Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 48 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, October 2, 2003, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, this last Sunday in the Minneapolis Star Tribune on the front page of the opinion section was a picture in Iraq, and above this picture it says, ``Look at this picture. What do you see?'' And then it lists a couple of counterpoints, including one from myself. If you look at the picture, you see a market in Mosul, and you see some fruits up front, you see some women dressed in clean, neat clothes. You see a market with the shelves full, and you see a U.S. soldier from the 101st Airborne watching over that market and making sure that it stays secure.

Some in this Chamber have expressed doom and gloom as to what they see. As we listen to the articles in the paper and the TV and the radio, too often we hear that saying, doom and gloom. But there is a different picture that I am going to try to, with several of my colleagues, bring out today. Those who have been to Iraq, as I have, and many of my colleagues, have seen a different picture. There are two sides to this story, and I would argue that the story of advancement, of progress, of moving towards a democracy and an open government, an open economy, is the more accurate picture.

I was challenged recently by someone back home in Minnesota who said, Mark, why is not anybody else saying anything positive about Iraq? And my answer would be, well, I am not sure that anybody is reaching beyond some of the press they are getting, because not everybody is going to Iraq, not everybody is looking at other sources. Mr. Speaker, it was Thomas Jefferson who said that you would be better educated if you read nothing than if you read nothing but papers, newspapers, and that is, unfortunately, the case in this situation.

Mr. Speaker, the press does a better job of reporting crashes than landings. We are certainly having great reporting of the crashes, but the landings and the progress that we have seen, with progress towards quality of life, progress towards getting Iraqis governing themselves, and progress towards more stability, more freedom in a country that is very diverse and has great potential is something that we are going to try to bring out here today.

As I mentioned, I will have several folks joining me, and I would, first of all, like to welcome the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) for some comments that he has.

Mr. Speaker, one of the first things I did

when we landed in Baghdad was I asked the general in charge there, I said, how are things here relative to what we are hearing back home? And he said, with a combination of disgust and disappointment, that it is total distortion. There are so many things that are going on positive here. We in our group saw that. We had a bipartisan group of 11 Members. We went to Mosul, to Tikrit, to Babylon. We drove around in Baghdad, visited the police academy, visited the hospital, met with folks from Iraq who had recently been elected to city councils and to provincial councils, and what we saw was progress in every direction. As we flew over Iraq at night, the lights were on. As we drove through even Baghdad, the markets were up. There were cars and, in fact, traffic jams even in Baghdad as people were getting on with their lives.

As we went up to Mosul, we went in a garden variety tour bus, 11 Members of Congress, through the markets of Mosul, and, for the most part, most of the citizens did not really pay much attention to us. They were just going about their normal life in the progress of rebuilding. We passed by schools and hospitals that were rebuilt.

So having all of the hospitals up and running again and the schools up and running is great progress, and that is something I was very pleased to see. I know the gentleman as a physician can appreciate what we are doing on the health care side, and I think on all of those fronts we are making great process.

Mr. Speaker, I would say the gentleman is absolutely right on all of those counts. One of the reasons that possibly explains why we get such negative press is that Iraq, like America, is a very diverse country, with a lot of different ethnic groups and different regions throughout the country. And one of those, the Sunni Arabs from which Saddam came, represents about 15 percent or maybe 20 percent of the total population, and that group as a whole received preferential treatment. So as we compare their state today versus where they were before, it is not quite as attractive as the Shiites in the south that were really abused and tortured and done things to that one would not even want to describe in some cases, but some of them as vicious as rerouting the river so that they could not cultivate their crops. Similarly, the Kurds in the north were treated in a like fashion.

There were three electrical grids in Iraq prior to us coming in there, and even today; one electrical grid to make sure that all of Saddam's palaces, his almost 50 palace compounds, were lit up around the country. The second was for the Sunni areas around Baghdad, because Baghdad was a showcase to the world to show the world that ``I have a great country here.'' And the third went to the southern and northern regions if there was any left over. Now today, of course, we are treating everybody equal. So in and around Baghdad, it might not be quite up to their preferential status they received before the war, but in the 80, 85 percent of the rest of the country, they are doing significantly better.

We also have a situation in Baghdad that really is not talked about enough, and that is that 100,000 criminals, we are talking murderers and rapists and thieves, were let out just before the Americans took over, and their records destroyed, so that these criminals are wandering around the city causing untold havoc to the native Iraqis, making it a much riskier environment than it was before, as well as cheap criminals for hire to go after our soldiers. So within Baghdad, it is a much more challenging situation. It is much more difficult. It is much more risky.

Unfortunately, like any capital, that is where most of the press are. But I have to tell my colleagues, when one goes out beyond Baghdad, it is a lot calmer. One does not hear the reports of the attacks on American troops out there. They are working with the natives. They are making great progress. I remember driving down one country road and having several children run down the country driveway to come waving at us and showing their appreciation. And I have talked to many Members, even on the other side of the aisle, who have said one of the things that struck them most was just how appreciative the Iraqis were, particularly outside of Baghdad.

So there is good progress. It is not evenly distributed around the country, but that is because Saddam was not evenly treating people in the fashion that Americans have come to expect.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia is very correct. Our soldiers are doing a fabulous job. They are rightly proud of the great work they are doing, and they are not alone. We have long known that the British have had a region of the country around Basra. But while we were there, down in Babylon, also in southern Iraq, they were preparing to turn that region over from the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, which came in with the initial assault, and turn that over to a Polish-led division, and that has happened.

The Spanish are helping them, and just recently this week the remaining portion around Nasref was handed over to the Spanish, which was with that Polish division. So two of the six regions of the country are already being

administered by our allies, by a group of almost 30 countries that are providing 20, 25,000 troops; but the gentleman is absolutely correct.

The solution here is to have Iraqis protecting Iraqis, and while we were in Baghdad we met with the police academy; and Bernie Kerik, the former police commissioner from the city of New York City, is there on the ground in charge of helping to train these Iraqis. One of the most emotional statements that I heard during my whole trip there was when we were talking to the Iraqi general in charge of the police that are helping to secure Iraq right now.

He says as they come through the academy and they learn about the things that we take for granted here in Minnesota from our great police forces around the country and teach them respect for civilians, not to torture, civilian authority, so many other things to keep us secure and protect our civil liberties as well, he says, When they come, I challenge them to be heroes. He says, When I tell them about what a hero is, a hero is somebody who leaves their family, leaves their wife, leaves their children, leaves their parents, lives their familiarity of home and goes to a strange land, suffer through tremendous heat, tremendous deprivations and puts their life at risk for a stranger.

Hearing from him how appreciative he was for our soldiers, our Marines that are doing that each and every day and how he holds those men and women up as their heroes was a great comfort and a great reassurance to me, but it is not just from the police. We are adding them on the border patrol. We are adding civil defense units to guard units to take our troops out of those regions and have Iraqis protecting Iraq, and we are seeing that.

We had a second unfortunate attempt to bomb the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad; and if we see who it was that unfortunately lost their life in that attempt, it was the bomber himself and an Iraqi policeman that was on guard doing exactly what my colleague was talking about, guarding the treasures of Iraq, guarding their own security and protecting their own citizens. We are moving as fast as we can in that direction. They are taking it on very willingly, and that is a very positive step.

I could not be prouder either and the gentleman is right. We have 130-or-so thousand, from I think it is up to 30 countries now. It is about 55,000 Iraqis on the job making sure that Iraqis are safe, and that number is growing. I think it is the Czech Republic that stepped forward to train another 25,000-or-so on a police program up in their country and get them more on duty to guard their own country.

One of the other things that is really very gratifying is that our soldiers are working with the people to make the country better; and as they go on these raids that the gentleman spoke of earlier and they are collecting a million dollars here, a hundred million dollars there as part of those raids of money that was stolen from the American people, they are putting it back to work on projects there in Iraq. In fact, there are 6,000 projects that have been completed and these might be cleaning up the school, making it more presentable and safe and a better learning environment, helping with the hospitals. We were in a neonatal institute there in Baghdad. Helping the water be a little bit cleaner, buying a fire engine for the local fire department, buying equipment for the local police department, on and on and on these projects are going on.

My favorite was the 101st Airborne brought 10,000 Screaming Eagle soccer balls for the children to have something to play with, but these are helping to move that forward in an endless number of ways and really making it a better country each day and I think helping to really have a positive working relationship between our brave men and women in uniform and the Iraqi people.

Mr. Speaker, I would absolutely agree. The issue we have is we have a situation where we have a country that is in desperate need and has traditionally been a source of frustration for its own neighbors, disrupting the security of its own neighbors and contributing to terrorism and making us less safe here at home.

The question that I would have is when FDR decided that we were going to take Hitler out of Germany, did we ask how much it was going to cost? As I hear our friends on the other side of the aisle lambasting what is going on and lambasting the costs, it is a terrible cost to pay. I do not want to have to pay anything like that. It is something we have to watch over closely and make sure it is well spent, but we cannot not afford to pay it, and when they are talking, I say what if this was FDR? What if this was World War II? Would the same thing not apply?

If we look at what we did in Germany, what we did in Japan, we had the best track record of setting a region anew, setting a country anew. In the 50 years before 1945, Germany had helped initiate two world wars where millions of people had died. In the 50 years since, they have been a great contributor to prosperity, to world peace, a great friend and neighbor and a great friend of ours. We can say the same thing about Japan.

I have the very real sense that what will happen with our success, that we cannot afford to fail, we must win, we must create a democracy in Iraq, that we will have that same stark contrast between a disruptive past and a future that will benefit the region as much as it has in the past.

The gentleman is absolutely right. The cost of freedom is high, but the cost of not defending freedom is far greater, and I appreciate the gentleman bringing up the mass graves.

Our soldiers over there, part of what really drives the fact is that they know they are there for a reason, and they are proud of what they are doing is having seen mass graves. One stands in front of a mass grave, as we did in our group in Babylon where there was 3,000 bodies recovered, 2,100 of them identified but 900 just reburied with whatever personal effects were remaining, were left in plastic bags on top for someone to try to identify them afterwards, and that is out of what they expect to find a 3 to 500,000-people mass grave, a million three people missing. This is out of a country with a population of 26 million where most people can tell you they know somebody who is no longer around, and that is the kind of grave, grave tragedy that we have recovered them from.

I am very pleased that we have been joined today by our good friend, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), who I know has been to Iraq even more recently than I have and has some thoughts to share with us on this subject.

I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from South Carolina. I thank him for going there and finding out the truth for himself. And I really appreciate your bringing up the elected governments, because our goal there is to get out. Our goal there is to turn over the reins to the Iraqis. But we are not going to do that until there is a constitution that protects the rights of the minorities, the Assyrian Christians, the Kurdish, and so many other minorities there, the Turkamens.

Over 90 percent, as the gentleman mentioned, of the town councils have been elected. One of the things that struck me, and maybe the gentleman got the same briefing, they have provincial councils up and running as well. And our troops helped organize those elections, and if there are, say, 30 members on the provincial council, the leaders of the town and the province would come together and elect them, but the generals would hold out, say five to appoint themselves. And that was to make sure we had women involved, that we had the minorities properly represented. And we do have women on the Iraqi governing council, women in the provincial councils.

One of the things that struck me is that the Wall Street Journal recently published the first poll that was conducted in Iraq, the Zogby and American Enterprise Magazine did this, and one of the many things that I took away from that poll is when they asked, Do you want democracy or not? Women wanted democracy by a far greater percentage than men. This is a country and a culture that has not always had the same views towards women that we have in this country. We obviously respect the great corrections that they are not only applying throughout our country here, but if you go to Iraq you see many. And I am sure the gentleman saw many servicewomen doing just fine jobs, great jobs, and being wonderful examples for the Iraqi people. And I think that is something that is really another great sign of progress.

Yes. And, Mr. Speaker, one of the things we did not see was all the planned-for catastrophes that never happened. We have challenges, yes, but the dams were not blown up, so they did not flood everybody down river. The oil refineries and the oil wells were not blown up, so they are producing. They are maybe not producing as much as they will in the future, and they are helping to offset the cost we are incurring. We did not have the tribal warfare everybody projected.

So there are so many negative things that did not happen at the same time all these positive things are happening.

And the gentleman spoke of the satellite dishes. They are watching all kinds of channels now that they never saw before. They are seeing the outside world.

If you ask me, Mr. Speaker, what the average Iraqi thinks, the average Iraqi is thinking, how do I get to be like Kuwait as quickly as possible? How do I become a prosperous country? How do I have everything everybody else has? And it is not just the oil Iraq has. And I am sure my other colleague saw the same thing, when we looked down from those helicopters, it was green. They actually grow rice there. They have enough water between the Tigris and the Euphrates Rivers to flood fields and grow rice. This was the old supposed Garden of Eden. This was the cradle of civilization. So we have, really, a region that has foundations for prosperity, not just oil but water, that can produce a strong agricultural base as well as industry.

I know my colleague must have in Georgia many industries that rely on water, and having that diversified economy to employ the people is something that Iraq is potentially uniquely qualified in that region to do.

And we absolutely saw that. People might ask if everything is so great over there, why do we need this money to rebuild Iraq. Well, I want to point out, it was not due to the war.

As we went through Baghdad, and I am sure the gentleman from South Carolina saw the same things, we saw specific buildings, specific floors on buildings that were targeted and that were hit, but right beside that there would be a building standing and continuing in commerce today.

But what has caused a need for reconstruction is the fact that Saddam Hussein spent one-third of total income on armaments, and we are constantly recovering huge caches of arms in palaces. We were in one palace complex in Tikrit that had 112 buildings on the palace compound, each one of which could be called a palace itself. When you spend money in such awful ways on destructive things and neglect the people, that is what we are recovering from. We are not recovering from the war. That damage was very tightly focused, and maybe the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson) can talk about what he saw in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman mentioned, with electricity, we are bringing forth that core concept of equal treatment under the law. No longer does the Baath Party chair or the Sunni Arabs around Baghdad get their electricity before the rest of the country. Everybody is being treated equal.

Now the children are also benefiting from those schools. We are not having Saddam Hussein's picture on every other page of the textbooks.

We have had some very vicious attacks on Iraq by terrorists recently. This is the new front for the war on terrorism. We are fighting them in their area of strength. Patton said, do not let the enemy pick where you are going to fight, bring the battle to them, and we are. But those terrorists think they are somehow hurting America and dividing us from the American people, but I sense something completely different.

When they attack the U.N., they are attacking the people who are trying to help in Iraq. When they attack the Shiite cleric in Najaf, they are creating a common enemy. The Iraqi people and America have a common enemy, and these acts are pulling us together toward the same goal of getting to the point of security and government where everybody in Iraq, as mentioned, can be equal under the law, and that is the final goal that we have to achieve before we turn over the reins.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey) helping us do that. This is the front line in the war on terrorism. We are up against people who kill men and women with no mercy and with no shame. One of the most vivid discussions I had was with the vice mayor of Mosul. He said, for you in America, this is a foreign policy issue. But for the jihadists that want to take the world back and have the women wearing veils, and have the men punished if they shave their beards, and have a few guys in beards making all of the decisions, and do what they have not been able to accomplish in so many other areas, if we succeed and have a democracy and freedom and an open economy in Iraq, they will fail and fail forever, because just as Iraq has been a very disrupting force in the region in the past, it has the potential to be a force that expands that freedom, expands that prosperity, expands that openness and that choice to their neighbors, to Iran, to Syria, to Saudi Arabia, and what better way to make Americans secure, to make sure that they are not going to have to be worrying about their security than to plant that freedom in Iraq in that neighborhood.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from South Carolina.

I thank the gentleman from South Carolina. I thank the gentleman from Georgia. We cannot afford to lose. This is a fight that we must win.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple. It increases funding for some incredibly important programs within this bill. The amendment doubles funding for the Office of Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes, the tax counseling for the elderly programs, low-income tax clinics, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy. It also increases funding for the high-intensity drug trafficking areas program. These increases are offset by restoring funding for Amtrak to the level originally approved by the committee.

We have heard a lot about Amtrak today, and I support intercity rail transit where it can be viable. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) said that the core of Amtrak was in the northeast corridor, and I am confident with regional support that northeast corridor can continue to thrive and be successful whatever we do at the national level. And where we have even close to the population density of Europe that makes sense, but there are too many lines where we are pouring money in as fast as we can in areas that will never be viable. Given the scarcity of our dollars, we should be focusing on things like high- speed rail or roads or other forms of transportation which make more sense.

The simple fact is that Federal subsidies to Amtrak are a poor investment that offer little return. Having done

some research, if we look at the Sunset Limited line from Orlando to Los Angeles, that costs $347; and I found 11 different flights that cost less than the average per passenger loss that the Federal Government subsidizes for that route. One of those flights was $232, so this means that the Federal Government would save $115 per passenger if it bought every Sunset passenger a round-trip plane ticket as opposed to subsidizing the long-haul route one way.

We can say the same about the Pennsylvanian which has a $292 loss per passenger to go from Philadelphia to Chicago; a plane ticket would cost $135. We would save $157 per passenger. The list goes on and on.

Members do not need to be a CPA to understand that when Amtrak's rate of return is twice that to pay for Amtrak as competing services, which would get people there quicker, this is not where we ought to be prioritizing Federal dollars.

If we look at the areas I am spending it in under my proposal, as indicated during debate on the rule and general debates, the Office of Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes is a new entity within the Department of Treasury. Its purpose is to provide support to our efforts to combat the funding of terrorism and other crimes committed within the U.S. and abroad. We know that terrorism does not work unless the terrorists have money, and so it is important that we do more to deny those who wish to do us harm the means to carry out their intentions.

My amendment would also double funding for two programs which provide critical assistance to low-income and elderly Americans when they pay their taxes. The Federal Tax Code is made up of four huge volumes that are each thicker than the Bible. In fact, the Tax Code is over 7 million words long. These programs help people with a task that is far too burdensome and they need more resources.

My amendment also increases funding for the Office of National Drug Control Policy and the high-intensity drug trafficking program, two vital elements in our Nation's war on drugs. The principal purpose of the Office of National Drug Control Policy is to establish policies, priorities, and objectives to reduce the illicit drug trade, drug- related crime and drug-related health consequences. From enforcement of our drug laws to treatment of individuals by the tragic effects of substance abuse, this program plays a critical role in helping our country fight this terrible problem. As a father of four, I believe the importance of this work cannot be understated.

Finally, we need to do more to help States fight and win their local war on drugs. In Minnesota, police have been battling the devastating problem of methamphetamine production and use. They are in desperate need of assistance.

The high-intensity drug trafficking program is a Federal program that many of my colleagues know and respect. From Houston to Los Angeles to the Appalachian region, from Hawaii to New England and throughout the Midwest, this program has helped State and local official tailor highly specialized solutions to unique areas of need. Drug use is a national problem, and we need to fund national programs like the high-intensity drug trafficking program to fight it. My amendment will deliver those resources.

Mr. Chairman, the programs funded by my amendment will help the poor and the elderly with the confusing task of filling out their taxes, will help States battle illegal drug use, and help law enforcement officials cut off the financial resources terrorists need before they can act. These are broad, bipartisan programs and ones that every Member should support. I urge my colleagues to vote for my amendment and fund these vital national priorities at the highest level possible.

Offered By: Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota

Amendment No. 27: Page 39, line 1, after the dollar amount,

insert the following: ``(reduced by $320,000,000)''.

Page 39, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $40,000,000)''.

Page 39, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $273,000,000)''.

Page 39, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $7,000,000)''.

Page 61, line 9, after the first dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(increased by $2,285,000)''.

Page 67, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(increased by $12,250,000)''.

Page 67, line 4, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(increased by $4,250,000)''.

Page 67, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(increased by $8,000,000)''.

Page 84, line 20, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(increased by $28,790,000)''.

Page 85, line 21, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(increased by $276,675,000)''.

Offered By: Mr. Kennedy of Minnesota

Amendment No. 28: Page 39, line 1, after the dollar amount,

insert the following: ``(reduced by $320,000,000)''.

Page 39, line 2, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $40,000,000)''.

Page 39, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $273,000,000)''.

Page 39, line 5, after the dollar amount, insert the

following: ``(reduced by $7,000,000)''.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment made in order pursuant to the rule.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise to support the Millennium Challenge Account. My amendment deals with the manner in which countries are deemed eligible on the basis of public health expenditures.

The Millennium Challenge Account and the corporation which will be created to administer it will have three basic criteria for eligibility: nations will be required to rule justly, invest in their people, and encourage freedom. Those nations that qualify will be eligible for grants for projects involving the development of agriculture, education, health, trade and investment capacity.

Mr. Chairman, I have a concern about how this will actually work. The administration's plans calls for a country's investment in health to be measured solely on the amount of public sector expenditure. Mr. Chairman, I worry that such a requirement may inadvertently provide an incentive to developing nations to rely exclusively on solutions in the public sector instead of seeking the energy and innovation of the private sector. This oversight might end up hurting fledgling market systems from developing.

We need to make sure that we are encouraging nations to pursue private sector solutions to their problems whenever possible. Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment if the gentleman from Illinois, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations, will enter into a colloquy with me.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on International Relations.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the distinguished chairman for his consideration. I look forward to working with him on this bill to ensure the final legislative product resolves this potential defect in what I believe is an important initiative.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.

Madam Chairman, I rise today to talk about the role this plays in helping promote the culture of life, a culture that values and respects human life at every stage. I believe that we have a responsibility to protect innocent life whenever and wherever possible, and so I applaud and thank my colleague from Ohio, the chairman of the subcommittee, for including funding in this appropriations bill for the Promoting Safe and Stable Families program.

This program helps fund safe havens created by laws passed in 42 States that try to reach out to desperate and troubled parents. Too often we hear of infants who have been abandoned in trash bins and alleys and, much more tragically, killed.

Just this past week, there was a case in my home State of Minnesota where a mother decided to throw her twin infants over a bridge. We must reach out to these parents who are unwilling or unable to care for their infants and let them know that they can take care of their infants by taking them to a safe haven and leave them in the hands of those who will care for them and see that they are placed in loving families.

Let me be clear, safe havens are not a substitute for education and adoption, merely a last resort for desperate parents considering the unthinkable. Safe havens can help avert tragedy and preserve the most precious of all things, innocent human life, but these safe havens only work if those that need them are aware of them.

That is why I am sending a letter to the Secretary of Health and Human Services Thompson and to the GAO calling for a review of the safe havens to find out how much of the funding is being spent on raising the awareness of safe havens so we can make recommendations on how it can be expanded and improved.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly would. But if the gentleman would like to continue, I would be happy to jump in later.

My concern is we are hearing a lot about the debt, and we care about the debt, but what is the goal? Is the goal to get it in balance no matter how it is, and how we get there really does not make any difference, whether it is raising taxes, as there is included in the Blue Dog budget; or is it controlling spending? And I think the real challenge we need to do is that there is a difference in terms of how we achieve that, and I believe that the way that we need to get to the balanced budget is we need to kick-start this economy, get it moving north, generate tax revenue as well as we need to control that spending, and that is where we need to have some more talking. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) is right on how do we control spending mandatory and discretionary. So I would be happy to talk about that more.

Mr. Speaker, I would add that a big part of the difference which would make that chart look radically different is we have not felt that defense spending is discretionary spending, and all of that and more of the decreases were done on the back of reducing our preparedness to respond to emergencies. If we took defense spending, left it out of that chart, we would see, I am sure, during the Democrat-controlled periods, a fairly significant increase in the discretionary period spending. A big part of the spending that we have had to do in the last several years in response to tragedies that this country has suffered has been to rebuild our military capabilities, prepare our homeland for defense against terrorist attacks.

So I think if we smoothed out that, we would see a story that is very consistent with what I put forth, that we need to control spending. We need to do it in a way that we are not doing it on the backs of the security of the American public.

I would just say we are for reducing the debt. We did pay down $453 billion of debt from 1998 to 2001. We are for having that deficit come down. How did it get there? Eighty percent of the change from where we were when we had surplus and where we find ourselves with the projections now is driven by the economy. So are we just going to assume that we do not have an ability to get that economy rolling forward, again? We could, we believed, by spurring the economy through tax relief.

We spend a lot of time talking about the government's budget today, and we have not talked about the families' budget and the aggregate of the families' budget in terms of national economy. And when you look at Reagan tax relief after he passed that tax relief, we had a 60 percent increase in tax revenue. If we get the economy picking up like we are hoping to with 25 percent increase in the stock market in the recent past, that can get that deficit paid off sooner rather than later.

As a person who spent a lot of time balancing budgets, a person who was on the finance side of business for 20 years, as a retailer, when we face a tough economy, what did we do? Did we raise prices?

Yes, this may be the first time since 1812 or whatever, but the last time anybody tried to raised taxes during a depression was Calvin Coolidge, and I do not think we necessarily want to follow that example.

We need to, as a retailer would, say how can we lower the costs in the economy? That is what we have done. We need to say, how can we cut back on spending? And we need to join together to take a good, hard look. Yes, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) says you reduce spending on interest by $400 billion, but you are spending on other categories, all but 110 billion of that.

I think those are the healthy discussions we need to say we need to not just have the tax relief the economy needs to spur, but we need to take a good hard look, working together to get control of this spending, to get our budgets back in line, not just for our governments, but for the burden on the American family and the burden on the economy. And I look forward to continuing this discussion and debate.

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kline), for yielding me this time to speak about the University of Minnesota Duluth's women's hockey team. I do not know if people realize how important hockey is to us in Minnesota. It is a great sport. The people of particularly northern Minnesota have a proud tradition of hockey from the youth on up, and this is an example of how they are continuing that tradition.

Madam Speaker, this is the third consecutive championship, as we have spoken about several times. But how often does that happen? And that speaks to the great program that they have up there. It has already been talked about, the dramatic win, defeating Harvard 4 to 3 in double overtime. Any opportunity a team from Minnesota has to beat Harvard is a great opportunity, and it shows the competitiveness there is across the country.

The three Bulldog players named to the All-Tournament team and Coach Shannon Miller being named the AHCA Coach of the Year also merits additional pride. The coach has the highest winning percentage among the NCAA women's coaches.

While the Bulldogs shine on the ice, I think it is important to point out that they also shine in the classroom. Seven of the players from the championship team were named to the WCHA All-Academic team, so we continue to value education as well in Minnesota.

Madam Speaker, this team embodies the spirit of student athletes and our great ambassadors for the importance of sports and education for the State of Minnesota. I am honored to join them today in congratulating them on continuing the proud tradition of Minnesota hockey.

Mr. Speaker, on this 16th day of June, 2003, as the Ford Motor Company celebrates its 100th anniversary, in the city of St. Cloud, Minnesota, which is in my congressional district, the world's oldest Ford dealership, Tenvoorde Ford, is celebrating its centennial as well.

Mr. Speaker, the story behind this century-old family-owned business is one that I think Members of the House should hear, and I rise today to share it with my colleagues and recognize such a remarkable achievement. In 1899, Stephen Tenvoorde and a friend brought the first automobile to St. Cloud, Minnesota. Back then they called them horseless carriages; and this machine, a Milwaukee Steamer, was the first anyone in central Minnesota had seen. So new was the horseless carriage, that Stephen had to bring it in the old oxen trail to get it from Minneapolis. From the buzz that resulted from the presence of this machine in St. Cloud, it was clear that the horseless carriage was something more than the latest technological leap forward. It was a change in our way of life.

The American love affair with the automobile, which thrives today, began that day at least for the people in central Minnesota who were there to see Stephen motoring around in his horseless carriage. There can be no doubt that Stephen Tenvoorde recognized the opportunity of this invention. A blacksmith and bicycle shop owner, this entrepreneur clearly knew that he was on the cusp of a fantastic new age. In fact, Mr. Speaker, 3 months before the first Model A would roll off the assembly line at Henry Ford's Detroit factory, Stephen Tenvoorde became a Ford franchisee. At that time he was the second person to sign a franchise agreement, but a month before the first dealer sold out and left the business. So today 100 years afterwards, Tenvoorde Ford is the oldest Ford dealership in the world.

The past 100 years have not always been easy for this family-run business. As the country has experienced bumps along the way, this family-run business has also run into challenges. Yet, Mr. Speaker, in the face of wars and the Great Depression, when people just were not buying cars, this business has overcome the challenges. Stephen Tenvoorde passed on the business to his son Cy in 1948 and Cy passed on the

dealership to his three sons, Jack, Paul, and David, who run the business today. And as the fourth generation prepares to enter into the family business in its centennial year, we appropriately observe this remarkable achievement. It is businesses like this that drive our economy and create jobs.

It is also fitting to note on this great occasion the valuable economic lessons that could be learned from the successes of Ford Motor Company. When Henry Ford entered the car market, it was the standard practice to build cars that only the wealthy could afford, the more expensive, the better. How else could a company maximize their profits? But Henry Ford's genius lay in the fact that he knew a better way. Ford understood that his company could make more money by selling more cars at a lower price than they could by selling a handful of cars to the wealthy. So he lowered the price of the Model T every year, and his sales and profits went through the roof. He even got the price low enough that my grandfather, Charles Kennedy, was able to buy the first Model T in my hometown of Murdock, Minnesota, in the early 1900s, possibly from Tenvoorde Ford.

Ford also knew that the more money people had in their pockets, the more cars they could buy. So what did Ford do? He increased his employees' wages to $5 a day so that every one of his workers could afford to buy his products, and they did, expanding the market for Ford cars to people who could never before have afforded one. Lower prices to increase profits and giving people more money to buy more goods, that was revolutionary thinking 100 years ago. This new approach to economics made men like Henry Ford and Stephen Tenvoorde business visionaries far ahead of their time.

The success of their business has proven that their practice worked back then, and it still works today. One hundred years later, we can see this free market approach in action. Since May 28 when the President signed the Jobs and Growth Tax Act into law, the stock market has been surging. In fact, today alone the Dow was up over 200 points and closed at the highest level of the year. The NASDAQ and S&P 500 also hit their highest levels.

The lessons are simple: give people more of their own money to spend, and they will build a stronger country. Give companies some relief from the cumbersome burdens government taxes out of them, and they lower prices and sell more goods. That was what we did with the Jobs and Growth Tax Act, and the results have been spectacular. In a free market, economics work in action. One hundred years ago Henry Ford knew. Stephen Tenvoorde knew it. And today, Mr. Speaker, we are the fortunate ones who can reap the rewards and the benefits of their knowledge.

I want to commend Stephen Tenvoorde and the generations that have followed for their hard work and dedication to automobile excellence over the past 100 years.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life on their 35th anniversary.

MCCL is Minnesota's largest and oldest organization dedicated to preserving the sanctity of human life. It was founded in 1968 with the goal of protecting the lives of the unborn and elderly from conception until natural death. Since then, MCCL has grown from a handful of individuals meeting in their kitchens to 77,000 members in 241 local chapters today.

MCCL works tirelessly to educate the public on the precious nature of life. MCCL is a major force behind efforts to create a culture of life that refuses to accept as common practice euthanasia, human cloning, assisted suicide, and abortion on demand.

Through their efforts, MCCL has allowed thousands to enjoy the banquet of life who otherwise would not have.

I also applaud the vision and leadership of Scott Fischbach, MCCL's new Executive Director.

Mr. Speaker, I salute MCCL for its 35 years of work on behalf of our most vulnerable citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of this rule and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. Since the first time I had an opportunity to vote for this ban, I have had a nephew born who is less than 2 pounds when he was born. You could hold him in the palm of your hand.

We have an estimated 3,000 to 5,000 healthy babies that are victims of this partial-birth abortion each year, many of them larger than my nephew, who lives today. In a country founded on the principle of respect for the dignity

of life, this is deplorable and must be stopped.

Doctors agree that this is not necessary, and it has been labeled not good medicine by the AMA. It can significantly threaten the mother's health and future pregnancies; and they inflict terrible pain upon the baby, who is a few inches from being born and taking its first breath.

Twice we have passed this and President Clinton has vetoed it. Today we have an opportunity to put this into law. Thomas Jefferson had it right when he said that liberty and the pursuit of happiness begins with life. I urge my fellow Members to support this rule and to support passage.

Mr. Speaker, I come to the floor today to speak in honor of a great Minnesotan, a man I am honored to call friend, John Weaver. John is a lifetime resident of Anoka, Minnesota, the Halloween Capital of the World; and a city I am honored to represent.

John has had an extraordinary life over the last 75 years, and the way he has lived that life is truly an example to others. Graduating as the valedictorian of Anoka High School in 1946, he then attended the University of Minnesota, where he pursued a degree in civil engineering. While in college, John still managed to serve his country admirably aboard the USS Iowa and the USS Boxer in the Pacific Ocean while in the Navy Reserve Officer Training Corps.

After graduating and building a thriving business, he never lost sight of what was truly important.

His highest priority was and remains his family, his wife Jill and their three children, Jeff, Sara and Martha. Even with his commitment, or frankly because of his commitment to his family, he was drawn to service in the community.

Starting with his service on the Anoka-Hennepin school board in 1971, he made it clear that he wanted to give something back to the community, and the people he served recognized this, returning him to the school board for two additional terms before they made it clear that they wanted him to use his abilities to help all Minnesotans. As a reward for his tireless dedication to improving the community, John's peers elected him to the Minnesota House of Representatives in 1978. He distinguished himself by his service there.

Even after John left the State Capitol, he did not leave public service. Serving on the Anoka City Council beginning in 1983 and right up to the present day, John's energy has been put to good use for the community and the State of Minnesota. Despite his lengthy record of service and achievements in elected office, John has always looked for more opportunities for involvement. He was appointed and reappointed to the Mississippi River Coordination Commission by President George Herbert Walker Bush and President Clinton. He also served on the Minnesota Metropolitan Council of Transportation Board and was involved in countless community activities, including helping with the Anoka County History Museum. His service has had an impact on the lives of people across the States and the country.

But I think his greatest impact is not just on what he has done for us today but the impact he will have in the future. He has been very involved with the Boy Scouts of America since he himself achieved Eagle rank more than half a century ago. His years of involvement with the Scouts, the number of young men that he has helped to guide their lives to good character and good citizenship are countless.

Mr. Speaker, Minnesota is called The Star of the North. With people like John Weaver, that star burns brightly.

I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about the very significant transportation issues that are facing our country.

Why, just today those who have read the Washington Post would read that Virginia backs off plans for two road projects; how the State is abandoning studies to widen Interstate 66 through Arlington and building an outer beltway. This is a road that is heavily used and is limited to two lanes in each direction in highly congested areas, yet they are going to be seeking proposals from companies that might want to build a toll road or other type of highway to serve the same needs, and they are doing this because Virginia is struggling to pay the bills for these roads projects.

That is something that is not just faced in Virginia, but is faced around the country. And right now if they were trying to address these needs, where they are looking for other roads, looking at tolls or other forms of private financing, they cannot do that on interstate roads right now.

In my view, and what I am going to be talking about today, is a proposal that I put forth along with the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) for fast, free alternatives to speedy transportation. What I am going to be talking about is that we do not want congestion. We do not want congestion that is experienced here in Washington, D.C., or like is experienced all around the country. And we do not want the tolls that we have seen in other areas where you have to slow down and stop at a toll booth, where you have to have the tolls that are collected on that road paying for all types of projects around the area, some of which have nothing to do with transportation. And that is going to be the focus of my remarks.

What is this alternative? This alternative that we are putting forth called FAST I think addresses many of the issues that we are facing today. If you look at it, part of what we are struggling with is the fact that right now we are almost completely reliant on the gas tax as a means of funding our roads, and that has been problematic.

It has been problematic for several reasons: Number one, gas tax does not go up with inflation even though the costs of roads do. We have higher-mileage cars, which are good things. We want higher-mileage cars, but when you have higher-mileage cars that are using less gas for every mile driven, there is less gas tax received for every mile driven on the road.

You also have continued exploration of alternative fuel vehicles, which again is a good thing. Just a few months ago the President from this Chamber put out a challenge for hydrogen-based vehicles. In that challenge he said our children's generations would be driving in hydrogen-based vehicles. But do you know how much gas

they are using in hydrogen-based vehicles? Nada. And how much gas tax will we be receiving from them? Nothing.

So we need to be looking and exploring for alternative ways of funding the important transportation needs that we have. There is also always the reluctance of having our energy costs be higher, so we have to be looking at ways that we can ultimately have supplements to the gas tax.

The funding needs are significant. The gap between what we have available and what we need is just monumental, and it has been a big drag on our economy. In my own State of Minnesota, $1 billion a year by some estimates is the shortfall of what we need. So this is above and beyond what many or any are really talking about for addressing. We have major road projects like just in our area I-94 from St. Cloud to the metropolitan area which are not on our 10-year road plan for the State of Minnesota. Our major intersection, 35W and 694 in the southern portion of the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area, that project could take upwards of $1 billion itself to correct the congestion issues in that interchange, and yet that is not provided for in a 10- year road plan in the State of Minnesota.

So those are just a couple of examples in a couple of metropolitan areas, Washington and Minnesota, Minneapolis-St. Paul area, as examples of the many, many needs across this country that are not being met.

As we think about our competitiveness as a country, we are in a global economy. There is no question about it. Part of the advantage that we have had is we have had very efficient transportation systems. But when we add costs to the system by having this congestion, we certainly are hurting our competitiveness.

We also have, in addition to a shortfall in resources, we have a confidence issue. We have people that are not confident that their road dollars are going to be spent in the way that they would really like them to be spent. We see projects where there is just a phenomenal amount of Federal highway gas tax dollars being spent on just one project.

Right here in the Washington area, the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, over $1.6 billion in Federal funds alone on one bridge, and when we think about that amount of resources going in the one bridge and how many other projects that that prevents from being funded, we need to look at alternatives.

Boston Big Dig, the Federal contribution to that is $8.5 billion of an overall $14.5 billion price tag so far, and it is still climbing. It is because of this that many of the referendums that we have had on gas taxes for increases have failed, whether it be in Missouri in August of last year, or Washington State in November of last year, or closer to home and closer to my opening comments about right here in the Washington metro area that in northern Virginia and Hampton Roads in November of last year failed.

So we need to address not just the shortfall, we need to give people the confidence again. We need to give people belief that the resources that they are devoting and giving to transportation are being spent on the transportation projects that they are asking for. And for the most part, they are looking, yes, for more options, but in many areas they are looking for more concrete, more asphalt, more lanes on our congested interstate highway systems.

If you think about what this is costing economically, traffic congestion costs in the United States more than $67 billion annually, $67 billion. That is more than we spend federally on roads and other transportation investments. So this is something that we are not really being smart about this. We are spending $67 billion annually on congestion, but we are not spending $67 billion annually here to relieve that congestion.

We also spend more than 3.6 billion hours consumed with delays, 3.6 billion hours. Just think of what you could be doing with that time. Think of how much more time you could be having with your family. Think of how much more time that American workers could be working and being productive rather than just sitting in traffic. Think of how much more time you could do whatever it is you enjoy doing, hunting, fishing, being out on the golf course. America deserves to have that time with their family, that time at work, or that time doing what they enjoy rather than being stuck in traffic.

And importantly to the environment, 6 billion gallons of fuel are wasted in traffic jams every year, 6 billion.

We have a great concern about being overly reliant on foreign oil, overly reliant on these types of energies that we are importing to keep our country going. Just think of how less reliant we would be if we were not putting 6 billion gallons of fuel into the environment every year just because we are stuck in congestion. Just think of how much better our environment would be if we were not spending that six billion of gasoline on being stuck in traffic.

There are huge issues here. We look at the average cost of congestion for commuters stuck in traffic which is about $1,160 a year per person. That brings it down to a very significant cost for most families having to pay a lot more just to be stuck in that traffic and now drivers waste on average 62 hours per year per person on traffic. So we can free up a lot of that time, and in my own State of Minnesota we have had amongst the highest increases of congestion of any other metropolitan area in the country.

This is something that is costing us individually dearly in terms of time and money. It is costing our economy very significantly in terms of time away from employment, time away from other activities and the resources that we are investing; and it is costing our environment as well. So this is something we need to deal with.

We here in America view ourselves as the champions of freedom, the champions of reaching out to market alternatives, to saying how can we embrace our private sector, how can we embrace innovative ideas; and certainly our heritage in that regard has inspired many countries and many peoples around the world to try to emulate us and is very responsible for the expansion of democracy and market-based economies around the world.

Yet in the area of transportation, we are behind. We are not really leaders in that regard. We are still in more of a planned-market type of approach to how we do it. If we look at the case of Italy, they have turned over their national network, the Aus Estrada to a private network, to a private sector. Canada has sold off part of its Ontario Beltway for private people to run.

In China, a country that will be a significant economic competitor for years to come and in growing ways, they are investing significantly in their transportation infrastructure by doing it in a way that embraces public-private partnerships, and this is allowing them to put massive projects on the ground and really help them be even more competitive economically.

Japan is also considering privatizing their national highway network. Australia is doing something very innovative. Every time that there is a major project, the Australian Government requires the public highway organization to have a private entity bid on that and say can we do it better, and those are the types of things that we just have not really considered to the same extent here in this country.

Many States, though, have been innovative in exploring those. Around the country, even though it is prohibited, as I said, with outdated restrictions on Federal roads, it is allowed on State roads. Some States have been very innovative in using these user fees to major transportation problems. Riverside Freeway, for example, in Orange County, California, $130 million project, four-lane facility in the median of one of the most congested 10 miles in the country, it has proven to be very successful, a private entity coming forward and doing this.

The Pocahontas Parkway, closer here to Washington, Richmond, Virginia, area, $400 million project used to connect two interstates, Interstate 95, Interstate 295. This is an $8.8 million four-lane connection that really helped relieve congestion in the Richmond area.

In the Austin-San Antonio area, $3.2 billion project, controlled access highway, with capacity for managed lanes.

In many of these cases, these are being funded by private entities stepping forward and offering to do these projects. There are many ways where we can embrace these private entities.

The way that I would encourage is to consider having either the public utility commission in the State or the State highway committee offer to set a rate of an acceptable rate of return and to guarantee that rate of return to private entities that will step forward and do highway projects that are in need; and if they were planning on originally paying for it in 15 years and the project was very successful and more drivers chose to use it and it could be paid off in 12 years, to get the rate of return, that is when the fee would fall away.

If it were not quite as successful in terms of usage as they were planning on and it maybe took a couple more years, it would maybe continue to have a fee on it for a little bit longer than 15 years; but in that way, we would not either have excessive, over-the-top returns that are above what should have to be paid for a private entity, and in a similar way, we would not have a project that is a bust, that just is not paying for itself, that would require and have the private entity come back in many cases to try to renegotiate with the State.

So embracing these types of rate-of-return approaches to encourage private entities to step forward would really encourage them to partner with us more as it relates to getting our congestion relieved. Right now we have a lot of these private entities over there in Iraq and Afghanistan building roads, and they would be happy to, I think, embrace this type of a market approach here in Minnesota and around the country.

If we look at what the solution is to this, it is to take this same type of innovation that we have in other States on State roads, the same type of innovation that in ways is being used all across this world, to our own interstates. That is what we are searching to do, and this is why the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Smith) and I introduced the FAST Act, Freeing Alternative to Speedy Transportation; and this is a bipartisan bill. We have Members from both sides of the aisle supporting this bill, and it is a bicameral bill. I was very pleased that Senator Wayne Allard from Colorado has agreed to introduce this in the Senate as well.

It is really a solution-based approach. It repeals the outdated provisions in Federal law that prevent highway expansion with user fees and in many ways is a commonsense approach that unites all those that have been really arguing over other approaches to solve our congestion areas.

What are some of the restrictions, though, that we place? We take away this prohibition, but we do it only assuming that certain requirements are met. Those requirements are few, and they are focused on restoring that consumer confidence.

Fees would only be collected voluntarily so no one is forced to be in these lanes, and they would only be collected using noncash electronic technology. No one wants more toll booths. When we are looking to get things moving quicker, we do not want to have to slow down and stop to pay a toll, and we do not even want to have to slow down to just run through a booth area for electronic recognition. This is something that there is proven technology out there where it could be as simple as being a tube that goes up in a U-shape over the interstate. It has electronic sensors in it and can tell when a car moves into a charge lane and that car would have an electronic sensor that a person might hang from a rearview mirror or it might be included as part of a person's license or somewhere else that would electronically say, yes, I recognize that person is in this lane, we will deduct that from their account or send a bill for it.

There is also technology for those that do not have the electronic sensor that we would obviously be able to flash a picture of their license plates and send them a bill that way, but this can be done where people can decide to move in and out of a lane at 50 or 60 miles an hour, whatever the posted speed limit is, and do it in a way that we do not have to have massive capital expenditures to delineate one lane from another. This would facilitate the ability to convert this at the period of time when the fees had paid for the road into a lane that no longer had a fee on it.

So that is one key criterion. Voluntary, electronic, no toll booths, no tolls.

Second, is that these fast fees are charged only when drivers use the new lanes, and they are charged only on those new lanes. We are talking about all existing concrete and pavement, would not add new fees to them, but it would only be these existing lanes.

Finally, once that lane was paid for, that fee would expire.

These are the criteria that our FAST Act provides to make sure that those consumers, those travelers, those commuters that are paying for this can have the confidence that their dollars are going to be used well.

If we look at what are some of the benefits of this, there are significant benefits. First, of course, less congestion, less all of those other costs that we talked about earlier that are really grinding down our economy in so many ways, and that is one big thing.

What this does is it gives a new funding source at a time when clearly a new funding source is needed. Also, by being able to empower local areas, it helps these roads get built quicker. A similar type of approach was used with these types of lanes in the Katy Freeway in Houston; and rather than the road getting built in 10 years, it is getting built in 4. So we are addressing the problems now when we have the need.

By doing so, we are doing it in a way that reduced the cost because when we build something today versus 10 years from now, not only do we save the time-value money, but with the appreciating values of lands along the right of ways with the escalating costs, this is a much cheaper time to be addressing issues that we have today rather than bury our heads in the sand and let them just build into the future with the escalating costs of the buildup of construction along these roads, making the purchase of rights of way and other easements so much more expensive.

This is clearly something that is going to relieve congestion, new sources of funding, get those roads built quickly, and importantly, right now. As I mentioned with the Wilson bridge or the Boston Big Dig, we have major projects that could clearly be funded in this way, partially at least, that are absorbing significant shares of our transportation resources.

By addressing many of the projects where this would be appropriate using fast lanes, we are going to free up dollars for all of the other projects that our cities, that our rural areas have, and have more resources to address their very important needs as well.

I think the other big thing this does is it pushes power out of Washington and empowers the States. Right now with many major road projects, we are the only game in town. A person has to come to Washington to sort of make sure they maybe get an earmark or get a little help pushing this forward. We have got a lot of those requests and continue to put through a lot of those requests and are happy to work in response to those in whatever way we can, but what this does is it puts more tools in the tool box of State and local entities or private firms to step forward and address an unmet need.

I think that is why nationally the American Association of State Highway and Transportation officials have supported this. This is a tool that they should have to address their needs. If a project is not met through the normal approach, the State can step forward using this type of approach, or as in the case of Houston, as I mentioned earlier, Harris County did that project for the Katy Freeway, have the county step forward or private entity come knock on the county or State's door and say, listen, I see a need here; I would like to fill it.

Having more people involved, encouraging innovation across the country, very similar to what we do with welfare, is what we really need to do, unlocking that innovation. More people addressing this very significant issue is what we are trying to achieve with this FAST Act.

I would say also that a key part of what we are doing here as well is restoring that consumer confidence. We are restoring that consumer confidence with the criteria that I talked about earlier, only charge on new lanes, only voluntarily, only electronically, used for those new lanes, and goes away when it is done. That will restore the confidence because we are giving them a true user choice. No one will pay for

this unless they deem that the amount that they are paying they are getting back the return with a value that is worth it.

And some may say, well, this is only going to be used for the wealthy, but that is proven by studies not to be true. The need to get to your doctor's appointment on time or pick up your child at an after- school program or get to an important interview does not happen only in one income group or one demographic or another. This is used across the section of our society. And in cases where it has been done on State roads, that has proven to be the case.

Also, everybody benefits. Even if you are not using the FAST lanes, there is less people driving in the other lanes. So you are freeing up that congestion, besides the benefits of spending less as an economy on gasoline and putting less gasoline in the air and all the other costs that I spoke of earlier that would be relieved. So this is really a fundamental question of if you are stuck dead in traffic in the middle of the interstate at 10:00 in the morning or 2:00 in the afternoon, or any time of day, should you have a choice of being able to move into an additional lane and move across that lane and along that lane in a much quicker way?

I believe fundamentally that that is a choice that should be there, and this approach ensures that if the market would support a choice being there, then multiple people are empowered to make sure that that option is provided to our passengers, to our commuters.

So this is something that is critically important. And if we look right now, some of the other issues that this really addresses is it really not only embraces the private sector, but it embraces the possibilities for transit. There are many ways of embracing transit with these lanes. One of those might be that you can use congestion pricing. You can vary the level of pricing based on what kind of need there is, and that could either be predescribed as to a time of day, a different fee, or it could be even variable. You could have an electronic sensor that would say what do I need to charge in order to make sure I can maintain a set miles per hour along this lane and make sure that there is a benefit to being in that lane. Those technologies exist, they can be used, and this would be allowed under our bill.

I think the other thing that that would really facilitate is bus rapid transit. Too often folks are saying, well, I do not really want to take the bus because the bus is going in the same congested lanes that I am going in, and there is really not going to be an advantage to that for me. But if you had congestion pricing along these FAST lanes that would ensure a more predictable speed, you could also have more predictable times on a bus rapid transit that would use this. By having your major interstate corridors having these types of lanes available to them to work with bus rapid transit, you could provide this, as far as transit goes, a very economical transit alternative as well as a very flexible transit alternative.

Transit began with and is still primarily focused on bringing people in and out of the center cities, like an accordion. But the world has changed. Not all the jobs are downtown, and not everybody lives outside of the downtown and the outer areas of the suburbs or the exurbs. A lot of time it is between the areas that surround the center cities where the transit needs are, and a lot of times that might change from one year or one decade to the next. So being locked into a more permanent type of transit might not be the most efficient way.

This embracing of bus rapid transit would be an ideal way for us to help with those transit needs, to help provide alternatives and make sure that we are addressing the transportation needs of our area.

People ask, can you use high-occupancy vehicles? You certainly could, and you could do this in a way where you just only issued electronic sensors to those who are registered car pools or registered van pools. But also there is technology available, required, in fact, in most new cars, which is being phased in over the next several years to require that there be electronic sensors in our cars to be able to tell what the weight of a person is sitting in the passenger seat so that you can adjust the degree to which when an air bag expands, the kind of force that uses so that it is reflective of the weight of the passenger.

These sensors can also tell whether it is an animate or an inanimate object, so you cannot just do the sack of potatoes there. You might be able to get by with putting Rover, or, in our family, Indy, in the car and get away with that, but you cannot get by with just a rock or a sack of potatoes.

If we had that electronic signal that is being sent out to the sensor that was being made available for this purpose, we could also have HOV lanes that could be electronically monitored.

So there are countless opportunities in our modern day of high technology to really embrace transit alternatives and FAST lane alternatives in a similar way, in a very cost-efficient way.

A couple of the other things our bill provides. Our bill provides for the fact that States would not be penalized for embracing these types of approaches. The amount of Federal gas tax dollars that they would have otherwise received would remain the same. The other thing, though, that it encourages is that we look at innovation; that for any highway project over $50 million, that the State authority looks at whether or not FAST lanes could be used, and it looks at whether or not you could embrace public-private partnerships. As we look at the vast needs we have and the limited resources we have to meet those needs, those types of approaches, I think, are very severely needed.

So this is something that we certainly need to approach, and it is important for so many other reasons. Last night I had an opportunity to talk about the significant focus we have on creating jobs. Our economy is in tough shape. We have too many people unemployed. A big focus that we have to have, and what those unemployed people want, they want a job, and we need to create them. This unlocking of this alternative innovative way of approaching our transportation needs are not only going to help our economy long term, by having a better transportation infrastructure, it will not only help us be far more competitive on the world stage, but they are also going to create jobs in the making of those highways. The Joint Economic Committee has said that $1 billion of transportation spending would create 42,000 jobs.

In a hearing we had before the Joint Economic Committee, Bob Poole of the Reason Foundation said that this could bridge the gap between many of the alternatives we are looking at; that it could result in tens of billions of dollars of projects if we did this right and provided other alternative help for our private entities and our public entities that I will talk about in a second. He identified that there was a $43 billion need in just the top eight metropolitan areas that these types of projects could help finance. Now, $43 billion is a significant amount of money, but it is also a significant amount of jobs. That could be upwards toward a couple million jobs that this would be creating. That is even more than what the jobs and tax relief bill we passed in this House last week would create.

So this is very important not only in ending our congestion, but in also getting this economy going again and getting people employed. And, again, as we are proposing it, the costs will be next to nothing to the Federal Government, because these projects can be funded, in many cases, by the fees that would be generated, the FAST fees that would be generated on these FAST lanes, and then you would be able to bond them. And by doing that, you are not going to be using revenues from the Federal Government, from the State governments, or the local governments. You may need to have planning dollars to get it going and get it started, but this is something where the fees will be covering the costs in paying for it in a way that does not otherwise strap the resources of any of those bodies.

It is because of the attractiveness of this that so many people back in my own State of Minnesota have supported this. It has really brought together those that are fighting over many other transportation issues, like gas tax, in Minnesota. It has brought together clearly the Minnesota Transportation Alliance, which is supportive of

this. They are looking to have more transportation options, more investment in our transportation, more lanes, more roads, as well as opening up alternatives like bus rapid transit, as I spoke of. But it is also supported by our chamber in Minnesota. They know how important this is to our economy. They know how important it is to our competitiveness. They know how important this is to jobs, and so they are supporting it. It is being supported by the Taxpayers League in Minnesota because they understand that this is a true user choice; that people only pay when, in fact, they are getting a return that is worth it.

I am very pleased that our own Governor, Tim Pawlenty, and his Lieutenant Governor, and Transportation Commissioner Carol Molnaw have also stepped forward and endorsed this. It has gotten great support on a bipartisan basis in Minnesota, just as it is a bipartisan bill here. And I think we need to build on that to make sure that we continue to build that support nationally, which I am expecting will happen.

It is a big concern here, because we are admitting that we do not have all the answers here in Washington; that we want to embrace those local and State and private entities that can help us with this. Admitting that is sometimes difficult, but it is critically and fundamentally important.

One other thing that we need to do, though, to make this whole equation work is that we need to look at how can we help finance these projects. Right now public entities with the ability to issue municipal type bonds that are tax-free have an advantage over private entities. Having private activity bonds and expanding the use of those is something that we need to encourage. So I will soon be introducing a bill that encourages that as well; that picks up on an idea that the prior Senator Chafee had to put forward private activity bonds which give these private entities, when they are doing the public work of expanding transportation corridors, the same tax benefit that would otherwise be available only to public entities. In many of these public-private partnerships that I talked about earlier, that is what is being used.

We just came from a hearing where we heard the administration's proposals on SAFETEA, and I am very pleased to see that they included private activity bonds as part of their proposal. I applaud them on that and will look to maybe see if we cannot even expand it beyond what they have done.

I also applaud them for continuing programs like the TIFIA program, the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, that helps provide financing components that make it easier for public- private entities to step forward and be involved in this. I also applaud them for inching towards the type of loosening up of the outdated restrictions that are currently in law. And as I spoke with Secretary Mineta and Administrator Peters, I encouraged them and was pleased with their response that they were willing to work to take a couple of further steps along the path of what we are talking about here in FAST to move in that direction.

I would just conclude by saying that this is not new. Prior to President Eisenhower stepping forward with the bold new program to build an interstate highway system for national security purposes, the idea of using user fees was the predominant idea for how we funded and expanded our core transportation corridors. Since that time, we have gotten our interstate system largely built. I believe for many it was an expectation when that was started half a century ago that we would return to that after the interstate was built. I think we need to.

This is an innovative approach, a new source of transportation resources to help bridge that gulf between what we need and what we have available to invest in our significant transportation needs. It does it in a way that empowers the States, empowers public-private partnerships, empowers local areas, yet assures the confidence of the consumers that they are going to get something that is a return for what they are giving in, that they can be assured that the resources they are devoting to transportation are in fact going to be addressing needs that they see, needs that they want to be addressed.

I would just encourage all my fellow Members to consider joining with us in pushing for the passage of the FAST Act, Freeing Alternatives for Speedy Transportation. Let us end congestion. Let us encourage local control. Let us restore consumer confidence. Let us not have congestion. Let us not have more tolls, but let us let people get to where they want to get to fast, along fast lanes, and get this economy moving again fast.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I wholeheartedly agree with what the gentleman is saying. This focus should be on jobs. Our focus as a Congress should be on creating jobs.

A lot of what we have heard earlier today is talk about extending unemployment, and we certainly have. Our hearts go out to those that are unemployed. But if you talk to those that are unemployed, what they really want is a job, and that is what we have to talk about, that is what we have to act on, that is what we have to create.

They have not talked a lot earlier in their discussions on the floor about what they are going to do to create jobs. As the gentleman mentioned, they do not have a plan to say here is how we are going to create jobs.

Our plan that we did pass last week will create, according to estimates, 1.2 million jobs. I know a little bit about jobs. I spent 20 years in the business world creating jobs, keeping people employed; and I know what are some of the things that can help encourage that and what are some of the things that can hurt that. So our focus needs to be what can we do as a government to nurture an environment that creates jobs.

The gentleman spoke of the energy bill. That is clearly part of it. The gentleman spoke about many of the provisions in this bill, in this bill we passed for jobs and growth, which will indeed create jobs and growth.

The economy has suffered. We went through a period where we had not only a bust in the telecom bubble, but soon following that, 9/11, which set the economy back, and the threat of terrorism and the concern with our efforts to free

a people from oppression in Afghanistan and do the same thing again in Iraq.

We are now suffering from concern over SARS and other diseases that are threatening our economy and threatening people and threatening lives around the world. All these put a lot of pressure on our economy, put a lot of pressure on the ability to create jobs; and now more than ever, our focus needs to be on the facts and how do we create those jobs.

I think that is a big issue we are dealing with. There are two different world views. There is a world view that says having the government spend more creates jobs, with the idea that somehow we here in Washington know how to do that. As a businessman, I can tell you, this is not where the jobs are created. They are created back home by small businesses.

I would like to go back to the facts, because so often much of the rhetoric on the other side is lambasting the job creators and lambasting any efforts that we have to encourage those job creators to create jobs. That is what this bill does.

If you think about what bonus depreciation does, going from 30 to 50 percent bonus depreciation, the extra ability to expense immediately investments in equipment that drives jobs, that is critical to providing those jobs.

Also the bill that we passed last week will increase the amount that small businesses can deduct from $25,000 to $100,000, the amount they can deduct in the first year. This is so vitally important. As I talk to so many small businesses around the State, they tell me this is something that can get me to go out and buy that piece of equipment that will allow me to add jobs to my business.

It is a recurring theme, as the gentleman mentioned, that we somehow here in Washington have all the answers; that we can create jobs in some way by just taxing people more, bringing the government more money. And we are overhead; we are overhead. We are a cost to all those small businesses out there. We are the big ``headquarters in the sky'' that does nothing but send the bill to them and say send more money; we need more money.

We do not need more money, but small businesses do. And it is true that too often we demonize small businesses. Too often we say the answer is to throw more penalties their way.

Things like this $100,000, being able to deduct it immediately is thought of as a tax cut for the rich, but let us think about what that means. That means rather than having to expense over 4 or 5 or 7 or 9 or 25 years, it can be deducted immediately. As a finance guy who worked in business and who has gone through the calculations, I can tell my colleagues, that will change businesses' decisions as to what they invest in.

And what could that be used for? I just started to go through my own history. My first job was picking strawberries, and if we think about our agricultural businesses, what they could do with $100,000. There is the harvesting equipment. That allows them to produce more product, to feed more people, to increase our economy.

After I had the opportunity to pick strawberries, I graduated to the local bakery in town, Meisner's Bakery in Pequot Lakes. With that $100,000, you could buy a new oven or a new steamer or a new area to increase your production of doughnuts or whatever. And that is going to add production, it is going to add jobs to a community.

After I got finished at the bakery, I had the opportunity to rent boats at a boat marina. Somebody who is doing that can add boats to their fleet so they can be renting more.

After that I had the opportunity to be at a gas station and pump gas, but they also had a little retail store there with fish and bait and all that stuff. A retail store like that could add fixtures, could expand space and, therefore, grow its sales and add jobs.

I can go on and on and on through the jobs that I have been in, and one can visually picture what could happen with that extra ability to deduct that $100,000 right away rather than over a long period of time, how that could motivate businesses to invest and how that investment could increase jobs. Sometimes we do not hear about that

from the other side. We just hear about lambasting of those business people that are taking the risks, that are investing in something that does not have a certain future, but it is that entrepreneurial risk- taking that creates jobs in this country, and that is what we need to encourage.

And I do not buy it either. And I agree with the gentleman as it relates to the people out there creating jobs. Hard-working families know a whole lot better how to spend money to create jobs and to provide for their families than we ever will here in Washington, and the gentleman's many examples just proved the point.

Mr. Speaker, amongst the wisest words I have heard here was during my freshman year we had a speaker come in, a George Will, who some of my colleagues may have had the opportunity to read his columns, and he tried to make things understandable for us, because sometimes it is hard to understand some of the verbiage that we hear. He said, you will find that on most issues, that the battle of ideas is between freedom on one side and people telling you that you need them here in Washington to keep bringing the gravy train to you, or, said another way, dependency, we are going to cultivate dependency. And if my colleagues listened tonight, they heard that.

We have heard the other side say, you need us here, because without us here, we will not be able to keep you dependent on unemployment rolls; whereas I think what our statement is saying, yes, we will take care of unemployment, and yes, we have extended, and we both voted for that, and we both will again when that need is there. But that is not our main focus. When we get up in the morning, our focus is how can we give the economy more freedom, small businesses more freedom, families and small businesses more of their hard-earned dollars in their pockets so they can take that freedom and they can go out and create jobs and create a more prosperous America for all of us.

Only $100 million.

I do not understand it either. And the waste, fraud and abuse cries out for a razor-sharp focus on what can we do to scale away those costs that are burdening our economy. And we can get back to a sound fiscal picture only by sparking this economy with the kind of tax-relief jobs proposal that we passed and by controlling that spending with a razor-sharp focus, as they say, on waste, fraud and abuse.

They know how to spend money better back home in Florida and back home in Minnesota than we do in Washington. They do not put up with that. They will drill to the bottom of those issues and find out what was causing it and uncover the waste, fraud and abuse, and get it out of the system.

But what could they do, for example, with the dividend and capital gains reductions that we have passed? When I studied economics, they told me it was investments that drive jobs. It is when you invest in the economy, that is when you drive jobs. Where do those investments come from? Those investments come from savings. And this bill encourages savings by reducing the double taxation on dividends, and they are excessively high compared to many other countries' tax that we have on investment income. We should be taxing income at its source, but when we discourage investment and have the very low investment rate that we have here in America, we are hurting our economy. And who is receiving most of those dividends? I think it is important to point out it is primarily seniors that are receiving those dividends. And they have paid taxes on that in the business. They have paid taxes all their lives. Why are we charging them this double investment?

We have a concern here with having good fiscal responsibility. One of the big benefits of the dividend and capital gains proposal we have talked about is that by encouraging more businesses to be giving their dividends back to shareholders, you will be having less cash stockpiled in the company. That will be better for us keeping track and holding our businesses accountable. It is also going to make the balance between debt and equity less tilted towards debt. Right now we have such higher tax benefits for fully deductible debt on interest on debt; and yet on dividends coming out of a business, we are taxing them twice unfairly. By getting that balance more in line, you are going to really have a stronger, sounder capital structure, more equity in our businesses so they can withstand downfalls without having to lay off employees.

Again, our focus here is what can we do to create jobs. How can we run our ship more efficiently here by scaling back on waste, fraud and abuse so that we have to take less out of the pockets of small businesses and hardworking families and let them get on with the business of America, the business of creating jobs, expanding the economy and taking care of our families.

It is the same in Minnesota. And you were right, the jobs proposal that we have passed, as we have spoken of, focuses that help to our job providers on encouraging investment. That is what creates jobs. And as it relates to helping out and providing more money in the pockets of hardworking families, it focuses that in a very appropriate way.

The gentleman spoke of the per child tax credit, and I would also add the marriage penalty. As someone who has 23 years-plus of marriage under his belt and four teenagers to help pay for, I want to make sure there are not disincentives to keep you from enjoying both of those treasures of life, marriage penalty is something we have to get rid of, and getting rid of it now as this bill does is critical. We charge people when they walk down the wedding aisle more for getting married. We tax marriage. They get a little extra gift from Uncle Sam saying, Here is your bill. On average before we passed our tax relief in 2001, $1,400 more on average just for being married.

Families are the foundation of our society, the foundation of our economy. Why we do that is beyond me. And accelerating this marriage penalty relief so that it is eliminated today is something that is very powerful in this bill. The per child tax credit, those that have children know how expensive they are to raise; how we put a lot of blood, sweat, and tears into them. Yes, and we need to, and there is nothing more rewarding. But we also have to put a few dollars out for their education, for their food, for their clothing; and we benefit greatly as a country from the youth having this increase in the per child tax credit from $600 to $1,000. Now, that is something that is very important to do and a very important part of this tax relief jobs bill that we just passed.

That is just the IRS, not all the expense that businesses have had and families have had in order to fill out some of the most complicated tax forms in the world.

We hear it all the time, and the gentleman mentioned that the facts often get distorted, and they get distorted to try to say and try to convince us in all cases that we need to spend more on X, Y or Z, and we have the benefit of many of our constituents coming in and speaking with us, and if they represent a category of spending, it needs to go higher. If they represent a business, we need to do something for their business, I have to tell my colleague, to increase the activity in that business.

I have to tell my colleague, one of the strongest confirmations that I have for his earlier statements about the complexity of the Tax Code and the burden of that Tax Code upon our economy, on our families, is that the one group that sort of stands out from all the rest is when I speak with my fellow certified public accountants. A certified public accountant that helps in preparing those tax returns one might think would want the Tax Code to be more complex so they can have more business, but they are all to a person telling me, whether I am visiting them in their one- or two- or three-person firm in a small town in Minnesota or otherwise, they are saying we have got to reduce the complexity of this Tax Code.

This Tax Code reduces the trust that people have in their government. It takes away far too many of our resources to devote to something that does not do anything for our competitiveness as a country.

One of the areas that they often single out as being just really out of control is the alternative minimum tax, and the alternative minimum tax was put in many, many years ago with the intent of making sure that we all paid taxes, and was targeting those at the very top, but they never changed the dollar amount, and the years and the decades have passed, and now it is being not just a burden of an additional cost to people where it is being unfairly applied, but the complexity of it in having to pool so many moderate to middle-income to lower-middle-income families into it is astoundingly burdensome.

So I am also pleased that part of what we did in the relief that we passed last week was to increase the AMT exemption so that the other provisions were not causing more people to be dumped into this quagmire of a mess with AMT.

We do need to invest in our priorities, and we are in our budget, as the gentleman so eloquently pointed out, but we also need to reduce the burdensome elements of our taxes and our tax preparation and get a simplified form, which this AMT relief is moving us in that direction.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that my colleague has helped me cosponsor my fair care legislation to help with addressing the uninsured, and he is absolutely right. When we go out there and talk to small businesses and employees, the availability of insurance is critical.

What are we doing with insurance right now? We have a growing number of uninsured that are being provided for through the emergency rooms of our hospital, the most expensive way we can treat them. Federal law requires that emergency rooms need to treat everybody, including the uninsured. Where does that cost come from? That cost comes to us from higher Federal, State and local subsidies, but also higher insurance premiums, which drive up the uninsured pool even further, and we get in a vicious cycle.

I am pleased the gentleman has been so supportive of our fair care bill that gives the uninsured the same tax benefits that we that are employed have. When one is employed, they get help from their employer. That help that they give for their health insurance does not come to them as taxable income. They are getting a tax benefit.

My bill would, which my colleague has nicely helped cosponsor, gives $1,000 per child tax credit per person, $500 per dependent, up to $3,000 per family, and this is the way where we can help that uninsured in a way that will give them more choices and really benefit us all through lower insurance premiums and more accessibility. But we have done so much more for helping with that vital thing that is constraining jobs.

The medical malpractice reform that we both supported and passed earlier this year in the House will take away those excessive settlements that have been driving medical professionals out of the business and again driving up the costs of health care. We have many other provisions to help, but this prescription drug bill that, as the gentleman mentioned earlier, we passed in this body twice would take away an expense that has just been so burdensome in a way that is affordable to us, and we can do it in our budget, and it keeps seniors from having to spend their lifetime savings for life-saving prescriptions. But that is, again, another way that we can help keep the costs of insurance from being driven up.

The energy bill we passed earlier and, as my colleague knows, I have spoken on earlier is so critical to this economy because nothing hurts or helps the economy more than the cost of energy and making sure that we have affordable energy, that we are not dependent on foreign sources, that we can grow more alternative sources here as well as encouraging efficiency and conservation are provided there. That is a critical bill, and I know I am working very hard as we are on the roads in the transportations bills.

We met earlier today on an airport improvement plan and making sure we are investing in that infrastructure that is so very critical to our economy. And I am also pushing another proposal on fast lanes to free up the ability of local and State governments and maybe private enterprises to move forward and help put extra lanes in our interstates that without we are congesting traffic and closing down our economy.

There is so much that we are doing, and we do have a razor-sharp focus on jobs. What do we need to do to create jobs? That is our focus. It is not to complain. It is not to talk about the problems in America. It is to say America has always risen above those problems, and we have risen above those problems and succeeded and gotten to a point of leadership in the world not because we have taxed more and brought more dollars to the Federal Government, but because we have relied upon and trusted and given more

freedoms to hard-working entrepreneurs that are taking risks, that are creating jobs, and letting families keep more of their hard-earned money because they know best how to take care of themselves.

I appreciate the gentleman bringing these very important issues before the Chamber and our fellow colleagues and look forward to working with him to continue the type of policies that we have already been able to successfully achieve so far in this Congress and hopefully will have more to come.