Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues to exercise the power Congress has under article I of the Constitution and to override the President's veto of the Children's Health Insurance Program. This vote is significant because it underlines the difference between what the President values and what the American people value. To the President and his allies in Congress, $190 billion this year for the occupation in Iraq is a necessity. But $35 billion to provide health care to 10 million uninsured children in America is an extravagance.

If we are successful and we override that veto tomorrow, SCHIP will preserve the coverage of 11,892 children in my home State of New Hampshire and make funds available to cover an additional 8,720 kids. If we are not successful, I personally would like to invite President Bush and his allies in Congress to come home with me to Concord, New Hampshire, and explain to these 20,000 kids why they can't go to a doctor when they break a bone or get medicine when they are sick.

Madam Speaker, due to inclement weather I missed the following votes on Tuesday, October 9, 2007. I would have voted as follows:

(1) ``Yea'' on H. Res. 32--Denouncing the practices of female genital mutilation, domestic violence, ``honor'' killings, acid burning, dowry deaths, and other gender-based persecutions and expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that participation, protection, recognition, and independence of women is crucial to achieving a just, moral, and honorable society.

(2) ``Yea'' on H.R. 400--War Profiteering Prevention Act of 2007.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be here tonight to talk about a number of issues that are of grave importance to this Congress and to the people of this country. I will be joined by some of my colleagues tonight who represent districts all over this country.

We are going to talk about a number of things tonight. We are going to talk about fiscal responsibility, which means money. It means we are going to talk a little bit about how in this Democratic majority Congress we have now taken a new responsible approach to spending the taxpayers' hard-earned tax dollars, because that is one of the main reasons that the taxpayers of this country sent a new Democratic majority to Congress, because they saw what had happened under previous Congresses. They saw that the Congress had engaged in borrow-and-spend policies that had left us with huge deficits, where before we had big surpluses, now we were running out of balance. And everybody knew that they couldn't run their businesses that way. They couldn't run their homes that way. And so they sent us to Congress to make a change about what we were going to do.

We are also going to move to talk about health care. We are going to talk about health care for kids because that is an issue that is very, very current. The President has vetoed a fiscally responsible, that means responsible with the money of the taxpayers, bill that would provide health care for the neediest kid in the country. He has vetoed that legislation. He said he doesn't want to have health care for our kids by vetoing that legislation.

We are going to be coming up for a vote in not too long about that. So we are going to talk about what it means for kids and for health care, and we are also going to sort of compare that to what is going on with the spending on the war in Iraq because the President and his administration have come and said they want to spend $191 billion more this year on the war in Iraq but they don't want to spend $35 billion to insure our kids.

I will just talk briefly now, and I have got a chart up, that shows you where we were when we started this Congress, what had happened with the mess. It is an example of what we were sent to fix, because this chart shows public borrowing by the administrations and the annual average of what we had to borrow to run our government. What you can see is where we came in to Congress. What we saw was, if you take a look down here in the lower corner, we started with President Carter. That little blue line shows that we were borrowing about $50 billion. Then you can see what happened under Presidents Reagan and Bush. Then you can see over here that under President Clinton we were able to handle the taxpayers' money in a responsible way. In fact, President Clinton, who was a Democrat, handled money so responsibly for the taxpayers of this country that when he left office in the year 2000 we were looking at budget surpluses over the next 10 years in the trillions of dollars. But when the Republicans took control, when President Bush came in, in 2000, he turned that upside down and topsy- turvy, and what we were left with coming into this Congress was the fact that President Bush was borrowing about $300 billion during his first 6 years. He had turned surpluses upside down into huge deficits that left us in the hole as far as the eye could see.

That is what we came in with. We came in with that, and we had to restore fiscal responsibility. Now, ``fiscal'' is a big word. It just means being responsible with the hard-earned money that the taxpayers of this country send to Washington so that an effective government honors local control but is able to get the projects done and run the programs that the people of this country expect. They expect us to be stewards of the public trust. By that, I mean they expect us to be honest about how we are spending their money. They expect us to use their money wisely. They expect us, just like they do at home and in their businesses, to balance things out and not spend more than we take in. And they want to make sure that we are spending their money wisely.

So what we did in very short order, and then I will throw it over to my good colleague from Wisconsin, was the first thing we did when we came into Congress was we established, reestablished, what are called pay-as-you-go rules. It basically means if you are going to increase spending over here, in order to keep the deficit from getting worse and making sure we are headed towards balance, we have to decrease something over here. So we put in these pay-as-you-go rules. Every bill that is covered by those rules has been a fiscally responsible thing to do. It means that we are using the taxpayers' money wisely as we head towards a balanced budget. Because the other thing we did was in the Democratic budget proposal, we set this country on a new track to be responsible about the taxpayers' money. We said we are going to establish a balanced budget by the year 2012. We are going to do that with the pay-as-you-go rules and making sure that we are restraining Federal spending, that even as we shift priorities towards health care for kids, health care for our veterans, benefits for our wounded warriors, with the greatest rise in spending in veterans' benefits in the 77 years of the Veterans Administration, even while we are spending money on competitiveness, we are headed towards a balanced budget with pay-as-you-go rules because we understand that it is not our money. It is the taxpayers' money. Our job is to spend it wisely and to spend it in a balanced way. We also got rid of something called ``fast tracking'' in order to make sure that our spending was responsible.

Now, with that as a framework, one of the things we are still facing are huge costs for the war in Iraq. As I said earlier on, the President and the administration has now come and said they want $191 billion more this year for the war in Iraq. We have had a bill that would help insure our kids that would cost about $35 billion. So really, we are faced with a choice in this country. Are we, and are my colleagues across the aisle who are supporting the President, going to decide that it is not worth the investment to invest $35 billion over 5 years in health care for kids, but it is worth the money to invest $191 billion in the war in Iraq? Is that the kind of choice we, as a country, are going to make? Is that something that is sound policy? Does it make sense for our kids? Does it make sense for health care? Does it make sense for the taxpayers? Does it make sense for the country? Those are the kinds of questions that we have to answer.

Now, I would like to turn it over to my good friend from Wisconsin, Dr. Steve Kagen, a man who understands what health care is about, who has been in the trenches helping kids get well, helping families stay healthy. He understands things about children's health care. I am going to turn it over to you, my good friend from Wisconsin, Dr. Steve Kagen.

Well, it is really an important point to underscore, and I appreciate your saying it, which we all agree, that there is nobody on whatever side of the debate you're in about Iraq who doesn't understand that our troops have served with extraordinary bravery and courage. They have performed. It is really up to the policymakers. It is up to the administration, who makes the policy. It is up to Congress, who makes the policy, the Senate. It is up to the policymakers, who send our military to do the job to make the right judgments and right decisions about when they should be sent, under what conditions they ought to be sent, and what their mission is.

Mr. Speaker, one of the real sad failings is that the mission here has changed so many times, nobody knows what it is anymore. Seventy percent of the American people now understand that whatever it is that we have tried to do in Iraq hasn't worked. The Iraqi Government has not stood up. We have spent lives, our brave troops have given their lives, thousands and thousands of wounded, at a huge cost, because so far we have spent about half a trillion dollars in direct costs for the war in Iraq.

Half a trillion dollars. That has got so many zeroes that I really have trouble figuring out and contemplating wrapping my brain around what half a trillion dollars is. That is $500 billion.

That is an awful lot of money to experience what we have experienced in Iraq, because it's clear now that the war hasn't made us safer and more secure. It's clear that, unfortunately, al Qaeda and the Taliban are still strong and resurgent in the Pakistan-Afghanistan area, and still threatening to us. The region is more unstable.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear we need a new course. But we don't often talk about the costs, because it is not just the $500 billion or half a trillion dollars we have spent in direct costs in Iraq, but we are facing $1 trillion-plus in total costs for the care of all those who have served in Iraq, who are going to come home and need care on an ongoing basis as we go forward. And the costs in lost productivity to society are huge.

When you think about the comparison of the costs between what we have spent in Iraq and what we could spend that money on in terms of providing health care for our kids, as this Democratic Congress in a bipartisan way has proposed, because the SCHIP bill that we sent to the President was a bipartisan bill, we passed a bill in the House and then we sent it over to the Senate. They compromised. We worked with the Senate and we compromised on the bill. The Senate had some different ideas. They sort of reduced things in some areas and sent it back to us. We then sent this compromise bill to the President.

But even though it was a compromise bill, and even though it was supported by 45 Republicans in the House and numbers of Senators on the Republican side in the Senate, and I can talk about some of what they said later on, the President decided that $35 billion was too much to spend on our kids. He decided that $35 billion over 5 years for kids' health care wasn't worth the investment; that $35 billion for American kids who needed health care, American kids at the lowest income levels, struggling families trying to make ends meet, was not something that the President of the United States was willing to invest our money in. This, despite the fact that in previous speeches he had promised that he was going to cover millions of new kids for health care. But for some reason, when the Democratic-controlled Congress sent it to the President, he decided that it was too much. He also decided that he could ask us for $191 billion more for a failed policy in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, here is how it breaks down. Here are the facts. Here are the figures. They are shown on this chart that I have.

What this shows is that 37 days in Iraq would pay for 10 million children to have health care every year. It shows 37 days in Iraq, 10 million kids with health care. One day in Iraq is costing us $330 million. That money, $330 million in the SCHIP program, would cover more than 270,000 kids. Just stop for a minute and think about those numbers.

Dr. Kagen, I don't know about you, but where I come from, $330 million is a significant amount of money. That is what we are spending every day in Iraq. It would cover more than a quarter of a million kids for a year of health care. When you get into a week in Iraq, we are spending $2.3 billion, that is billion dollars, $2.3 billion every week, and that amount of money, if we spent it on SCHIP, would cover 1,891,000 kids. That is a huge number of kids, for 1 week of Iraq war spending. And it is hard to say we are spending our money wisely in Iraq.

Let me just tell you a little bit about a hearing that I was on. I have the privilege of sitting on the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and one of the issues we took up in the past couple of weeks was the issue of the cost of corruption in Iraq.

Now, the Middle East has always been a difficult place when it comes to how governments spend money, how they account or don't account to their citizens, what kind of accounting practices they have, and the issue of corruption has traditionally been one that throughout the Middle East has been a significant problem. So you would think, for instance, that maybe in Iraq, now that we are there in such strength, we have 160,000 of our troops fighting there, we have support personnel, we have a huge number of contractors, another bit of a problem that we ran into. But with all these contractors and all these people and all the American money and all the oversight and all the planning, you would think that maybe after 5 years of the Iraq occupation we would be in a position to do something about the corruption in Iraq, to make sure that money was being spent wisely, because if you are going to spend $2.3 billion in one week in Iraq, which otherwise would cover almost 2 million kids for health care for 1 year, you want to make sure that it is going to be spent well. You would think you would want to make sure.

So at this oversight hearing we had on October 4, we had the chief judge from Iraq who was dealing with corruption and accountability under the new al Maliki government that we have supported come to our hearing. By the way, he is no longer in Iraq, because he fears for his life. So not only is there a problem on the money side, but there is a problem when people try to do something about it. He now fears for his life, so he is over in this country, and he came to testify. His name is Radhi Hamza al Radhi, former head of the Iraqi Commission on Public Integrity.

He took the oath, and testified as follows. He told us that the corruption within the Iraqi Government has cost the Iraqi people $18 billion. So instead of its original purpose, infrastructure, new hospitals, electricity, things that the people need, he told us the money is now being used to finance terrorist militias in Iraq.

Also of note with this government of al Maliki that we are supporting, what the judge said was, when we asked him, why are you here and what happened when you tried to do something about the corruption? What he said was, well, I tried to investigate many cases of corruption within the government of Iraq and with Iraqi officials. It was my job. I was set up. I was supposed to coordinate with the Americans who were overseeing the corruption and coordinate with the Iraqis who were overseeing the corruption. My job was to investigate corruption.

But he ran into a bit of a roadblock. You know what he told us the roadblock was? The roadblock, for example, was Prime Minister Maliki himself, who blocked his attempts to uncover the truth and to deal with corruption. Why did he do it? He did it because the people that the judge was investigating were Shia, so the Prime Minister didn't want those people investigated, or because they were related in some way to the Prime Minister, so those people couldn't be investigated.

So with the money we have poured into Iraq, the money we have poured in for reconstruction and other things, the Iraqi Government is missing $18 billion worth in corruption. That is what we are dealing with in Iraq. That is where our money is going. And instead of covering our kids for health care, we want to spend another $191 billion more in Iraq.

Dr. Kagen?

As I hear the stories that you are telling me from the folks back home in your district in Wisconsin, it literally breaks my heart to think, as a Member of Congress, we are having to fight, we are having to fight hard for the people of this country to override a Presidential veto which says we are going to spend money on a failed war instead of spending money on health care for our people. Health care for our people. We would rather spend the money over there on something that isn't working. But questioning whether or not we are being wise about making a basic investment in the health care for kids with a program that has worked well to help lift kids out of poverty and into health, because when kids are healthy, they can learn. When the kids are learning and productive, their families are working better. Those are the kinds of things that the American people expect us to be spending our money on.

They are asking those questions. Why are we spending so much money in the sands of Iraq and with so little to show for it and why aren't we investing for kids at home. And they may not even know where all that money is going because the numbers are so big; $191 billion, what does that mean to anybody? When I carry around a $10 bill in my wallet, I can handle those sums. But $191 billion, what is it going for? What is it paying for? What kind of value are the taxpayers getting for what they are spending?

It is a fair thing for the American people to expect competence from their government. They expect us to manage their money well, to manage it wisely, to be smart and be prudent and to be basically competent. That is one of the things that an effective government does.

When you think about some of the ways that our government has unfortunately mismanaged the effort in Iraq, the imagination cannot even keep up with what kinds of things have gone on.

Here are a couple of things. We know that the Bush administration has tragically mismanaged the war. The money we have spent on contracting has just been like throwing it out the window because we have had contracts upon contracts and subcontracts, nobody knows where the money has gone. Somebody is making a lot of money in Iraq. It was a free-for- all from the beginning with no-bid contracts, contractors piled on top of each other, and millions and billions of dollars.

We heard in one of our hearings in the Oversight Committee how we shipped $12 billion in cash over to Iraq during the early days of the occupation. The money was just given away to the ministries in Iraq and spent without any kind of accountability. And there have been how many prosecutions for war profiteering? Very few.

Luckily, our Congress in the past few days has enacted the War Profiteering Act, and we hope that will mean some real accountability. But there are billions unaccounted for. We have spent more than $50 billion on U.S. contractors for relief and reconstruction activities in Iraq alone; yet we heard in our hearings how these contractors who were being paid millions and billions of dollars weren't getting the jobs done. Things were left unfinished. The money was being wasted, and with all that, the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction had a report recently. He said that the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, that was the government that we set up under Mr. Bremer, who is a good friend of the President, we set up this Coalition Provisional Authority. He said, I am the ruler of everything, I'm running the show. He ran the show. They can't account for $8.8 billion. I will say it again: They can't account for $8.8 billion.

If you look at what that involves, that is about the money to insure over 8 million kids under SCHIP, $8.8 billion. That is about the equivalent that it means. Gone, unaccounted for, can't figure it out. That is not competent management.

Take the issue of Blackwater that we have dealt with in hearings the other day. We found out that this company, Blackwater, which is providing security in Iraq and which now is under question for a terrible incident in which many Iraq civilians seem to have been gunned down, it is now being investigated by the FBI. Well, Blackwater is charging the government $1,222 a day for the services of a private military contractor. Each person they have got, $1,222 a day. That is $445,000 a year for each of these security guards, and that is over six times what we pay an equivalent U.S. soldier.

When we heard that during the hearing, we sat there stunned. We scratched our heads. We brought in the State Department and asked them what they knew about it. They couldn't give us any good answers. They were being

guarded by these guys at these exorbitant costs, but they were not willing to talk to us. They weren't able to talk to us and couldn't give us any answers. We wanted to know why shouldn't we have U.S. soldiers perform these duties at a much lower cost.

Now, one of the things that we expect from our government is competent management. We certainly haven't gotten it in this effort in Iraq, and we want to make sure that our kids are covered. We have incompetent management in Iraq, or are we going to cover our kids. Those are the kinds of choices that we are facing. They are pretty basic choices.

It is extraordinary to stand on the floor of the House of Representatives and have the privilege of representing hardworking families in this country who get it. I believe the people of this country know in their hearts that our kids are important. The kids are not Democrats or Republicans; they are American kids. That is why the SCHIP bill is a bill about American kids. It is not a partisan bill. In fact, it had enormous bipartisan support. That's why 45 Members of the House of Representatives who are Republicans supported the bill. That's why it was supported in the Senate by so many Republican Senators.

Some of the things that were said by Republicans about the SCHIP children's health care bill which our President has now vetoed and which we are trying to override so we can bring health care to the most needy American kids, so we can make the investment that the American people understand is the moral thing to do, the smart thing to do with money, the smart thing to do for our future, they understand our kids are our future. Here is what some Republicans have said about that bill.

Representative Rehberg from Montana said: ``I think it is a sensible, reasonable compromise.'' Sounds right to me. He said that on September 25.

Representative Thomas Petri, a Republican from Wisconsin, said: ``A lot of hard work has been put into this bill, including the successful efforts of Senators Orrin Hatch of Utah and Chuck Grassley of Iowa, both good Republicans and conservatives. So,'' he said, ``I am comfortable that this bill is the right compromise, that it will provide much-needed health insurance for the Nation's low-income children, and do it at a reasonable cost.'' He said that in the Northwestern in Wisconsin, a paper, on September 25 of 2007, this year.

Representative Wayne Gilchrest, a Republican from Maryland, says, ``This is a compromise version of the bill which has the support of a broad coalition of groups. It focuses on the lowest-income kids, and fixes a lot of problems with the current programs.''

Now, these aren't the words of Democrats. These aren't the words of people who some folks might even dismiss as liberals. You know, when you use the word ``liberals,'' just trying to spend people's money, they say.

These are the words of my Republican colleagues who sit here day after day and have come together in a bipartisan coalition, in a bipartisan way, as good Americans to send the President a reasonable compromise that represents the best thinking, the best work that we could produce to cover our kids. Because the children's health care bill that we sent the President is not only good health care for kids, it's good health care, period. And it's done in a responsible way because what we did was we said we'll spend $35 billion over 5 years, we'll fix some of the problems with the current program, we'll not only insure the 6 million kids who are now the beneficiaries of this SCHIP program, but we'll expand it to about 3.8, almost 4 million more kids, but we're going to pay for every penny of that investment. How are we going to pay for every penny of that investment? We're going to frankly ask smokers to pay some more than they're paying now and use that money to pay for our kids.

So there's a trade. We have health care for kids and sound health policy because when we have smokers, we've got secondhand smoke, we've got huge rates of disease. So we're going to be sound fiscally. That means spending the taxpayers' money wisely. We're not going to spend new dollars. We're going to take from over here and pay for our kids over here.

So that's what we proposed, and as I said, all these Republicans, good, good Americans, and our colleagues here decided that it was worth it on a bipartisan basis, and here's what the President proposed. Here was the President's approach to what he wanted to do for America's kids.

Under the President's budget, 840,000 of our kids will lose their SCHIP coverage. Eight hundred forty thousand kids under the President's proposal will lose their health care. That's what he wants to do, and what we proposed, in a bipartisan way, in this Congress, one of the stunning achievements of the 110th Congress was doing what the American people asked us to do, because one of the things I heard when I came to Congress was we want to see

you folks get past the bickering. We want to see you folks get past all that gridlock in Congress. We want to see Republicans and Democrats come together, come together and put the interests of Americans first.

And so on this bill, the kids' health bill, that's exactly what happened. Republicans and Democrats came together, sent it to the President, and said, Mr. President, this stunning example of bipartisan cooperation is ready for your signature, pick up the pen and help America's kids, Mr. President.

And what the President did and I personally in my heart of hearts find it not just disappointing but disgraceful, that what he did was he vetoed that bill. And now we're faced with trying to bring some of our Republican colleagues along to help override that veto so our kids, our poorest kids can have health insurance.

I yield to the gentleman.

Well, I hear you loud and clear, and I think the American people do, also.

You know, there's often a mistrust of politicians, and you and I came to Congress not from lives as professional politicians. You and I came to Congress because we saw trouble in our country. We saw priorities that weren't being handled right. We saw policies that weren't working for hardworking American people. We saw a country we loved where the Constitution was treated as a nuisance, where the American people weren't told the truth, where the real needs of hardworking folks in our districts, in our home States, the needs for health care, for good schools, for good jobs, for rational trade policies, for an end to wars that didn't work weren't being answered by the politicians when we ran for office.

You were a doctor. I practiced law for years. I was never in the State legislature. I don't think you were either. We came here to do the most good for most of the people all of the time.

And on this bill in particular, it is such a shame that it has become any kind of political football. We didn't make it that way. What we did on this bill was we reached across the aisle and we said to our Republican colleagues, come on, this is for America; we can at least agree on this, that we're going to get past the gridlock, we're going to help kids because that's what Americans are about.

We're good, decent people who understand that our kids are our future, and whatever political party we're in, our kids are our future. We love them and we want to help them. They shouldn't be sick. The sight of one sick child who otherwise could have been helped with the SCHIP bill, who goes ill, who lies there sick because his family or her family can't afford to take her to the doctor because this President has decided that a war in Iraq is worth spending $191 billion on but our kids aren't worth $35 billion over 5 years is something that I think you and I have a hard time understanding. It has a direct impact.

And for us as politicians here in Washington, sitting in the House of Representatives, it's a great privilege, great honor, great obligation which we take seriously, but ultimately, the way change happens in this country is at the grassroots. It's people around America, and there are probably a lot of folks who are listening to us tonight because this goes out all over the country, and what I'm begging the people of this country to do, what I'm asking is that it's up to them, Mr. Speaker. It's up to the people in this country to say to the President, to say to their representatives, whether they're Republicans or Democrats, who haven't voted for the SCHIP bill and who have got to vote to override this veto, it's up to the people of this country to step up, step forward, use e-mail, use mail, use the telephones. Don't let this go.

We need the people of this country to step up and speak to their representatives and say this veto must not stand. It's not right for America. It's not who we are. It's not the moral thing. It's not the right thing to do monetarily. It's not the right thing for our kids, to send a message loud and clear to the

President of the United States that says we're not going to stand down with you, we're going to stand up for our kids.

Because if we don't do it, if the people of this country don't do it, if the House of Representatives, if the Congress won't stand up for kids, we know the President won't, who will? We have the opportunity in the next week or so to come to a vote, and I think it's going to come up to the floor of this House on Monday next week. Maybe I'm off on my date. It will be the 18th of October. There's going to be a vote right here on this floor where you and I are standing of whether or not we are going to override the President's veto, and I want my colleagues and especially those who we need on the other side of the aisle who are thinking about whether or not to support the President or support the kids to hear from the people of this country, because I'm betting, as sure as I'm standing here representing the good people of New Hampshire, I'm betting the people of this country want the President and the Congress to stand up for kids, not to stand down with the discredited President.

That's what I'm betting. That's where I am putting my money. I'm putting my money on the kids, and I'm putting my money on the people of the United States of America. What do you think?

You know, in my home State, the bill would preserve care for 11,000-plus children, and we could add 8,000 children with our bill. I think, as we have talked tonight with each other and with the American people about what this means for our children, it is clear, certainly, that you and I are here listening to the American people, trying to do the best we can for hardworking families and our kids.

There is nothing as simple. It's a pretty simple proposition we face. Are we going to stand up for our kids, or stand down with a discredited President, and we both said that we need the American people to speak loud and clear, because we are two voices among many. But the American people can speak on this issue with a solid unified voice, send a message to Congress, send a message to the President, that we will stand up together for our kids. It's the least we can do. It's the best we can do. Together, we can make a difference for the kids of this country.

Thank you for having a great evening and a great chance to talk together on this important issue.

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

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 31 minutes p.m.), under its previous order, the House adjourned until Friday, October 12, 2007, at 11 a.m.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

First, I thank the distinguished chairman, Mr. Oberstar, and the distinguished subcommittee chairwoman, Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton, as well as Mr. Graves for their work on this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this bill which includes the Northern Border Regional Development Commission. Parts of my home State of New Hampshire, Grafton, Sullivan and Carroll Counties, and especially in Coos County, the beautiful region known as the North Country, have taken an economic beating and are struggling to recover. A staggering number of jobs have been lost. We have seen manufacturing plants close, pulp plants disappear, and our young people leave to places that offer more opportunity.

New Hampshire's North Country has suffered repeated economic body blows. For people who live there, it is getting harder and harder to get by. As I travel throughout my State, I speak to hardworking folks who have the drive to improve their neighborhood but who feel their communities have been ignored by the Federal Government for years. The commissions created in this bill would be charged with investing Federal resources for economic development and job creation in the most distressed counties in New Hampshire and the ice belt region. I use the word ``invest'' purposely. New Hampshire is a very frugal State. We believe in small, effective Government. But we also know that a wise, effective Federal Government honors local control and invests wisely to promote opportunity and prosperity.

This commission employs a bottom-up grassroots approach that ensures that actions reflect both local needs and regional economic development goals. It also ensures that States have a deciding voice in what investment is made within their borders. The bill says that if you are willing to work hard and play by the rules, we are here to help you get ahead. That is why this bill enjoys such bipartisan support. It is an important step for many communities in New Hampshire.

Mr. Speaker, I urge its passage.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to funding the war in Iraq, President Bush and the House Republicans are willing to write blank checks for billions of dollars with absolutely no questions asked. After billions misspent and mismanaged, the President is preparing a new war funding request for the upcoming year that is expected to cost the American taxpayer another $190 billion. Contrast that with the disregard both the President and the majority of House Republicans have shown towards bipartisan legislation that would ensure that 10 million low-income children have access to health insurance.

President Bush has just vetoed a bill that would invest $35 billion more in the CHIP program over the next 5 years and allow us to reach 4 million more children who are already eligible for the program. House Republicans will now have to decide if they will once again stand with a President who suffers from misguided priorities or if they will listen to the American people's will.

I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, it's time to stand up for our kids and stand down from a discredited President.

Mr. Speaker, President Bush has called for more money, more patience, and a renewed commitment of U.S. troops in Iraq for the foreseeable future. The American people should not be fooled. This is nothing more than another stay-the-course strategy that puts us on a path for 10 years of war in Iraq.

Under the Bush plan, about 5,700 troops, or about 3.5 percent, of the American forces in Iraq would come home later this year. That's it. The rest of our troops would remain in Iraq until at least next summer. The President anticipates that at least 130,000 American men and women would remain in Iraq indefinitely for many years to come.

The President's plan for Iraq amounts to an open-ended and dangerous commitment of American troops in Iraq, and an open wallet for the American people to pay.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a plan for success in Iraq, nor is it a plan that will make America safer. It is time for my Republican colleagues to stand up to this President and say enough is enough. Democrats will continue to demand change because it is time that we

begin a responsible redeployment out of Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, I join Congressman Michaud in expressing thanks to Chairman Oberstar and other members of the Transportation Committee.

I rise today to urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support the Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2007. This bill includes the Northern Border Regional Development Commission Act, the first bill I introduced as a Member of Congress, a bill with bipartisan support, and for which I extend a special thanks to Congressman Michaud, who has shown extraordinary leadership in the northern border region for economic development.

Mr. Speaker, parts of my home State of New Hampshire, and especially the beautiful region known as the North Country, have taken an economic beating and are struggling to recover. A staggering number of jobs have been lost. We have watched as plants closed and our young people disappeared to places that offer more opportunity. New Hampshire's North Country has suffered repeated economic body blows, and for the people who live there, it's getting harder and harder to get by.

I get up to the North Country quite frequently, and have spoken with hardworking folks with the drive to improve their neighborhoods, but whose communities have been ignored by the Federal Government for years.

If you were to pick up the paper today, Mr. Speaker, you would see pictures of the smokestacks of once thriving pulp mills coming down, having been subject to explosives.

Because of the challenges New Hampshire's North Country face, and the sincere desire of the people there to turn things around and to create new jobs and new investments, there's a compelling case for leveraging Federal investment in the region. In fact, the northern border region, or the ice belt, which includes the northernmost counties of New York, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine, has higher unemployment, a higher percentage of people living in poverty, and lower household income than the rest of the Nation.

The commission created in this bill would be charged with investing Federal resources for economic development and job creation in the most distressed counties in that northern border region.

By design and purpose, this bill follows the successful regional development models created in the mid 1960s to improve the economic standing of targeted regions in the South. Based on this successful model, the commission would create a unique Federal-State partnership charged with promoting development through regional planning, technical assistance and funding of projects aimed at encouraging economic prosperity.

The bill works like this: Community development districts and other nonprofits are encouraged to bring project ideas to the commission from the local level. This bottom-up, grassroots approach insures that actions reflect both local needs and regional economic development goals. It also insures that States have a deciding voice in what investment is made within their borders.

With a proposed budget of $40 million per year, the Northern Border Regional Development Commission can help meet a range of local needs. Whether the need is agricultural development, land and forestry conservation to maintain productive traditional uses, investment in transportation infrastructure, alternative and renewable energy or health care facilities, this commission will play a key role in investing in the region's economy.

The bill says, if you're willing to work hard and play by the rules, we're here to help you get ahead. The communities in the northern border region deserve effective government working for them. The Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act is an important first step toward providing good-paying jobs, economic opportunity and revitalized communities.

Mr. Chairman, the challenge of energy independence is perhaps the greatest challenge we face for the future of this country and our planet. It means national security, and it means jobs in the 21st century, and it means meeting the challenge of global climate change.

Twenty-three States have already adopted a renewable portfolio standard. In my State of New Hampshire, we have a standard of 25 percent by the year 2025. We should not be hampered by fear that we cannot accomplish great things in the country. Our entrepreneurs and our free market system are ready to meet the challenge. They are waiting for a national standard, for a renewable portfolio standard to provide them the certainty to move forward. It is certainty to the free market that this standard will meet. It is time for a national standard.

I support this amendment. I urge my colleagues and all those who understand the power of the entrepreneur in America and the free markets to support this amendment. It is time for full speed ahead.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I rise today in support of an amendment offered by Mr. Welch of Vermont, my distinguished colleague, and me. This amendment would order a study using already appropriated funds to determine how best to administer a renewable energy rebate program for homes and small businesses.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 directed the Energy Secretary to establish a rebate program to encourage consumers to use renewable energy to power their homes and small businesses. It included a broad definition of renewable energy, allowing Americans from every corner of the country to benefit from such a rebate.

The program has great potential for helping those without the initial capital to make their homes or small businesses green. However, after the program's inclusion in the 2005 Act, Congress did not follow through on its goal of encouraging renewable energy for families and small business owners. While it was authorized for a total of $1 billion from fiscal years 2006 through 2010, not one penny has been appropriated under this program to provide rebates under this program.

Now, more than ever, this program is essential to kick-start a clean green energy revolution for millions of American family and our small business owners.

Congress needs to know how we can make this program work. Our amendment would require a study using existing Department of Energy funds to create a plan for administering the rebate system and estimating how much money the program would need to effectively encourage families and small business owners to install renewable energy systems. With this information in hand, Congress will be better equipped to determine the best way to encourage renewable energy use.

Families and small businesses are among those who face the toughest challenges in coping with rising energy costs. Congress has had the good judgment to authorize a program to fix this program, and it's time we make it work.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher).

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to my remaining time?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my distinguished colleague, Mr. Wolf of Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, it is interesting that this noncontroversial amendment for a study is opposed. Since 2005, although the program has been authorized, no money has been appropriated. It is an effective, efficient use of resources to embark on a study with results to be delivered to us in 120 days, so Congress knows how best to implement the provisions of the program already authorized and how much it will cost. We will then be in a position to make educated determinations about how much money to appropriate for this very important program.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the dedicated miltary service of retired Colonel Howard Clark, of Enfield, New Hampshire. Colonel Clark served his country honorably in the U.S. Army for thirty years, including two courageous tours of duty in Vietnam. He was awarded the Purple Heart for his bravery overseas, and continued his distinguished career in the military, including assignments at the Pentagon and as a Brigade Commander at Fort Benning, Georgia. His career was recognized with the award of the Legion of Merit for sustained superior performance.

Colonel and Mrs. Howard Clark are also celebrating their 50th Wedding Anniversary this summer. Together, Colonel and Mrs. Clark have served as a model of commitment, sacrifice, and selfless service to our country. It is a privilege to represent these two distinguished individuals in the United States Congress.

I thank you both for being here tonight to talk about what is really a critical issue, the increase in the minimum wage which took effect on July 24, 2007, so we are actually celebrating it tonight. It is not just an

important economic issue that will affect nearly 13 million people across this country, 5.3 million people who will directly benefit immediately and 7.2 million people who will indirectly benefit as a result of a new wage floor, but it is an example of what we are taking on really as a moral imperative in this new Congress. Because when you think about waiting 10 years for a rise in the minimum wage, Madam Speaker and my friends, you cannot imagine how, in a period of growing income inequality, those who need a reasonable minimum wage the most have been left behind so much.

I have next to me a chart which has a mathematical equation about what has happened in terms of our national debt over the past few years. And what you can see is that, from 2001 to 2006, we have had a huge increase in the national debt. In other words, we as a Nation have gone deeper and deeper into debt as we have borrowed to make ends meet.

So I want to set the context for the importance of this minimum wage, because while we as a Nation have borrowed to make ends meet for things like our war and tax breaks for those at the very top, we have had growing income inequality.

The three of us are on the Financial Services Committee, and recently we held some hearings with the chairman of the Federal Reserve, and we discussed a startling new report that was put out by a group called Financial Services Forum. The Financial Services Forum is a Wall Street group that was dealing with the effects of globalization and income inequality, and they pointed out some startling statistics.

One of the things they pointed out is that, over the past 5 or 6 years, corporate profits in this country have doubled. Corporate profits have doubled, and productivity is way up. And what that means is people are working much, much harder to make corporate productivity and corporate profits go up, but where have those benefits gone?

What we have learned in this report which was prepared by Wall Street CEOs is that the benefits have largely gone to the top 3 percent in this country, and that 97 percent of people in this country, including highly educated people, from folks who are making an awful lot of dough, you would think, people with college educations, master's degrees, even Ph.D.s, right down to the lowest rungs, for 97 percent, over the past 5 years, real wages, real income have slipped. So 3 percent have made out, and for 97 percent real wages have gone down.

Now, what does that mean for those at the very lowest rungs of the economic ladder? It means that those who have been getting along with $5.15 as a minimum wage, their real earning power has slipped even faster. As prices have gone up for gas, just to put gas in your car to get to your minimum-wage job, you have to work a whole day.

So what we have done, what we have done here in the Democratic Congress finally, after 10 long years, is to honor those who work hard, honor those who play by the rules, honor those who need just a little bit of economic fairness, and help bring them up to the benefit of everybody in society, because as we raise the minimum wage, folks can now afford to be part of our society. They can afford to go out and maybe go out to a movie. They can afford to go out and buy that pair of eyeglasses or get that haircut or do something for their kids that they weren't able to do before. And that helps us all.

So I am very proud, as a new Member of Congress, to have made good on the pledge that we talked about during our campaigns, to come to Congress and make sure that as one of the first and most important things we did, we would raise the minimum wage. So it is a great day.

Absolutely.

Mr. Ellison, it's a great question because what we've got today in America really is a large body of people, 37 million people, mainly, who are working poor. These are folks who, a lot of them are single parents; many of them happen to be single moms. And a lot of the folks, the working poor in this country who are struggling to make ends meet, are not just working one job. They're working two jobs; they're working three jobs to make ends meet. They generally are without health insurance, many of them. They don't have people to help take care of their kids. They struggle every day.

And I just want to expand on some of the points that Mr. Klein made, because as we moved in Congress to appropriate money for the Labor and Health and Human Services portion of the budget, it's important for the American people to understand that we did so in an absolutely fiscally responsible way, and to understand that we are making investments in America's future.

The President, in his budget, proposed cutting Health and Human Services and education programs by $7.6 billion below 2007, after adjusting for inflation. We knew that we had to come and make fiscally responsible investments in our future. So we rejected the President's damaging cuts, and we proposed a very modest increase, about 3 percent over 2007, after adjusting for inflation, so that our final bill was still $2.9 billion below the 2005 level for the appropriations for Health and Human Services and Education. So we actually came in below where we were a couple of years ago, and we did it in a way that is responsible because we adopted PAYGO provisions. We have to balance any increase with a responsible cut in another area. So we're being fiscally responsible in the overall picture.

And some of the things we did for the working poor are really important. One of the important things we did was we started to address the problem of 47.7 million uninsured people in this country. And we expanded access to health care for the uninsured. And we did that by funding several initiatives to provide health care for more than 2 million uninsured Americans. For instance, our bill provides $200 million, or 10 percent, more than 2007, and the President's request for community health centers enabling these centers to serve an additional 1 million uninsured Americans.

We also included $50 million for an initiative to assist States in providing high-risk insurance pools to support affordable insurance for almost 200,000 people who are medically high risk. So we are beginning to move in a big way on health care, which is a vital economic and national interest, especially for the working poor in this country.

I'll throw it back to you.

Well, you know, I'm glad to be here even though it's late at night. We're working hard for folks, and one of the things I think that's important for the American people to understand is that we have taken the task of reversing drastic cuts to important programs that have gone on under this President and the Republican Congress for many years. And we're doing it in a way that is fiscally responsible. We've introduced pay-as-you-go rules so that when we expand in one area, we're going to make sure that we're matching it with appropriate cuts in other areas. It's a vital, vitally important new thing that we're doing here in this Congress to make sure that we are stewards of the public trust, and that we are taking care of the people's money, we're not just pending it willy-nilly.

Now, unfortunately, we're dealing with a President who threatens vetoes, who has proposed drastic cuts in programs that are important investments for all Americans whether it's Community Development Block Grants or the HOPE VI program or section 8 or any program that really helps bring those at the lower levels up into the middle class and helps those in the middle class. This President has proposed to veto and he's proposed drastic cuts. We understand that we're going to make the right kind of investments to move this country forward. So I'm very proud of what we're doing.

Mr. Speaker, the Senate was in session all night long because Senate Republicans refuse to allow a fair up or down vote on an amendment that would redeploy our troops by April of next year.

Today, Senate Democrats want a vote on an amendment offered by Senators Levin and Reed, but Republicans are using the filibuster to prevent a fair majority vote. Do Senate Republicans really want to obstruct the process on the most critical issue of our time?

The American people are demanding change in Iraq, and while a majority of Senate Republicans refuse to listen, nearly a dozen Republicans have said the administration must change its strategy in Iraq. These Republicans need to realize that their words are important, but they will only have meaning if they choose to act and support the Levin-Reed amendment.

We all know that President Bush has no intention of making any changes in his war policy, and so it is up to Congress to force that change, which is why last night's all-night debate in the Senate was so important. Let's hope wayward Senate Republicans are finally listening.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1980.

Rural poverty is a particularly harsh brand of indigence. It tends to be more extreme than urban poverty, and because it develops in areas far from television cameras and daily newspapers, to most people in this country, rural poverty is faceless. But its presence and its consequences are very real, and they present formidable challenges to both our country and our conscience.

In my own home State of New Hampshire, we have largely a rural State. Our cities by some measures are hardly cities. They are large towns. And while we are known for the beauty of our mountains and our lakes and our tourist economy as well as our high tech economy, there are pockets of intransigent rural poverty throughout our State. In the far north the rate of poverty is much higher than it is in most other places in the State, and generally the poverty rate in rural areas of the country is 14.6 percent, which tops that of most urban areas.

People who are living in rural poverty face numerous challenges. Inaccessibility of housing with high rents. In New Hampshire the average price for an apartment for a family of four is now $1,000, and this is at a time when folks who are living in rural areas are facing a softer economy and gas prices which are rising, and the challenge of finding a decent place to live for people who live in rural areas is a powerful challenge. People who live in rural areas are farther from basic services. They are less likely to take advantage of them.

There is a desperate need in parts of our country, including my own State. And as the people's House, we have a moral imperative to help children and parents trapped in destitution.

H.R. 1980 and H.R. 1982, which will come to the floor later, are compassionate, responsible bills which encourage the development of low- and moderate-income housing in our most stricken areas. There is no doubt, because I have seen it with my own eyes on numerous occasions at home, that a clean, safe place to live is often the first step on the road to self-sufficiency. We are not talking about handouts. Encouraging economic development in poor areas helps creates jobs and a solid tax base, which build toward self-sustaining prosperity.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 1980 and its companion 1982 are wise, compassionate investments in our country's future. I urge my colleagues to support their passage.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this important bill.

I thank the gentleman for yielding on this important bill.

Madam Speaker, I had the privilege to speak briefly on H.R. 1980. In many ways, H.R. 1982 is a companion measure.

This important act authorizes the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, through the Office of Rural Housing and Economic Development, to implement important assistance programs to support innovative housing and economic development activities in rural areas. Both in my State of New Hampshire and in States around the country, this important act will provide much needed assistance.

I rise in strong support of this act. I urge my colleagues to unanimously approve of this measure.

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 408) recognizing and honoring the Cathedral Square Corporation on its 30th anniversary.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material thereon.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I may consume.

I rise today in support of House Resolution 408. This resolution recognizes and honors the Cathedral Square Corporation on its 30th anniversary in September of this year.

The Cathedral Square Corporation is based in Burlington, Vermont, in the district of my esteemed colleague, Peter Welch.

In 1977, the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, the Cathedral of the Episcopal Diocese of Vermont, recognized the need to provide safe and affordable housing for its low-income seniors. It organized the Cathedral Square Corporation and began construction of a single project. Since then, it has grown into one of the largest and most innovative nonprofit housing developers in Vermont.

The Cathedral Square Corporation has developed much needed housing for persons with mental health challenges, younger adults with severe mobility impairments, and completed one of the first assisted living conversion projects in the country for very low-income seniors who otherwise would be in nursing homes. In addition, the Cathedral Square Corporation has worked with the community to save the historic Ruggles House, a property on the National Register of Historic Places, converting it to shared housing.

This extremely important organization has worked to develop an intergenerational community, serving the elderly, teenage parents, and parents returning to college.

In total, Madam Speaker, the Cathedral Square Corporation currently manages housing for 837 seniors, 79 young adults with special needs, and 24 low-income children. And every property managed by the corporation provides as many services as possible to enable independent living by the residents.

Madam Speaker, not only has Cathedral Square Corporation made possible 40 affordable housing communities throughout Vermont, but the board of directors and staff of this corporation are always looking to the future, anticipating the housing and service needs of those Vermonters who otherwise would have few housing options.

The Cathedral Square Corporation doesn't just build housing, they provide homes and help create community. They are an outstanding example to all housing groups, and I applaud their innovation and their diligent work and service to the community.

I congratulate the Cathedral Square Corporation. And this resolution congratulates them on 30 years of distinguished service.

Madam Speaker, at this time I reserve the balance of my time.

I thank the gentleman for his concurrence in this resolution.

Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.