Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, in the 40 years since its passage, the Voting Rights Act has guaranteed millions of minority voters the right to vote. As the Supreme Court noted in 1964, ``Other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.''

Mr. Chairman, the Voting Rights Act has been effective in eliminating schemes and barriers to the ballot box. But several key provisions of the act are scheduled to expire in 2007. This bill will reauthorize those important provisions. One is section 5, preclearance. It is crucial because it prevents election changes in covered jurisdictions from going into effect before being precleared by the Justice Department as being free from discrimination.

If preclearance expires, an illegal scheme could help somebody win elections. That person would be able to serve until the victims of discrimination come up with the money to file a lawsuit. And then, when the scheme is thrown out, the perpetrator of that crime will get to run with all the advantages of incumbency when they run for reelection. Because of preclearance, illegal plans never go into effect.

All of the States are not covered by section 5, but States which are covered got covered the old-fashioned way, they earned it. They were found to have had a history of implementing barriers and schemes that were effective in denying minorities the right to vote.

Present law has a bailout provision which our hearing record demonstrates works for those who are no longer discriminating.

Another important provision to be reauthorized is section 203 regarding language. It works. When language assistance is available, more people vote. It applies only in jurisdictions when there are enough voters to actually affect an election, so it is important where it applies. The cost of implementation is negligible.

Mr. Chairman, the Voting Rights Act works to ensure the right to vote. We should pass H.R. 9 without amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, Section 203 works: when language assistance is available, voter participation goes up. When language assistance is not available, voter participation goes down.

We are talking about citizens. In fact three-fourths of those affected by Section 203 are natural born Americans.

Section 203 only applies where there is a large number of citizens in the jurisdiction with the same language--enough voters to affect the outcome of an election--and enough for those who don't like how the affected community votes to have an incentive to try to depress the vote.

Section 203 is not a burden to communities. The evidence presented in our hearings was that the cost is negligible. For example, the bilingual poll worker will be paid the same amount as any other poll worker who would have been hired anyway.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, this amendment will not result in voters being encouraged to improve their English. Our hearing record revealed voters in affected jurisdictions waiting years to get into adult education classes. A repeal of Section 203 may make it less likely that those education programs will be properly funded in the future, and a repeal will definitely result in lower voter participation.

Mr. Chairman, we should encourage voter participation by defeating the King amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment presents a new process, which was not considered in our exhaustive hearings. In fact, testimony at our hearings showed that the present bailout process is reasonable and inexpensive--all 11 jurisdictions that tried to bailout were able to do so.

Although there is not a problem now--this amendment is a problem.

There are nearly 900 jurisdictions covered nationwide by section 5. This amendment forces the Department of Justice to conduct an investigation in each jurisdiction every year.

This amendment also reverses the longstanding requirement that jurisdictions bear the burden of establishing that they are free from discrimination, and instead places the burden on the Attorney General to determine whether each jurisdiction qualifies for bailout. Voting Section attorneys at the Department of Justice would have to spend time developing the evidence necessary to make these determinations, rather than focusing their efforts on enforcing the act. There is no funding for this additional responsibility.

There is no problem, so let's not make one. We should defeat the Westmoreland amendment.

Mr. Speaker, there is no civil rights legislation more important or effective than the Voting Rights Act. The right to vote is the very foundation of our democracy, and as the Supreme Court noted in 1964, other rights, even the most basic, are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.

The Voting Rights Act has made that right a reality. In Virginia, my home State, because of all sorts of schemes and barriers, there were no African American State legislators or Federal legislators, not a single African American State or Federal judge in 1964.

After four decades of the Voting Rights Act which prohibited those schemes and removed those barriers, we now have 18 legislators and over 40 judges serving in Virginia.

We do not need to return to the days before 1965. We do need to extend the expiring provisions of the Voting Rights Act. We should support H.R. 9 without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, one of the problems with the discussion so far is we keep talking about prohibiting Internet gambling. There is nothing in the bill that prohibits Internet gambling. The prohibition is against running a gambling operation on the Internet in the United States. If you are running one offshore, there is no prohibition. So what we are doing is setting up a monopoly for offshore operations beyond the reach.

We are also setting up a credit card situation which cannot be enforced. How is a credit card company going to deny a bill coming in when they don't know what it is for? The credit card company has got to know it is illegal, they have got to know it was for illegal gambling rather than for something else. A lot of companies that have a lot of different entities, they may be charging for a hotel room, not for Internet gambling. And it cannot possibly be enforced. So you have a regulatory scheme that can't work and no prohibition against gambling.

If we wanted to get serious about Internet gambling, you should have put in there it is illegal to gamble. That is not in the bill. This bill is a message bill. It is unenforceable; you can't regulate it. It would make more sense since the cat is out of the bag, many countries are running Internet gambling operations already. If we are going to do anything, we ought to regulate the operations, supervise it, and tax it.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the bill because it does not prohibit Internet gambling; it only tries to prohibit running an Internet gambling operation. But because of the nature of the Internet, it is probably unlikely to do that, and that is because even if we are successful in closing down business sites in the United States or in countries we can get to cooperate, it will be ineffective because it will have no effect on those operations run outside of the reach of the Department of Justice.

Furthermore, it does not prohibit illegal gambling, just running the operations so that gamblers will be as free as they are now to gamble over the Internet.

Further, Mr. Speaker, it provides a credit card prohibition. We heard from witnesses during our hearings that this will create an enforcement nightmare for financial institutions because it requires them to stop and look for illegal Internet gambling transactions.

It is hard to identify those transactions, because they are not going to be identified as an illegal Internet transaction. It will just be you may have a company with one code for all payments, even though the company may have many activities, including Internet gambling.

Just as Caesar's Palace has a hotel and a gaming operation, a foreign company may have a hotel and a casino and an Internet gaming operation which is legal in that country, all paid to a single account. What about e-cash or electronic payment systems, or an escrow agent located in another country? All the bank knows is that the payment came from PayPal or went to some escrow agent.

With some Internet gambling operations being legal, how would the final institution distinguish between what is legal and what is illegal? Furthermore, we should not overestimate the cooperation we might get from other countries. The Internet gambling Web sites were virtually unheard of a few years ago and now represent billion-dollar businesses and are growing at phenomenal rates.

Over 85 foreign countries allow some form of gambling online, and that number is likely to grow as well. So what governments are likely to cooperate with us in prosecuting businesses that they authorize to operate?

Even if we are successful in getting cooperation from some countries, it would simply increase the profit opportunities for sites located in uncooperative countries, especially those with whom the United States does not have normal diplomatic relations, and those sites would be unregulated with no consumer protections.

Again, we have heard these stories about the problems of Internet gambling. But this bill does not prohibit Internet gambling. It prohibits running the operation. If we wanted to be effective in prosecuting illegal gambling on the Internet, we would prosecute the individual gamblers. A few sting operations would get the word out that if

you gamble on the Internet, you will be caught, because the money trail will lead back to each individual Internet gambler.

So as long as individuals can gamble over the Internet with impunity, the market will be provided for them from some place.

Mr. Speaker, this bill does not prohibit Internet gambling, just tries to prohibit running the operation in a jurisdiction within the reach of the Department of Justice, then it sets up an impossible regulatory scheme, requiring banks to figure out which of billions of transactions might be related to illegal Internet gambling.

If we want to prohibit Internet gambling, let's debate that. Meanwhile, we should defeat this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to a great citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia and a true public servant. On June 30, 2006, Councilman Turner M. Spencer will step down from the Hampton, Virginia City Council after 20 years of dedicated service. I would like to take a few moments to highlight just some of Councilman Spencer's achievements.

Dr. Spencer holds bachelor's and master's degrees in Biology from Virginia State University, a master's degree in education from Hampton University, and a Doctorate in Higher Education Administration from the College of William and Mary.

In 1958, Dr. Spencer served his country on active duty for 2 years in the United States Army, rising to the rank of captain, and he continued his military career with the United States Army Reserves, retiring as a major. Our grateful Nation is indebted to his service.

Dr. Spencer's career in public service began in the classroom. He joined the faculty of Thomas Nelson Community College in 1968, eventually serving as Chairman of the Thomas Nelson Biology Department until his retirement in 2000. Dr. Spencer played an integral part in the education and training of thousands of students in Hampton and surrounding cities.

In addition to his distinguished personal career, Councilman Spencer has had a long and prosperous political career. In 1986, he was first appointed to the Hampton City Council. He has served continuously on the council for the last 20 years, including a term as Vice-Mayor. He has also served his city as Chairman of the Hampton Redevelopment and Housing Authority, and as Chairman of the Hampton Roads Transportation District Commission.

His expertise in transportation, an area of great importance in our State, was recognized when he was elected President of the Virginia Transit Association in 1995. In that same year, leaders from other Virginia localities selected Councilman Spencer to be a member of the Executive Committee of the Virginia Municipal League and President of the League's Transportation Policy Committee.

Councilman Spencer's service to his State has not caused him to neglect his community. He is a member of the Board of Directors for the Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Hampton Roads, and he has served on the Board of Trustees of both Messiah Baptist Church and First Baptist Church, Hampton.

As he prepares to step down from the City Council, I have no doubt that Councilman Spencer will remain active in the community.

Whether it's through his membership in Kiwanis International or the Alpha Alpha Chapter of Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, Inc., I expect to see Councilman Spencer continuing to play a role in local and State civic affairs. I once again congratulate Councilman Spencer on his 20 years of service to the citizens of Hampton, the Commonwealth of Virginia and the United States of America.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the fact that the gentleman yielded to me.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment prevents the Department of Justice from enforcing section 203 of the Voting Rights Act. We know from our hearings that section 203 works. If you enforce section 203, more people vote. It only applies where there is a large number of voters with that particular language, a critical mass, enough to affect an election.

If we pass this, it won't encourage people to learn English. There are waiting lists to learn English already. If people could vote, maybe they could have more resources applied to English language.

We need a fair opportunity for people to vote. Section 203 brings that opportunity to people. We should reject this amendment and enforce the Voting Rights Act. This is a very important aspect, the Voting Rights Act, and we should enforce the Voting Rights Act, not tell the Department of Justice to fail to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak to two different issues. One is the potential amendment to the Voting Rights Act, where a suggestion may be made to withhold funding for the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The Voting Rights Act is one of the most important civil rights pieces of legislation in the history of the United States, and we should not do anything to avoid the full and fair enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.

That bill should be coming up in a few days. We do not know exactly when. There has been an agreement with leadership that the bill be adopted as it came out of committee. It came out of committee 31-1, so we would hope that the leadership would bring it to the floor.

Mr. Chairman, there is another issue that is extremely important, and that is the Legal Services Corporation. If we are going to have people enjoy the rights that they have throughout America, we have to make sure that they have access to courts. The legal Services Corporation, primarily legal aid programs across the country, are extremely important; and we need to make sure that they are fully funded. The bill includes a provision where the number is lower than it should be, and we need to make sure that the amendments to increase Legal Services are adopted.

So, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's giving me the opportunity to bring these two issues to the floor.

Mr. Chairman, I will be introducing, at the appropriate time, a letter from the national Legal Aid & Defender Association that says, in part, that the LSC-funded program simply cannot keep up with the demand for services. Documenting the Justice gap, a year-long study released by the LSC in October of 2005 revealed that at least 50 percent of eligible clients were turned away from LSC- funded programs due to a lack of resources.

In other words, for every client served, at least one eligible client was turned away. This statistic reflects the vast unmet need and is, nonetheless, an underestimate and does not take into account the countless people, eligible people, who did not seek assistance because they were not aware that the LSC programs could help them.

This letter says that we are extremely concerned that cuts to LSC- funded programs will have a harmful effect on our judicial system, our economy and businesses, and our society in general.

Mr. Chairman, it is significant that this letter is signed by approximately 60 general counsels of our Nation's leading corporations who are asking for this kind of amendment. Actually, they are asking for more resources, but at least this modest amendment ought to be adopted in response to this letter.

National Legal Aid & Defender

Association,

Washington, DC, June 26, 2006.

Hon. Robert C. Scott,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Scott: As the general counsel of some

of our nation's leading corporations, we are asking for your

help. The Legal Services Corporation (LSC), the primary legal

lifeline to millions of Americans in times of need, is in

jeopardy of having its already inadequate funding further

eroded. Today, LSC's funding is less than one-half of the

inflation-adjusted dollars that Congress appropriated in FY

1980, and ten million dollars less than the FY 2003

appropriation. In his FY 2007 budget request, President Bush

has proposed an additional 4.6 percent decrease from the

current $326.6 million appropriation to $310.9 million. We

are asking you to reverse this diminution of critical funds

by supporting the Corporation's FY 2007 budget request of

$411.8 million.

Due to recent cuts to the LSC appropriation and rising

inflation rates, LSC-funded programs have struggled to help

the growing number of our country's impoverished. Poverty

statistics show that between 2002 and 2004, the number of

people eligible for LSC services increased from 47 million to

49.7 million, which is about one in every six Americans.

Sadly, of these nearly 50 million people, more than one third

of them are children. To put clients' need in perspective: a

family of four must earn a meager $25,000 or less to qualify.

LSC-funded programs simply cannot keep up with the demand

for services. Documenting the Justice Gap, a year-long study

released by LSC in October 2005, revealed that at least 50

percent of eligible clients were turned away from LSC-funded

programs due to a lack of resources. In other words, for

every client served, at least one eligible client is turned

away. While this statistic reflects the vast unmet need, it

is, nonetheless, an underestimate and does not take into

account the countless eligible people who did not seek

assistance because they were not aware that LSC-funded

programs could help them.

We are extremely concerned that cuts to LSC funding will

have a harmful affect on our judicial system, our economy and

businesses, and our society in general. While we

are mindful of the severe fiscal constraints under which the

Congress finds itself, we ask you to act now to ensure that

essential civil legal services continue to make differences

in the lives of those in need. Please support a FY 2007 LSC

appropriation of $411.8 million and join us in upholding the

American promise of ``justice for all.''

Sincerely,

Kenneth C. Frazier, Merck & Co., Inc., Chair, NLADA

Corporate Advisory, Committee; Peter Arakas, LEGO

Systems, Inc.; Richard N. Baer, Qwest Communications

Corporation; Theodore N. Bobby, H.J. Heinz Company;

Paula Boggs, Starbucks Corporation; Charles Burson,

Esq., Monsanto Company; Carl J. Busch, Northrop Grumman

Corporation; Jim Carter, Nike Inc.; Robert J. Cindrich,

UPMC, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center; Mike

Cockrell, Sanderson Farms, Inc.; Bert Cornelison,

Halliburton Company; Julie A. Davis, Retail Ventures

Inc.; Morris Davis, Temple-Inland, Inc.; Dodds M.

Dehmer, W.G. Yates & Sons Construction Company;

Catherine A. Lamboley, Shell Oil Company, Immediate

Past Chair, NLADA, Corporate Advisory Committee; Nancy

C. Loftin, Pinnacle West Capital Corp. and APS; Louis

M. Lupin, QUALCOMM Incorporated; Charles W. Matthews,

Jr., ExxonMobil Corporation; Ron McCray, Kimberly-Clark

Corporation; Kevin M. McDonald, Anadarko Petroleum

Corporation; John H. McGuckin Jr., Union Bank of

California; Lee R. Mitau, U.S. Bancorp; O. Kendall

Moore, U-Save Auto Rental of America, Inc.; Richard

Olin, Costco Wholesale Corporation; Patrick T. Ortiz,

PNM Resources, Inc.; Joy Lambert Phillips, Hancock

Bank; Thomas E. Richardson, Town Pump, Inc.; Scott E.

Rozzell, CenterPoint Energy, Inc.;

Deborah Dorman-Rodriguez, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of

New Mexico; Paul Ehrlich, adidas International, Inc.;

Glenn M. Engelmann, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP;

Stephen F. Gates, ConocoPhillips; Craig B. Glidden,

Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP; Storrow Gordon,

Electronic Data Systems Corporation; Thomas A.

Gottschalk, General Motors Corporation; Andrew D.

Hendry, Colgate-Palmolive Company; Jim Hornstein,

Moldex Metric, Inc.; Michael Jines, Reliant Energy,

Inc.; James J. Johnson, The Procter & Gamble Company;

Murray L. Johnston Jr., Zachry Construction

Corporation; Guy Kerr, Belo Corp.; Ky Lewis, Sharp

HealthCare System; Mark I. Litow, Esq., Enterprise

Rent-A-Car Company; Dan D. Sandman, United States Steel

Corporation; David A. Savner, General Dynamics

Corporation; John Schulman, Warner Bros.; William F.

Schwind, Jr., Marathon Oil Corporation; Karen E. Shaff,

The Principal Financial Group; Lauri M. Shanahan, Gap

Inc.; Laura Stein, The Clorox Company; Ronald Taylor,

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas; Vivian Tseng,

Welch Foods Inc., A Cooperative; John E. Tucker, First

Tower Corp.; Rita Tuzon, Fox Cable Networks; Jack

VanWoerkom, Staples, Inc.; Jennifer L. Vogel,

Continental Airlines, Inc.; Michael T. Williams, Sony

Electronics Inc.; Wayne Withers, Esq., Emerson Electric

Company; Christopher J. Littlefield, AmerUs Group.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, this bill has nothing to do with fiscal responsibility. If we were interested in fiscal responsibility, we would not have passed the tax bill just a few minutes ago that adds, over the course of just a few years, trillions of dollars in new deficits without any way to pay for it.

Mr. Speaker, 5 years ago we had a $5.5 trillion 10-year surplus. Now those 10 years look like they are going to come in at about a $3.5 trillion deficit, a $9 trillion reversal. If this bill had been in effect during those years and the President had used his new powers the way we might hope, we might have saved a few hundred thousand dollars, a few million, maybe even a few billion, but that is negligible compared to the $9 trillion reversal. And that is if the President used the new power in a fiscally responsible manner. Nothing in the bill prevents the President from using his new powers to coerce even more irresponsibility, such as using it as a hammer to coerce Members to support new tax cuts without paying for them.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, on the tax provisions, the bill only allows the President to veto teeny weeny, little targeted tax cuts, but does not allow him to veto huge, gargantuan, irresponsible, unpaid-for tax cuts.

Mr. Speaker, this path to fiscal responsibility is paved with hard choices. This ineffective gimmick is not one of them. We should reject the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I rise in support of H.R. 4356, the Emergency and Disaster Assistance Fraud Penalty Enhancement Act of 2005.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, we were all appalled to learn of the rampant schemes of fraudulent benefiting of government funding intended for victims of the disasters. While these crimes are now being prosecuted under existing fraud laws, I believe that the crime warrants specific and enhanced emphasis to put on notice those who would take criminal advantage of the government's need to focus on speed and comprehensive assistance in times of disasters and emergencies. This bill would establish the specific crime of fraud in connection with major disaster or emergency benefits and increases the penalties currently available for such acts.

Recognizing the particular egregiousness of fraud claims surrounding emergencies like Hurricane Katrina, the bill also directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to increase penalties under the sentencing guidelines for those individuals who would fraudulently seek to benefit from funding intended for victims of natural disasters and Presidentially declared emergencies.

While I generally do not support specific directives to the Sentencing Commission to increase penalties for crimes, I believe this particular category of crime is egregious enough to warrant more punishment than fraud in general, with appropriate considerations for mitigating and aggravating circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, I am in favor, as we all are, of seeing increased benefits being made available for victims of disasters such as Hurricane Katrina. Many have lost everything and are now without a permanent home or compensation for their losses. Many are still not able to return to the area. Many still need ongoing assistance.

We can all agree that the limited disaster and emergency benefits that are made available to victims should only go to legitimate victims, not to scam artists or cheats who recognize that humanitarian concerns in the middle of a disaster require a waiver of traditional checks and balances in favor of speed and getting the relief to the suffering victims. Those who cheat and scheme at these times deserve more punishment.

Accordingly, I am supportive of this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Con. Res. 367 honoring and praising the National Society of the Sons of the American Revolution on the 100th anniversary of being granted its Congressional Charter.

The National Society of the Sons of the American Revolution was chartered by Congress 100 years ago on June 9, 1906. The charter was signed by Theodore Roosevelt, who was a member. The resolution, which is sponsored by the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble), recognizes this anniversary and honors and praises the National Society of the Sons of the American Revolution on the occasion of this anniversary for its work to perpetuate and honor the memory of the brave men who fought to gain freedom during the American Revolution and for the society's unfailing devotion to our Nation's youth.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution and urge my colleagues to support it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the resolution on the Iraqi war.

Mr. Speaker, as we discuss what to do now, we must first acknowledge the fact that we cannot discuss an exit strategy for leaving Iraq without first stating what the entry strategy was, and then stating what we are trying to accomplish now.

We were originally told we invaded Iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction. That turned out not to be true. We were then told that we invaded Iraq because the Iraqi leaders were connected with the 9/11 attacks. That turned out not to be true. The rationale that Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States was exposed as untrue even before the invasion.

A letter from the Director of the CIA to the Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee dated October 7, 2002, specifically stated that the CIA believed that Iraq and Saddam Hussein did not pose a terrorist threat to the United States and would not be expected to pose such a threat unless we attacked.

Mr. Speaker, after it became clear that there were no weapons of mass destruction, that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and that Iraq posed no terrorist threat to the United States, we have been subjected to the excuse of the week for being in Iraq.

We were told that we needed to capture Saddam Hussein for our safety. He has been in jail for over a year, and yet we are still in Iraq.

Then the rationale changed that we needed to capture al Zarqawi. We did that, and we are still in Iraq with no apparent plan to leave.

The rationale for this week is we are still in Iraq in order to establish a democracy. We have to recognize that the nature of a democracy is that it cannot be imposed on anyone. Further, if the purpose is to establish a democracy in Iraq, it is ironic that the citizens right here in Washington, D.C. cannot elect a representative to vote on this very resolution.

Mr. Speaker, the simple fact is that we made a mistake and the only sensible rationale for still being there is because we made a mess and we have a moral responsibility to clean up that mess. And so we have to acknowledge that we are in quagmire, and it will become clear that there are no good results that can occur.

Cut and run, bad result. Stay the course to prove we have resolve, bad result. Don't worry, be happy, bad result. Continue to pretend that success is around the corner, bad result. I use ``quagmire'' lightly because this administration's poor planning has strained our troops with many units in their second and third tours. Attacks on the United States are increasing, not decreasing. During the course of our occupation, the number of insurgents has dramatically increased, and our presence in Iraq has been counterproductive, just as the CIA predicted. As of today, 2,500 servicemembers have been killed and many more wounded.

Our military equipment is wearing out much faster than normal. Emergency reserve stocks have been stripped. We have endured the embarrassment of torture at Abu Ghraib prison and questionable detention policies at Guantanamo Bay, and we have not begun to effectively deal with the issue of corruption in private contracts.

Despite spending billions of dollars on electricity and reconstruction, over half of the Iraqi households lack clean water, and 85 percent lack reliable electricity.

Mr. Speaker, we have to be reminded when we first invaded Iraq the administration instructed the Budget Committee not to even budget for the war because it would cost so little. But now we have appropriated almost $400 billion, not including future medical costs for injured troops, and that has to be compared with the $7.4 billion that it cost us to defeat Iraq in the Persian Gulf war.

Meanwhile, we have problems at home. There are shortfalls in the Department of Veterans Affairs, cuts in first responder grants, only 5 percent of our containers in our ports are being screened, and the administration has failed to adequately implement the 9/11 Commission's recommendations.

Mr. Speaker, we are not more secure. We are less secure as a result of the war.

Many experts have concluded that the military has done as much as it can, and so our exit strategy must include the use of diplomacy and politics

using the lessons we have learned from our mistakes.

But today, instead of honestly assessing what we are going to do in Iraq, we are considering this resolution which repeats all of the disparaged reasons for the invasion and proclaims its success, not a civil war is just around the corner, and that we should follow the strategy of don't worry, be happy.

In contrast, any real debate would have us start with an honest assessment of our situation. But without articulating why we invaded in the first place and what we want to accomplish now that we are there, we cannot have an exit strategy. There can be no coherent discussion of an exit strategy while we are being directed by this resolution to accept the smiling face, don't worry be happy description of our situation in Iraq.

Mr. Speaker, we should defeat the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I brought this chart along to explain to people what we mean by fiscal responsibility. When Democrats talk fiscal responsibility, we are talking about taking a deficit and turning it into a surplus. Republicans mean take the surplus and create a big deficit.

The 10-year budget, after the Republicans took over, changed a $5.5 trillion surplus to a $5.5 trillion deficit, a swing of $9 trillion. Before you start talking about the war, remember the $300 billion we spent on the war is $.3 trillion. We have had a $9 trillion deterioration. We can do better.

The Democratic Caucus has a better budget. The Congressional Black Caucus has a better budget. The Congressional Black Caucus budget, while the Republican budget is $163 billion in the hole, our budget is balanced.

We did it without increasing taxes on anyone making less than $200,000, and we spent $160 billion more on veterans benefits, education, health care and other priorities. We can obviously do better, and we must do better, because if we don't control the budget today, there will be no Social Security or Medicare in the future.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment by the gentleman from Arizona. The Science Museum of Virginia is one of the leading science museums and education and research facilities in the country, and I do not support any provision which would seek to bar it from receiving funds.

While the gentleman's intention may have been to bar the $250,000 earmark contained in the conference report, the language of this amendment is so broad that it would prevent the Virginia Science Museum from competing for any grants or funding streams, competitive or otherwise, included in the act.

Now, along with my colleague from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), I am one of the cochairs of the Congressional Chesapeake Bay Task Force and would like to reiterate the point that the work of the Science Museum with regard to testing and monitoring of the Potomac and Occoquan Rivers, both of which are part of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, are vital to the continuing efforts to restore the Chesapeake Bay. As the Nation's largest and most productive estuaries, it is indeed a national priority. So, too, Mr. Chairman, is the mission of the Science Museum to engage in instruction and research in the sciences to educate children.

I would hope that the gentleman would not pursue this amendment. This is an extreme amendment that unnecessarily harms the Science Museum, and I would hope the amendment is defeated.

Mr. Chairman, as I understand, the money will be spent for research in the Chesapeake Bay. This is a national priority. And I would hope that the testing and monitoring of the Potomac and Occoquan Rivers, both of which are part of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed will continue. I mean, it is a national priority.

We spend substantial resources on the Chesapeake Bay, and this research will go a long way in helping to preserve the Chesapeake Bay.

Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Black Caucus's budget is one that is fiscally responsible and aimed at reducing disparities in America communities. The CBC alternative is proof that even modest changes can result in tremendous outcomes.

A top priority of the CBC is addressing the exploding deficit. We believe that if we do not control the budget today, we will not be able to afford Social Security and Medicare in the future. Our fiscal responsibility produces a balanced budget in 5 years. In fact, our budget will have a surplus of $2.3 billion in fiscal year 2011. Furthermore, it improves the deficit by an aggregate $313 billion and results in savings of $10 billion in interest alone compared to the Republican budget.

We did this by returning to the tax structure similar to the one we had during the 1990s when the economy was strong, we created 20 million jobs, and the stock market was doubling every 5 years. But the rollback in tax cuts only affects that portion of an individual's income that exceeds $200,000. Our revenue is used for critical spending and deficit reduction.

The CBC alternative is committed to making America more secure by supporting our military, investing in homeland security, and caring for our veterans. It also adds to our security by funding initiatives such as juvenile crime prevention programs and prisoner reentry programs.

Some of the funding for national security, urgent homeland security needs, and veterans programs comes from a $9.4 billion reduction in ballistic missile defense, better known as Star Wars. A portion of these funds has been reallocated to protect our troops in Iraq, increase the Army's troop level, maintain current National Guard strength, and provide an additional $1 billion for Navy ship building. Another portion of these funds is allocated to address the vital homeland security needs, including port security grants. We provide an additional $20 billion to improve veterans program. We believe that the sum of all these initiatives will make us more secure as a Nation.

On the domestic side, the CBC alternative builds for America's future and addresses domestic challenges by adding $80 billion to education and job-training programs. It also provides more funding for health care, social services, transportation, and scientific research.

The CBC alternative recognizes that it is the responsibility of the government to assist in natural disasters that devastate an entire region of our Nation. The CBC budget, therefore, provides the funding for school and college reconstruction and housing in the Gulf Coast and increased funding for the Army Corps of Engineers. And furthermore, Mr. Chairman, the Gulf Coast area shipyards will benefit from the $1 billion in funding for Navy ships.

Mr. Chairman, another way of looking at the differences between the CBC alternative and the Republican budget is to start with the CBC budget and work backwards. In other words, what would you have to do to the CBC budget in order to get to the Republican budget?

Well, first, you would have to repeal pay-as-you-go budgeting. Then you would have to cut Army body armor and personal support equipment for our troops in Iraq. We would have to decrease the Army's troop level, reduce the National Guard strength, eliminate $1 billion out of Navy shipbuilding, decrease port security and rail security grants, remove Federal air marshals, delay first responder grants and cut $20 billion out of veterans programs, all to fund Star Wars and partially fund the Republican tax cuts for those with incomes over $200,000.

Next you would have to cut $80 billion out of education and job training, $20 billion out of health care, and reduce funding for housing, community services, NASA research, Amtrak, the Coast Guard, college financial aid, NIH funding, foster care, Low Income Home Energy Assistance, housing, Medicare, juvenile justice and law enforcement grants, all to fund a portion of the tax cuts going to those with incomes over $200,000.

Third, you would have to borrow approximately $300 billion, mostly from foreign governments, to fund the rest of the tax cuts for the wealthiest in our society. And at the end of 5 years, you would have to move from our $2.3 billion surplus in the CBC budget to the $163 billion deficit in the Republican budget. Mr. Chairman, that indeed would be working backwards.

We have worked tirelessly to create a budget that is fiscally responsible and recognizes the needs of the American communities around the country. It is fiscally sound, protects and promotes the best values of America, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman asked what is going to happen to the deficit. The red line is the Republican deficit year by year; the blue line is the CBC deficit year by year.

We end up with a $2.3 billion surplus, while you are still $163 billion in the ditch.