Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, our military men and women are doing a tremendous job in Iraq, as they work with Iraqis to secure their country and combat the terrorists who want so desperately to prevent freedom from taking root there. Our troops deserve to hear messages of strong support and thanks from us--not calls for withdrawal that merely give hope to the enemy. Given a chance, the Iraqi military and political system will become strong enough to defend the Iraqi people on its own. But pulling our troops out now would undermine this goal and provide an opening for al Qaeda and its terrorist brethren.

I disagree wholeheartedly with those who claim our presence there is counterproductive and those who argue that it would be best to bring America's troops home before their mission is completed. Iraq and its people have made great strides, most recently with their free vote on a constitution. But all their progress and our troops' blood and sweat will be for nothing if our forces withdrawal before Iraq's own forces are ready to defend the country.

All of us want to see our soldiers come home, but it would be a huge mistake to make their withdrawal based on an arbitrary date, rather than conditions-based. So many of our servicemen and women have sacrificed so much to ensure that Iraq does not become a haven for terrorists, and we have to make sure that mission is accomplished and that their sacrifice has not been in vain. Pulling our troops out now is akin to surrender and would be a fateful blunder.

Mr. Speaker, in 2 minutes I will try to answer all of that diatribe. It is going to be very challenging.

Number one, the last speaker talked about all the new spending. Every time we brought a spending bill to the floor of the House, an appropriations bill, a budget bill, a Medicare bill, what did they do? They proposed more spending. Our budget on Medicare, $400 billion. Their bill on Medicare, $1 trillion. What did our budget on Medicare come in at? $319 billion because competition is working.

Mr. Speaker, let us put this in perspective. Look at the rhetoric we have been hearing tonight: deep cuts; draconian cuts to government; we are hurting women; we are hurting children; we are hurting children with cystic fibrosis; we are taking picnics away from tourists; we are burning the house down. What is this budget doing?

Mr. Speaker, this budget, if it does not pass, the government will spend over the next 5 years $13.855 trillion. With this budget, the government will spend over the next 5 years $13.795 trillion. We are talking about growing entitlement spending at 6.3 percent instead of 6.4 percent, a one-tenth of 1 percent reduction in the increase of spending. Yet you would think the world would be coming to an end.

There is a difference here. There is a difference in philosophy. Mr. Speaker, it is this: they are talking about tax cuts. They are talking about big tax cuts. Their definition of tax cuts is not raising taxes because this budget does not cut taxes. This budget keeps taxes where they are. We are simply proposing that we do not raise taxes; and, instead, we want to control spending. What is it they are offering? No spending control and more tax increases.

We are going into a very expensive winter. Where I come from in Wisconsin, we are going to have a cold winter. We are going to have high heating bills. We are going to have to pay a lot for our heating bills. We have high health care costs. Why on Earth would we want to stick our constituents, the American people, with more taxes?

Mr. Speaker, we should vote for this bill to control spending and keep taxes low and disallow their world view of higher spending and higher taxes.

Mr. Speaker, I was absent for legislative business on Friday, November 4, 2005 and Monday, November 7, 2005 due to a family medical emergency. As a result, I missed rollcall votes 569 through 572. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on the following rollcall votes:

569, Adoption of Conference Report H.R. 3057; 570, H. Con. Res. 260, Recognizing the 40th anniversary of the Second Vatican Council's Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions; 571, H.R. 1973, the Water for the Poor Act of 2005; 572, H. Res. 444, the Gynecological Resolution for Advancement of Ovarian Cancer Education.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1691, legislation that would designate the Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic in Appleton, Wisconsin, as the John H. Bradley Department of Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic.

John ``Doc'' Bradley was a small town boy from Antigo, Wisconsin, who answered the call to duty to serve during World War II. As a Corpsman in the Navy, Doc Bradley participated in one of the defining events of our nation's history, the raising of the flag at Mount Suribachi on Iwo Jima Island. The importance of the capture of Mount Suribachi extends well beyond its symbolic meaning and the inspiration it provided to our nation's military. The victory at Iwo Jima also served an important strategic role by allowing the U.S. Army's B-29 bombers to make emergency landings on the island, and helped lead to our triumph in the battle for the Pacific.

Despite Doc Bradley's numerous accomplishments as a soldier during World War II, which include receiving the Navy Cross for heroism, this brave American remained humble throughout his life and did not brag about his many accomplishments. In fact, much of Doc Bradley's family did not know that he had received a Navy Cross, one of the Navy's highest honors, until after his death.

I am pleased that this great honor is being bestowed upon Doc Bradley today and would like to close with his account of his participation in the flag-raising, which exemplifies the grace and humility of this great American: ``People refer to us as heroes--I personally don't look at it that way. I just think that I happened to be at a certain place at a certain time and anybody on that island could have been in there-- and we certainly weren't heroes--and I speak for the rest of them as well. That's the way they thought of themselves also.''

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for putting this bill together. I want to talk about one very important provision of this bill, and I want to endorse the passage of this legislation.

This legislation builds on progress we had in the energy bill dealing with boutique fuels, but what I want to do is explain the problem we have with boutique gasoline blends in America.

Today we have 18 different fuel types, which translates into 45 different fuel blends. This map of America looks like a piece of modern art and shows the different fuel blends we have to have running through America today. When we designed our pipeline and refinery system three generations ago, it was designed for one kind of gasoline: conventional gasoline. Today we have to pump 45 different blends of gasoline through that system.

Any time there is a problem with supply, a pipeline break, a hurricane, a refinery fire, what happens? The price of gas skyrockets. There are refineries that cannot even make the needed gasoline for particular areas. The problem is getting worse. This map is because we have 217 counties that have to have some kind of reformulated boutique fuel. Because of the new, 8-hour ozone regulations this year, 474 counties will have to adopt new blends of gasoline so the problem will get even worse if we do nothing. This bill fixes that.

This bill says that, over the next year, the EPA and the DOE will have to design a six-fuel-blend system. So we go from 18 different base blends with 45 different fuels down to six fuels, to make sure we can meet and exceed our Clean Air Act standards, no compromise on those, and have stable, fungible blends of gasoline.

Mr. Speaker, we can have cheap gas and clean gas at the same time in this country. We need to harmonize our gasoline blends so we have standard, stable blends of gasoline. If we do that, we stabilize the supply. If we do that, we stabilize the price. I urge passage of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to recognize the achievements of my hometown radio station, WCLO, which is celebrating its 75th anniversary. WCLO Radio, based in Janesville, Wisconsin, has served southern Wisconsin for three-quarters of a century through the broadcasting of news, weather, sports and community information.

Since 1930, WCLO has continuously been owned by the Bliss family, making it one of the Nation's oldest family-owned radio stations. It takes seriously its responsibility to its listeners. Despite major regulatory changes, the station has continued to operate as a public servant to its listening area, providing vital news and information to its audience. WCLO also takes an active role in supporting the community, through its continuing efforts on behalf of charities and the arts.

WCLO Radio has been consistently recognized for excellence in broadcasting by its peers and organizations including the Wisconsin Broadcasters Association and the Associated Press.

I'd like to extend congratulations to WCLO for 75 eventful years of serving southern Wisconsin.

Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting listening to this debate, and there are some points that are being missed. Everybody says we should not open our markets to Central America. They are already open to Central America. We already gave them free access to the American market.

Everybody says this is going to encourage companies to relocate to Central America. That is what we are doing today. The current system is an incentive to relocate because right now an American company can move to Central America, build their equipment or product there, and bring it back tariff free to the United States.

Right now if we want to sell a product into these countries, we have to build it there. We have to relocate jobs there if we want to sell it there in order to avoid these tariffs.

Mr. Speaker, what this simply does is open up their markets as we have opened up ours to them. It takes a one-way trade agreement and makes it a two-way trade agreement because we are already giving them free and fair access. That is what I call fair trade, having them treat us as we treat them.

Look at what it does in just my own State of Wisconsin. The corn tariffs, our tariff on corn, 35 percent; tariff on their corn, zero. That goes to zero tomorrow if this passes.

Tariff on American soybeans going into the CAFTA countries, 20 percent; tariff on theirs coming here, zero. Our tariffs goes to zero tomorrow.

Manufacturing goods, most of our products in the State of Wisconsin that are exported is our manufacturing sector. This takes those manufacturing tariffs and drops them so we can export more manufacturing goods and keep these jobs in Wisconsin. This is good for our States. This is good for our economy.

I heard Members say it is bad for labor. Most Republicans and Democrats voted for the Moroccan trade agreement. This is even stronger than that Moroccan trade agreement. This is the strongest labor agreement of any trade agreement that we have brought to this floor to date.

Mr. Speaker, lastly, it is no secret the antidemocracy movement is trying to stop this. Let us strike a blow for democracy and help these fledgling democracies and pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the rhetoric we are hearing from the other side on Social Security and CAFTA is unbelievable. It is unbelievable because it is not factual. What we are proposing to do with Social Security is to stop the raid of the Social Security surplus and give that money to the worker to go toward their Social Security retirement benefit. If it does not stop the raid, then how come the CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, tells us that the deficit goes up by an equal amount? How can they tell us, Congress, you are either going to have to raise taxes, cut spending or borrow somewhere else because they will not get the Social Security benefit because it is going to workers?

On CAFTA, it is a one-way trade agreement we have today. This makes it two-way. They already have free access to the American markets. We do not have equal access to their markets. They already have lower standards on worker rights, on environment. This raises those standards. If we do not pass CAFTA, they get a free deal. We get no deal. They have low labor rights. If we do pass CAFTA, we not only improve their labor conditions, we improve the enforcement of their labor rights and we give the American worker and the American economy a fair trade deal like we are now giving them.

Mr. Speaker, the Office of Management and Budget just released their deficit figures today. It is very telling.

A year ago, we projected the Federal budget deficit would be $521 billion. This year we projected the deficit would be $427 billion. Well, the budget deficit just came in at $333 billion. Down $94 billion this year, down $188 billion from last year. This is progress.

Mr. Speaker, why did this happen? Two reasons. When we cut taxes 2 years ago almost to this day, we increased economic growth in jobs. Many people said when we were going to cut tax, by cutting taxes on families and small businesses and job creators, we would blow a hole through the deficit and increase the deficit.

What happened? Tax receipts from those taxes went up. Taxes receipts are up. There has been a 41 percent increase in corporate tax revenues, 17 percent increase in individual income tax revenues. Because we lowered the tax on workers and people, we grew jobs and have more tax revenues coming in.

The next thing we have to do is watch our spending. That is why it is important we kept the level on spending as we have done this year. We need to stay on this course to get rid of this budget deficit once and for all by growing the economy, keeping taxes low and keeping the lid on pending.

Mr. Speaker, I along with my colleague Congressman William Jefferson, have introduced the Mortgage Insurance Fairness Act. Our bill would allow residential mortgage borrowers to deduct as an itemized deduction for mortgage insurance premiums for private mortgage insurance, FHA insured mortgages, VA insured mortgages and GRH insured mortgages. Residential mortgage borrowers with annual incomes of $100,000 or less would be eligible for this tax deduction.

Nationwide, mortgage insurance is a critical factor in allowing minorities and middle income families to become homeowners. Mortgage insurances covers 57 percent of mortgage purchase loans made to African American and Hispanic borrowers and 54 percent of the loans to borrowers with income below the median income. This legislation will benefit the 12 million American families who presently use mortgage insurance.

In Wisconsin alone, this legislation would benefit 124,000 families. Insured mortgages made up 35 percent of home purchase loans in Wisconsin and cover 49 percent of home purchase loans by minorities and low income home buyers.

Mr. Speaker, homeownership is a vital part of creating safe communities and a vital part of our Nation's economy. I urge my colleagues to join us in promoting homeownership and support this important bill.

Madam Speaker, I want to talk about the issue of Social Security. Social Security is an important issue that affects every one of us in this country, yet it has become a partisan issue. It should not have to be a partisan issue. We are hearing comments from the other side that basically say do nothing at all to fix and address Social Security.

What we are proposing today is to try to come up with a consensus plan to at the very least take the surplus Social Security taxes that we are paying and spending on other government programs and apply that surplus to help workers prepare for their Social Security retirement benefit.

At the very least, let us make sure that the surplus taxpayers are paying today and for the next 12 years is dedicated toward preserving their Social Security retirement benefit. That is what we are hoping to accomplish here by trying to have an olive branch of consensus and bipartisanship. That is what we hope to accomplish with this latest plan we have introduced.

But more importantly, Madam Speaker, every year we delay fixing Social Security is another year where we add another $600 billion of debt to the Social Security problem. That is according to the trustees.

Congress needs to be serious about this. We need to stop being partisan, and we need to fix this very important program.

Mr. Speaker, I, along with Congressman Wally Herger, introduced today, the American Veterans Homeownership Act of 2005, and I ask my colleagues to support this legislation.

As you know, under current law, the States of Alaska, California, Oregon, Texas and my home state of Wisconsin, have the authority to issue tax-exempt bonds, which are called Qualified Veterans Mortgage Bonds (QVMBs). The proceeds of these bonds are used to finance mortgage loans to veterans who served on active duty before 1977 and who applied for the financing before the date of 30 years after the last date of which the veteran left active service.

As a result of the limits under current law, veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, Kosovo, Bosnia, Haiti, Somalia and the 1991 Persian Gulf War are not eligible for these mortgage loans that are financed by QVMBs. In addition, the QVMB program has, in effect, ended or is ending in the five affected States due to the current 3D-year time limitation.

My legislation, the American Veterans Homeownership Act of 2005, would allow all veterans in these five States to be eligible for QVMB- financed mortgage loans by repealing the requirement that veterans receiving loans financed by QVMBs must have served before 1977 and would provide new State limits for these bonds. These veterans deserve the homeownership opportunities this program provides. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting these veterans and cosponsor this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, this is a good debate. It is a good, healthy debate that we are having here on the floor of Congress.

The earlier speaker, the gentleman from Ohio, cited some papal encyclicals, but, as a practicing Catholic, I will be the first to defend his right to do that here on the floor, but I also think there are some bigger issues we need to talk about.

First of all, how do we keep jobs in America? We all care about that. This is what we are talking about. I would argue we have got to do basically two things: stop pushing jobs overseas and stop countries from unfairly taking jobs overseas.

How do we stop pushing jobs overseas? Well, for starters, we can address health care costs. We can address the fact that we tax our businesses and our jobs more than any other country in the world, save Japan. We can address tort costs, regulatory costs, have a comprehensive energy policy to make energy more affordable.

How do we stop countries from unfairly taking jobs overseas? We have to remember, Mr. Speaker, that 97 percent of the world's consumers are not in this country. They are outside of this country. One in five manufacturing jobs are tied to exports. Exports, on average, pay more than other jobs. We cannot put our head in the sand. Pulling out of the WTO is the economic equivalent of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

What has happened since we have gone into the WTO? Let us look at the challenges that confront us.

We talk about China, a very appropriate topic to discuss here. Since China joined the WTO, do my colleagues know how many laws we had to change and pass in America to go there? Zero. Do my colleagues know how many laws China had to change, laws and regulations, to enter the WTO? 1,100. To get into the WTO, to join countries of fair trade, China had to change 1,100 laws. Are they following all these rules and agreements? Of course not. But because they are in the WTO, because we have the WTO, we finally have a forum, a mechanism, a system to bring these countries into compliance to play by the rules. If we did not have this system, all these countries could play by whatever rules they set.

We are the economic superpower of the world. We play by the rules. We are the most transparent, most honest, most basic system in the world. We need other countries to play by the same rules, too, so we can all join together in growing economic growth here in America and across the world. Pulling out of the WTO would be the economic equivalent of biting off our nose to spite our face.

Since we have had China in the WTO, I have been critical of the administration's stance in its first 3 years. I have joined with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle criticizing the administration on their China policy. However, over the past year and a half, the administration, through the WTO rules, has brought 12 different actions against China.

We are making success. We are bringing accountability. Pull out now, and the situation gets much worse. Stay in it. Fight for fair trade. We can clean up these rules, and that is the only way to bring other nations into the fair trade arena.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to introduce legislation on behalf of SC Johnson, a family-owned and family-managed company headquartered in Racine, Wisconsin. The company is a global manufacturer and marketer of a broad range of well known consumer household brands including WINDEX, RAID, GLADE, PLEDGE, EDGE shaving gel, ZIPLOC and SCRUBBING BUBBLES. SC Johnson has 12,000 employees worldwide and 3,000 employees located in Racine, WI.

We must help manufacturers like SC Johnson remain competitive in the global marketplace so that good, high-paying manufacturing jobs are retained in Wisconsin and throughout the United States. Over the past few years, our State has lost over 77,000 manufacturing jobs. We must bring down the cost of manufacturing at home so that we can stem the job loss and help companies create new jobs for hard-working Americans.

The 2 bills that I am offering today will help accomplish this important objective by suspending duties for multiple components of unique air freshener products that are imported from abroad and incorporated into finished products assembled by SC Johnson in the United States. One of the devices is a continuous-action device that pumps fragrance throughout a room. The other device is plugged into an electrical outlet and diffuses warmed fragrance throughout an area. No comparable products are produced in this country. Suspending the tariffs will bring down SC Johnson's costs of doing business at home and benefit the SC Johnson employees who live and work at the company's world headquarters in Racine and at other locations throughout the United States.

I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress to pass this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 190 I was traveling with the President in Wisconsin. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''