civil service, but they have not diminished their output or their commitment.

But this, as I say, is a pivotal time because instead of trying to attract and retain the best people into civil service, what we have done is to come up with disincentives. The Congress has to fight every year to get a pay raise, even equal to the current very low rate of inflation. We have fought to protect civil servants' ability to collectively bargain, to maintain their health benefits, affordable health insurance; and now as the gentlewoman

from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) mentioned, we have perhaps the biggest struggle: about a third of the Federal workforce, those who work for the Department of Defense, may lose their civil service protections.

The Pentagon's desire is to contract them out. In fact, nearly half a million people, 425,000, are targeted throughout the Federal government to have their job contracted out to the private sector. In some cases that is appropriate; but in many cases it is not, and we are not going to find the kind of dedication to public service, even professionalism and willingness to accept in most cases less pay to be able to serve the public.

We find that on average the difference for performing the same function between the private sector and the Federal sector is 32 percent. It is a smaller disparity on the part of lower-paid employees. As we move into management, the gap is wider. In terms of skilled professionals, the gap is widest.

I think we are in danger of losing something that this country has taken for granted. We need to reward Federal civil servants. We need to protect their benefits and enable them to collectively bargain, and in fact take every opportunity, such as this resolution presents us with, to say thank you, Federal civil servants, thank you for making this the strongest, most cohesive, most stable government in the history of mankind. We are proud of you. We want you to stay, we want you to maintain your commitment, and we want you to know that we appreciate what you do.

Mr. Speaker, today I am joined by my fellow Virginians Reps. Jo Ann Davis, Tom Davis, Bobby Scott, and Edward Schrock and Rep. Neil Abercrombie of Hawaii in introducing the ``Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal Recognition Act.''

This legislation will grant federal recognition to six Indian tribes in Virginia: the Chickahominy Tribe, Chickahominy Indian Tribe Eastern Division, the Upper Mattaponi, the Rappahannock Tribe, the Monacan Tribe, and the Nansemond Tribe.

As we approach the 400th anniversary of the first permanent European settlement in North America, we are long overdue in recognizing the direct descendants of the native Americans, who met these settlers. We must acknowledge these historic tribes and the significance of their heritage. Together, the men and women of these tribes represent a long neglected part of our nation's history.

Like much of our early history as a nation, the Virginia tribes were subdued, pushed off their land, and, up through much of the 20th Century, denied full rights as U.S. citizens. Despite their devastating loss of land and population, the Virginia Indians successfully overcame years of racial discrimination that denied them equal opportunities to pursue their education and preserve their cultural identity. That story of survival doesn't encompass decades, it spans centuries of racial hostility and coercive state and state-sanctioned actions. Unlike most tribes that resisted encroachment and obtained federal recognition when they signed peace treaties with the federal government, Virginia's six tribes signed their peace treaties with the Kings of England. Most notable among these was the Treaty of 1677 between these tribes and Charles the II.

In more recent times, this racial hostility culminated with the enactment and brutal enforcement of Virginia's Racial Integrity Act of 1924. This act empowered zealots, like Walter Plecker, a state official, to destroy records and reclassify in Orwellian fashion all non-whites as ``colored.'' To call yourself a ``Native American'' in Virginia was to risk a jail sentence of up to one year. Married couples were denied marriage certificates or even unable to obtain the release of their newborn child from a hospital until they changed their ethnicity on the state record to read ``colored,'' not ``Native American.'' For much of the 20th Century admission to public schools education was denied. These and other indignities are part of a shameful legacy experienced in our lifetime.

More to the point, this legacy has also complicated these tribes' quest for federal recognition, making it difficult to furnish corroborating state and official documents. It wasn't until 1997 when then Governor George Allen signed legislation directing state agencies to correct state records that had deliberately been altered to list Virginia Indians on official state documents as ``colored.''

Federal recognition would provide what the government has long denied, legal protections and financial obligations, including certain social services and benefits the federal government provides the 562- recognized tribes.

I know that the gambling issue may be at the forefront of some people's concerns. In response to this concern, I have worked to close any potential legal loopholes in this legislation to ensure that the state could prevent casino-type gaming by the tribes. Having maintained a close relationship with many of the members of these tribes, I believe they are sincere in their claims that gambling is inconsistent with their values. This position is already borne out by the fact that none of the tribes today engage in bingo gambling despite the fact that they have all established non-profit organizations that are permitted under Virginia law to operate bingo games despite compelling financial needs that revenues from bingo could address.

The real issue for the tribes is one of recognition and the long overdue need for the federal government to affirm their identity as Native Americans. Coupled with this affirmation is an opportunity for the tribes to establish a more equitable relationship with the state and secure federal financial assistance for the tribes' social services, health care and housing needs. Many of their older members face the prospect of retiring without pensions and health benefits that most Americans take for granted.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 135, dealing with Ms. Markey's amendment to prevent drilling in ANWR, I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

Stated against:

Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 136, the Davis amendment. I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``ayes.''

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio

Mr. Speaker, this budget conference report is the most fiscally irresponsible budget ever proposed to this House. When the Bush administration came into office, there was a projected $5.6 trillion 10 year surplus. Under this budget conference report, the country will pile up $12 trillion in debt over the next decade.

We are doing it at the very time that we know that the next generation is going to be saddled with all of this mounting debt, because most of us are members of the baby-boom generation. We start retiring in 2008. We are going to double the number of people on the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, and yet we are going to borrow trillions of dollars from those trust funds to pay for these tax cuts.

This will be the third budget built on economic policies that have not worked since President Bush took office. All you have offered is tax cuts and promises of economic growth. But instead of growth, 2.6 million private sector jobs have been lost between President Bush's election and today, and, by your own estimate, this plan will generate over the next year only half the number of jobs that have been lost in just the last 2 months.

The market value of stocks has fallen by $5 trillion since President Bush took office and you started these budget plans. Consumer confidence has dropped to its lowest level in 9 years.

Now, in contrast, the House Democratic budget protected key services from cuts, we made focused investments in health care and other priorities and we boosted economic growth with an effective, fiscally responsible stimulus plan. We would have created six times the number of jobs that are contained in this plan, six times, when the country most needs those new jobs. We achieved budget balance within this decade. There was $1.3 trillion less accumulated debt.

In contrast, to pay for these oversized tax cuts, the Republican conference report runs deeper deficits, cuts key services to the people who are neediest, fails to make adequate investments in this Nation's priorities and omits any effective economic stimulus plan.

Vote against this embarrassment; if not for the sake of this body, do it for

the sake of your kids who are going to be stuck with the bill for it.

Mr. Speaker, we know that you know that this is not a budget you can be proud of because if you were proud of this budget, you would not be bringing it up between 1 and 2 a.m. in the morning when most of the American public is asleep.

I do not think that you are going to share with your children or grandchildren what you have done to them, creating $12 trillion of debt that they will have to pay back. You are not going to share with them the fact that you and your generation are going to be retiring, most Members over the next decade, doubling the number of people on the Social Security and Medicare rolls, at just the time when you are borrowing trillions of dollars from those trust funds in order to reward yourself and your supporters, your political supporters with deep tax cuts.

Here you tell us that there is a war on so we need to do this. There is not one dime in this budget for the war in Iraq, not one dime. Members know that is in the 2003 supplemental. That is not in this budget. This is a budget that needs to be defeated. Do it for our children.

Mr. Chairman, this legislation is an attempt to provide special legal protection for the gun industry at the expense of innocent Americans who have been harmed by the dangerous and irresponsible actions of some firearm manufacturers and sellers.

The gun industry should be subject to the same legal standards of conduct that govern all other people and industries in society. Guns are only one of two consumer products, tobacco is the other, that are exempt from Federal health and safety regulation. Consequently, American consumers receive Federal protection from safety flaws in products such as children's toys, pillows, car seats, but not from deadly firearms.

This legislation is especially unconscionable in light of the gun violence that continues to plague our Nation. Recently, Americans watched in horror as citizens were gunned down by a sniper in Maryland, the District of Columbia, and my home State of Virginia. While local law enforcement officials are prosecuting the snipers for their crimes, the families who lost loved ones in the attack have also filed civil lawsuits to ensure that those responsible for arming the snipers also are held accountable. This includes the gun store from which the assault rifle used in the shootings mysteriously disappeared, along with 238 other guns over the last 3 years alone. These are guns whose intended purpose is to kill other human beings.

If H.R. 1036 is enacted into law, the families of the sniper victims will be thrown out of court without a hearing. Given the suffering experienced by gun violence victims, it is unconscionable for the gun lobby to call their efforts to obtain justice frivolous. Gun violence victims seeking their day in court have based their lawsuits on long- standing rights well established in our Nation's common law.

In addition to the civil lawsuits brought by the families of the sniper victims, another part of the fight to obtain justice for gun violence victims includes the NAACP's current legal action against firearms manufacturers and dealers who have facilitated the supply of hand guns to an unlawful underground market. Gun violence is the number one killer of African Americans ages 15 to 24. And though African Americans represent 13 percent of the total U.S. population, they account for the majority of gun homicides. The legal remedy being sought by the NAACP does not involve damages, but rather calls on the gun industry to behave responsibly.

In the words of a New York Times editorial, ``Under cover of war, the domestic gun industry is prodding Congress to anoint it as the ``arsenal of democracy'' by enacting a disastrous bill to give gun makers and dealers unprecedented protection from liability suits by State and local governments and victims of gun violence.

``The passage of this bill would do nothing for average gun owners. What the sudden pressure to get it through Congress makes clear is that the gun lobby, while theoretically concerned with the right to bear arms, is chiefly worried about protecting the right to make money off of them.''

We, the representatives of the people, not the special interests, should reject this legislation which would undermine the legal rights of individuals and communities and provide unwarranted special immunity for the firearm industry. Let us do the right thing. Let us vote this bill down.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the ranking member on our Committee on Appropriations for yielding me this time.

I rise in opposition to this amendment, but I certainly understand where the distinguished Member from California is coming from. But in a bill that includes $7.5 billion in direct assistance and authorization for another $19.5 billion in guaranteed loans with the full faith and credit of the United States behind them, Turkey needs to be part of this package. They are too strategically an important ally not to be because they are a member of NATO, they border Iraq and Iran. They are, in fact, cooperating in our battle with Iraq, with Saddam Hussein more than with the Iraqi people. But if we are going to be successful in a long-term war of winning over the hearts and minds of the Islamic people, more than 1 billion people throughout the world, that is where we need Turkey the most, to move this world in the direction of democracy, of free enterprise, and of individual rights.

Turkey is a secular society and a truly democratic electoral system, and we cannot have it both ways. We cannot urge countries throughout the world to in fact democratize their political system, but then when they do not act according to our will but rather reflect the will of their people, we reject it and we want to hold back money. We cannot do that. We cannot have it both ways in Turkey or any other country; and that is really what this is all about. When 90 percent of the Turkish people are opposed to the war in Iraq, of course 90 percent of the Turkish people are Islamic, it is perhaps understandable; but we ought to respect that and respect Turkish leaders and work with them.

Turkey needs to be a member of the European Union. One of the reasons they are held back is because of corruption, which at least has been endemic in Turkey, and human rights abuses. We need to use this money, in my opinion, as leverage in advancing America's priorities, the priorities of the American people in terms of human rights and democratization.

There is a woman by the name of Leyla Zana, for example, who goes on

trial today. She has been in prison for 11 years. When she was inaugurated a duly elected member of parliament, she made a speech urging that the Kurdish minority work with the Turkish majority in a more integrated and peaceful society. That is a tinderbox in Turkey. Turkey needs to work with the Kurdish minority. Many of us were concerned about the Turkish military going into the northern part of Iraq into the Kurdish zone for fear they might attempt a military occupation. Turkey needs to understand that we provide this money, but we expect them to integrate the Kurdish people within their entire society and, in fact, their economy.

So that is our objective, advancing America's priorities; and America's priorities are more consistent with Turkey's long-term priorities than many of the countries that we are providing aid to today.

So I urge the Members of this Congress to support the $1 billion and in fact the additional $8.5 billion in guaranteed loans for Turkey, but then not to shrug our shoulders and turn our back but to work with those in the Turkish society and in politics who want to modernize Turkey, to enable it to become a member of the European Union, a bridge between East and West and one of the shining examples that democracy can work and human rights can be observed throughout the Islamic world.

I urge defeat of the amendment for that reason, but I congratulate the Member for raising the issue.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the contributions of BWUFA, Black Women United For Action. Over the course of their 17 year history, BWUFA has been an outspoken voice for the concerns of women, the impoverished, and vulnerable families throughout the world.

As a volunteer, non-profit community service organization based in Springfield, Virginia, BWUFA has continued to successfully provide a variety of community programs that offer support services with a social, cultural and educational focus. As BWUFA volunteers will attest, there is no price that can be placed on the gifts of love, compassion and caring from one person to another. This is the guiding philosophy that drives BWUFA to help make the world a better place for tomorrow's leaders. They consider it both a distinct pleasure and an obligation to touch the lives of others for the improvement of our community.

One of BWUFA's major efforts is to readily disseminate pertinent information to the public through forums such as their Roundtable Discussions. From talking about healthy living initiatives to the need for solid investment strategies, BWUFA provides these mediated conversations to encourage critical thinking on complex issues that affect us all. It is through this exchange of ideas in a relaxed setting that many can develop plans to radically alter their lives for the better.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have had the opportunity of working closely with this valuable organization in the past and look forward to continued interaction in the future. BWUFA sets the example as a model organization striving to improve the lives of others everyday. I salute their stewardship and wish them the best in their future endeavors.

Mr. Speaker, the invocation, the prayer for today, was delivered by Sister Benedict Kesock. Sister Benedict is a Benedictine Sister. She entered the Order in 1954, and for the last 29 years she has been at St. Charles School in Arlington, Virginia, 27 of those years as principal. She has served under nine pastors and three bishops. She has trained all of them and probably outlived most of them all.

Sister Benedict is an institution at St. Charles and in Arlington County, Virginia. She has dedicated her life to God and served God by teaching and inspiring and mentoring her students. It has been a labor of love the entire time, and it has been reciprocated.

In 1999, we thought we were going to lose Sister. She went to Arlington Hospital. They would not operate; they did not think it was worth it. So she went to Washington Hospital Center and got a six-way heart bypass in 1999, a six-way bypass. And she is still ticking, as you can see. She believes there must have been some reason that God saw to keep her with us.

This institution is terribly proud to have had Sister Benedict give us the invocation today. Her life is a testament to her faith.

She gave us one little story that I think some of you who may have been educated in Catholic schools might relate to. A former male student of hers was driving by the school where there is a lot of new construction going on. They were building a new center. There was an enormous construction hole in the ground. So one of the thousands of boys she straightened out, after seeing it, called her on his car phone to tell her, ``Sister, I didn't do it.'' Those of you who are listening may be able to relate to that feeling.

The fact is, Sister Benedict did do it. She has helped build a school, the new St. Charles Center and a community of faith in Northern Virginia. She has taught and inspired hundreds of students every year for nearly 30 years. She is what makes this country run so well.

Sister Benedict, thank you for everything you have contributed throughout your life; and thank you for giving us the prayer this morning.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor Ms. Joyce Williams upon her retirement after 37 years of service in the federal government. During her accomplished career, Ms. Williams distinguished herself by aggressively taking on every task assigned and assuming the many associated responsibilities. She consistently exhibited willingness to work as a team player and assumed leadership responsibilities for the good of the Agency.

Beginning her career as a Procurement Clerk at the Defense General Supply Center in Richmond, Virginia, Ms. Williams steadily rose through the ranks till she assumed her current position as Chief of Congressional Affairs Office at the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). During her tenure as Chief, Ms. Williams innumerable responsibilities included, but were not limited to, managing the liaison operations between DLA and Capitol Hill, monitoring the day-to-day operations of the Congressional Affairs Team, and overseeing the Congressional Hearings process.

On January 26, 2001, the Defense Logistics Agency Headquarters Complex at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, was officially named the Defense Logistics Agency Andrew T. McNamara Complex, a tribute to the Agency's first Director, Lieutenant General Andrew T. McNamara, (Retired). Ms. Williams worked many long hours in conjunction with myself and my staff to enable a special exception to existing law. Buildings on military installations are traditionally named for distinguished individuals, but only posthumously. Due to Ms. Williams diligence, I was able to include language in the fiscal year 2001 National Defense Authorization Act that made the name change.

Throughout her career, Joyce has been rewarded and recognized for her exceptional abilities and sustained the highest level of performance receiving numerous, and letters of appreciation. Joyce's achievements over the course of her 37 year career have been of the quality and level that are clearly deserving of the DLA Distinguished Career Service Award. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to pay tribute to Ms. Williams' lifetime of distinguished service.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the very distinguished ranking Democrat on the Committee on the Budget for his tireless work in putting together a responsible budget.

We did not have a lot to work with, Mr. Chairman, because the other side has already taken nearly $2 trillion off the table in the tax cuts they have already enacted. That is why we could not come up with a budget that was responsible last year. We have come up with a budget this year that is the best that America can do under the circumstances.

Let me compare the two budgets. In the first place, in our budget, the Democrats achieve a balanced budget by 2010, 2 years earlier than the Republican budget. More importantly, Republicans incur $821 billion more of public debt than the Democratic budget. Which is the party of fiscal responsibility?

The Democratic budget has a fair, a fast-acting, and a fiscally responsible stimulus. None of these criteria is true for the Republican so-called economic growth package. In fact, less than 5 percent of the Republican economic growth package even occurs this year, when we are in a recession, when we need the stimulus. It does not happen. Yet our budget costs one-sixth as much as the Republican so-called economic growth package. We have $136 billion going straight into the economy this year, as opposed to only $42 billion from the Republican budget.

This is what people want to know. What is the budget going to do for me and my family? How is it going to help me get a job and be able to contribute back to this economy?

The Bipartisan Joint Economic Committee says that, in fact, the Democratic economic stimulus package, at one-sixth the cost, would generate 1,122,000 more jobs; the Republican budget half as much. For one-sixth the cost we generate twice as many jobs.

Many people have talked about the Medicare prescription drug issue. I think as people look at the Republican plan, they are going to see this is not an acceptable plan. We have a plan that, in fact, will provide prescription drug benefits to people who truly need them at a cost they can afford.

The last major area where we have a vastly different budget policy is in what we call nondefense domestic discretionary spending. That is the American people would take the big hit under the Republican budget. The President's budget already cut over $100 billion from the current services level over the next decade. This budget comes in and doubles that, $265 billion coming from the current services level right now. What does that mean? Let us go beyond the numbers. Let us look at the faces, the faces of the people that deserve and need help, veterans, poor mothers and kids on Medicaid, students' loans, retirees' pension cuts. This is what we are going to hear about in the debate. This is what is important. Pass the Democrat's budget proposal.

Mr. Speaker, as we speak, the House Committee on the Budget is marking up a budget resolution for this coming fiscal year. President Bush has proposed a budget that is $304 billion in deficit, the biggest deficit ever submitted. And do you know, there is not one dime in that budget for waging war with Iraq, let alone any of the reconstruction costs that are necessary.

If you look out for the next 10 years, President Bush is suggesting that we should accumulate deficits of over $5 trillion. Halfway through this next decade in 2008, the baby boom generation starts to retire, thereby doubling the number of people dependent upon Social Security and Medicare. Yet all of this $5 trillion in deficit is going to have to be borrowed from the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, and there is not one dime for Iraq or for any of the other domestic priorities.

Think about the fact that this budget means that Veterans Administration hospitals will be able to treat 168,000 fewer veterans, that we will have to eliminate education for homeless children and after-school care.

Take a look at this budget and cry.

Mr. Speaker, one hundred years ago this month President Teddy Roosevelt set forth a vision and created a program to preserve unique and endangered species and the critical habitat they needed to survive. Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge was the first of what are now 540 refuges and thousands of small prairie wetlands managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service. From that first refuge, there are now more than 95 million acres of protected habitat across the United States.

Looking back over the past 100 years, much has changed. The United States has transformed from an agrarian to a predominately urban, and now suburban society. Today, many of these refuges have become islands surrounded by human development and infrastructure. The wildlife they preserve, the species they protect have truly become refugees from an outside world, dominated by human interaction and presence.

Will they survive the next 100 years? I would like to think so. As we move forward, we are developing a stronger appreciation of what we have already lost and what more we must preserve. The Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge, which was once in my congressional district, is relatively new. It was established in response to the near extinction of America's most prized symbol of freedom and independence, the American bald eagle. The return of the bald eagles and their subsequent recovery is a great success.

I am proud of my support for the National Wildlife Refuge system and particularly proud of the collaborative efforts I and my colleagues in Congress and at the local level made to protect more than 800 acres of environmentally sensitive land at Meadowood Farms that is adjacent to Mason Neck Refuge from development.

We are still at the early stages of learning how conservation and preservation must work over the long term to ensure a species survival. Conservation measures must be practiced not just on the refuges but outside the refuges as well. Biological corridors linking protected areas and critical habitat must be expanded; environmental hazards controlled; and a better understanding of how human interaction affects wildlife must be appreciated.

As time marches forward, I am optimistic that this same ethic that led to the creation of the first refuge multiplies with each new generation to ensure that the refuges of tomorrow and the year 2103 succeed at preserving what we hold dear today.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support for this substitute amendment. Embryonic stem cell use is necessary in discovering the causes of a myriad of genetic diseases, to testing new drug therapies more efficiently on laboratory tissue instead of human volunteers, and to staving off the ravages of disease with the regeneration of our bodies' essential organs.

Contrary to what opponents have been saying, this substitute does not give a green light to individuals and companies who perform human somatic cell nuclear transfer. It requires them to register with the Food and Drug Administration which will act as an independent oversight committee. The Greenwood substitute formalizes in law what is already being practiced across this Nation.

If the underlying bill instead of the substitute passes, it will represent a

triumph for ideological special interests over the public interest, because the public interest is best served when the medical and the scientific community is free to exercise their professional judgment in extending and enhancing human life.