Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise to direct my colleagues to the critical need for adult immunizations and ask that they join me in supporting the Total Health Requires Improved Vaccination Efforts--or THRIVE Act--which Ms. Roybal-Allard and I are introducing today.

Vaccines are one of our great medical achievements. Successful immunization efforts have eradicated small pox and driven rubella from the United States. Mumps, diphtheria, measles, and chicken pox are at record low levels. And thanks to immunization, we're on the brink of eradicating polio across the globe.

Unfortunately, the success of childhood vaccination efforts has largely over-shadowed the need for adult vaccinations. Vaccine- preventable diseases among adults result in 45 thousand unnecessary deaths each year.

I urge my colleagues to support the THRIVE Act which will improve adult immunization efforts and help save lives.

Mr. Speaker, the Energy Policy Act that the House passed yesterday includes a commitment by Congress to make a significant investment for research and development into renewable and alternative sources of energy. As demand for clean and reliable energy increases, it is imperative that America's young people be introduced and educated in conservation and alternative energy. To decrease foreign dependence, we must increase our knowledge and ability to foster our own forms of energy. With that in mind, it is with great pleasure that I inform this body of some recent educational achievements in alternative energy sources.

The Dell-Winston Solar Challenge is an educational competition among high school teams from across our Nation using solar powered cars. The competition began ten years ago at the Winston School in Dallas, Texas, to promote science and engineering to high school students. This unique competition has grown significantly since its inception. Technology and Learning magazine has named this Solar Race Challenge as one of the 10 Most Innovative Projects in Education.

In an effort to produce a competitive solar-powered vehicle, teams spent up to eighteen months designing and building the sun-fueled racers. The nine teams crossed the finish line at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, after an eight-day race that began in Round Rock, Texas. The 1600-mile competition concluded this year as the winning team set a new race record with a top speed of 57 miles per hour. I am immensely proud that the winner of this race is located in my district, from the city of Houston, Mississippi.

This race team from a town with about 4,000 people consistently dominates the competition from much larger cities and schools. This remarkable team from the Houston Vocational Center is under the guidance of adviser and race coach Keith Reese. The team includes: captain Katie Weaver and members Tyler Davis, Austin Jordan, Stefanie Barkley, Brister Bishop, Matt Jernigan, David Peel, Leign Anna Springer, Mason Faulkner, Quinton Grice, Callie Weaver, Katie Weaver, Jesse Lal, Roderick Wiley, and Andrea Westmoreland. I am proud of each one these individuals. Their hard work and dedication is evident in the finished product.

The winning tradition of this team includes more than the aforementioned teachers and students. This project has grown into a community event. Support from the City of Houston is as consistent as the team's success. It is evident that these constituents have recognized the positive impact projects like these provide.

Year after year dedicated students and teachers build and race these advanced solar powered machines. This year marks the fifth consecutive time the Houston Race Team has won the coveted title. To quote Bubba Weir, the Executive Director of The Mississippi Alternative Energy Enterprise, ``The Program integrates classroom principles in a real- life situation that fosters learning and encourages the students to work to the best of their ability.''

This team brings much more than a trophy back to Mississippi; they bring a renewed emphasis and excitement to the fields of science and energy research. As the number of students studying math and science decreases nationwide, programs such as these pay dividends in increased interest in these fields. Dr. Lehman Marks, the founder and director of the Dell-Winston Race described it as ``A Challenge that helps teach high school students the 21st century skills they need to be successful in the future, whether it's to become the scientists and engineers of tomorrow or wherever their paths may lead.''

I am encouraged when I see future leaders taking the initiative to compete and excel in this demanding contest. Programs like this demonstrate the importance of implementing new education techniques. Projects outside the classroom environment generate learning that enhances knowledge students receive from traditional instruction. The challenges in the fields of math and science are changing, and I am proud that Mississippi's educators are training students to meet these challenges head on.

The success of the Houston solar race team has spread statewide, and many other Mississippi schools are beginning to experiment in alternative energy education programs. It is good to see young Mississippians leading the way through these innovative projects. Congratulations to the Houston Solar Race Team for an extraordinary performance and a job well done. The city of Houston, Chickasaw County, the entire State of Mississippi, and the United States of America are very proud of you.

Mr. Speaker, I shall not take near 60 minutes, but I intend to yield the vast majority of this time back to the Chair so the Chair can recognize my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe). I appreciate the leadership accommodating me so I can tell to the Members the story, the unfortunate story, of Mikhail Khodorkovsky and the state of affairs in the Russian Federation today.

Since June of 1987, when President Reagan stood at the Brandenburg Gate and urged Mikhail Gorbachev to ``Tear down this wall,'' through glasnost and perestroika, through monetary reform and trade, the United States has taken an approach towards active engagement toward democratic reform in Russia.

As cochairman of the Russia Democracy Group, I am committed to seeing these efforts continue. Today the U.S. looks to Russia as a partner in this changing world. At the same time, the responsibility lies on our shoulders to hold our Russian counterparts accountable as they move towards democracy. Recent events in Russia such as the consolidation of power by the Kremlin, restrictions on the media, and the government seizure of private companies, have raised concerns over the path Russia is taking to freedom.

One recent incident in particular draws to mind memories of Russia under the Soviet Union, not the free and democratic society we had hoped it would become. Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who is pictured here to my left, was CEO of the YUKOS Oil Company, the largest company in Russia. In October of 2003, he was arrested at gunpoint and tried for a multitude of politically motivated charges. The trial, if you can call it that, was completed on May 31 of this year, and Mr. Khodorkovsky was sentenced to 9 years in prison.

Recently I, along with many Members of Congress, had the opportunity to meet with one of Mr. Khodorkovsky's business partners, Leonid Nevzlin. Mr. Nevzlin, now living in Israel, has also been charged by the Russian courts for his connection to YUKOS.

While in the United States, Mr. Nevzlin spoke before the U.S. Helsinki Commission and confirmed what many of us feared. Russia is quickly moving away from democracy rather than embracing it.

Mikhail Khodorkovsky's account of the trial and the deterioration of law in Russia is a compelling story that needs to be heard. Following his sentencing, Mr. Khodorkovsky wrote his thoughts from his prison cell as he awaited his departure for the Siberian prison camps. I believe it is important today that I read his profoundly eloquent statement in its entirety.

``Despite obvious lack of evidence of my guilt and a mass of evidence that I was not involved in any crimes whatsoever, the court has decided to send me to the camps.

``I do not intend to harshly criticize the esteemed judge, Irina Kolesnikova. I can imagine what sort of pressure she was under from the initiators of the Khodorkovsky case while she was preparing the verdict. Scores of government functionaries, or just plain self- interested intermediaries, were ready to bring any amount of money to the court to make sure I was sent to Siberia.

``When it comes right down to it, Kolesnikova is not the problem. The

problem is that the judiciary in Russia has turned completely into a mindless appendage, a blunt weapon of the executive. Actually, not so much of the executive branch of power as of several economic groups with criminal ties. Millions of our fellow citizens have seen today that despite our country's top leadership's statements about the need to strengthen due process, there is nothing to pin our hopes on for now. This is a shame and a stain on our country, and it is a misfortune.

``I do not admit guilt, and consider that my innocence has been proven. This is why I will appeal the sentence handed down to me today. For me, it is a fundamental matter of principal to obtain truth and justice in my Motherland.

``I know that the sentence in the criminal case against me was ultimately decided in the Kremlin. Some people in the President's entourage insisted that only an acquittal could bring back society's trust in the government, while others insisted that I be locked up for a long time in order to deprive me of the will to live, to be free, and to fight.

``I want to say thank you for the former, and bring attention to the latter that they have not won.

``They will never be capable of understanding that freedom is an internal state of a person. It is precisely those who wish me ill, the ones who have dreams at night of a Khodorkovsky rabidly thirsting for vengeance, who are doomed to spend the rest of their lives trembling over the stolen assets of YUKOS.

``It is they who are profoundly unfree and will never be free. It is their pitiful existence that is the true prison.

``I, on the other hand, have the full right to say whatever I think and to act as I deem necessary without needing to get my plans approved by any overseers. And this is why my living space from now on is the territory of freedom. The captives are those who remain slaves of the system, who have to grovel, to lie, and to debase others in order to preserve their incomes and their dubious status in this obscene society.

``I will engage in civic activities; I plan to create several philanthropic organizations, for example a foundation to support Russian poetry and one for Russian philosophy, as well as a Union for Aid to Russian Prisoners. I remain an active participant in the programs of Open Russia. I will soon be holding an extramural press conference at which I will discuss the highest-priority steps. This will be the first press conference from jail in post-Soviet history.

``While I no longer have significant personal assets, there are many people willing to provide financial support for my programs because of their association with my name?

``I want to say a big thank you to everyone who gathered here today inside and outside the courthouse, and to everybody who supported me over the preceding year and a half. You are the decent and valiant people of Russia. I solemnly state that you can always count on me. Even though I do not have big money anymore, we can accomplish a great deal together.

``I would like to say a separate word of thanks to those tens of thousands of ordinary inhabitants of Russia, from every corner of our country, who have supported me with their letters. My time in jail has shown me yet again that the Russia people are not mindless beasts of burden, as certain ideologists close to those in power assert. No, they are a righteous and noble people.

``I will work together with those who want and are able to speak openly about our country, about our people, and about our common present and future. I will fight for freedom, for mine, for Platon Lebedev's, for that of my other friends, and for that of all Russia. And particularly for that of the next generations, those to whom our country will belong in only a few years.''

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Khodorkovsky concludes his letter with these profound paragraphs:

``For them, my fate must become a lesson and an example.

``Thank you to my family. They have been and remain my support, now and always. It may take many years, but I will walk out from the barbed wire and will return home. I have never been as sure of anything as I am of this.

``Even though years of prison await me, I am still experiencing a great sense of relief. My life is now a clean slate; there is nothing extraneous, accidental, or superficial in it anymore. I see my future as bright, and the air of tomorrow's Russia as pure.

``I have lost my place in the oligarchs' clique. But I have gained a huge number of true and loyal friends.

``I have regained a sense of my country. I am now together with my people, and now, we shall overcome together as well.

``Do not despair. Truth always wins out sooner or later.''

Thus ends the statement of Mikhail Khodorkovsky.

Mr. Speaker, as Russia's participation in the international community increases, it is imperative that the United States works to ensure that this country continues toward democracy for the people of Russia and for the entire world.

Rest assured that Mikhail Khodorkovsky is right. In the end truth will win out, as will freedom.

I thank the leadership and the Speaker.

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) for yielding me this time.

I join the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Regula) in opposing the Owens amendment and would submit to my colleagues that this amendment offers this very straightforward question to Members of the House today: whether to continue the effective job that the Centers for Disease Control are doing currently to fight tuberculosis in the United States or whether, on the other hand, to adopt the Owens amendment and implement an expensive new regulation to allow OSHA to become involved in infectious disease control. That is the basic question.

I know that many of us in the House of Representatives and many people across the country are concerned about the issue of rising health care costs. And I will tell the Members that this amendment, if adopted today, would increase the cost of health care for Americans. It may sound reasonable and narrowly drawn at first, dealing only with the fit testing of respirators used to prevent tuberculosis; but I would invite Members to call their hospital administrators and find out what they have to say about this amendment, and what they will tell them is this will be an expensive new regulation for hospitals, and it will increase health care costs for Americans.

I think most of us agree that the correct people to fight infectious disease are the health care professionals in our hospitals, and the best agency to regulate and provide guidelines for these health care professionals is the Centers for Disease Control. They have been doing it since 1992, and they have been doing a good job of it.

This amendment is a back-door method of allowing OSHA a foothold in the regulation of infectious diseases, and I do not think we want to do that today. And one reason we do not want to do it is the success of

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall votes Nos. 171-175, I was unavoidably absent. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: On Nos. 171-174, ``yea''; on No. 175, ``aye.''

Mr. Speaker, I oppose this bill and support the President's position on embryonic stem cells.

Let's be clear. Embryonic stem cell research is legal in America today, and nothing in the administration's current policy has affected the legality of this research. The administration's policy simply provides that Federal taxpayer dollars not be used to destroy human embryos. I believe most Americans, when they understand this, agree with the administration. But this rule does not in any way limit the private sector from pursuing embryonic stem cell research.

But ultimately, Mr. Speaker, no one can deny that this debate involves profound ethical and moral questions. This is a matter of conscience for millions of Americans who are deeply troubled by the idea of their own funds being used to destroy another human life. For many of my colleagues, and for me, this is a vote of conscience.

Let the private sector go forward, if it must, with the destruction of embryos for ethically questionable science. But spend the people's money on proven blood cord, bone marrow and adult stem cell research.

Mr. Speaker, I support this budget because it represents at least a small step in coming to grips with mandatory spending. As a member of the Budget Committee and the Appropriations Committee, I have seen firsthand that we spend the vast majority of our time fighting over discretionary spending, those 11 appropriations bills which we must pass each year. But that type of spending makes up only one-third of our total spending.

Entitlement spending continues to grow with no restraint. We have allowed mandatory spending to be on autopilot, and now it consumes 55 percent of our total budget. It is time we wake up and take control of this spending.

Today our mandatory spending not only is growing at a rate far beyond what any of us could have imagined, it is also growing at a rate far beyond our means to sustain it.

Left unchecked, over 62 percent of our total budget will be mandatory spending by the year 2015 as this chart explains. This will place an unsustainable burden on our economy and eventually crowd out other priorities like education, transportation, and veterans programs.

This trend can easily be seen in some of our larger mandatory programs. Student loan growth is more than 10 percent a year. During the past decade, Medicare has grown by 88 percent. Medicaid has more than doubled.

These are popular and valuable programs, Mr. Speaker, but these growth rates cannot be sustained. We need to slow the growth rate so that we can save the programs.

Despite what Members have said tonight, this budget does not contain cuts in mandatory spending. We are enacting commonsense reforms that slow the growth rate and improve care. Mandatory spending will continue to grow every year of this budget.

We cannot put off this program any longer. It is becoming more serious and difficult to control with each passing year. There is nothing more irresponsible than doing nothing.

Our budget makes the tough choice to begin dealing with this problem now. It takes the critical step in slowing the growth of spending by including reconciliation instructions to the authorizing committees to find a specified amount of savings in the mandatory programs under their jurisdiction. In total, these savings would slow the growth of our mandatory spending by about one-tenth of 1 percent over 5 years. That is all. And while that may not sound like much, it is a critical first step.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall votes Nos. 133-145, I was unavoidably absent. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows: On Nos. 133-139, ``yea''; on No. 140, ``nay''; on Nos. 141-142, ``no''; on No. 143, ``nay''; on No. 144, ``aye''; on No. 145, ``yea''.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 90, the vote to suspend the rules and pass S. 686, a bill for the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo, I was unavoidably absent. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time, and I thank him for saying what he did earlier about tax increases.

I have been watching these budget debates for 11 years now as a Member of Congress, 3 years as a member of the Committee on the Budget; and year after year the argument is the same.

Our colleagues from the other side of the aisle criticize our budgets in two respects. They say Republican budgets do not spend enough, and they say taxes should be higher. That is pretty much the gist of their complaints against our budgets. So I am glad to see the chairman pointing out his opposition and join him in adding my opposition to tax increases.

Now, I do want to talk as the chairman has asked me about mandatory spending. And I appreciate this opportunity as a member of the Committee on Appropriations, as well as a member of the Committee on the Budget.

As the chairman has noted, Congress spends a lot of time talking about discretionary spending, that part of the budget that makes up only one-third of total spending. The last time we made

any real effort to restrain the bulk of our spending, that part on auto-pilot, was back in 1997 and before that 1990.

Now if we look at this pie chart, we can see how much of our total spending has come to be mandatory spending: 48.7 percent in 1995, 54.3 percent today. And if we do not get a rein on it, by the year 2015, the portion of the budget over which we have little control or have chosen to have little control will grow to 62.1 percent.

Eventually this spending will crowd out other priorities which we also need to address.

Let us look at the other chart if we might. This one deals with student loans. We address much of our student spending with discretionary money, but student loans are mandatory programs. Since 2000, student loan volume has increased by 64 percent, with loans increasing by $31.4 billion to $80.7 billion today. This represents an annual growth rate of 10.5 percent at a time when our economy has grown by approximately 4 percent per year.

The next chart deals with Medicare spending. Medicare, of course, as we all know, is the Federal Government's nationwide health care system for 41 million senior citizens and disabled persons. That is 14 percent of the population. Since 1995, Medicare spending has grown 88 percent. This year alone we will spend $293 billion on Medicare. Over the next 5 years, CBO estimates that Federal outlays will amount to $2 trillion, and as my friend from Tennessee pointed out, $1 trillion is an awful lot of money.

Our next chart deals with Medicaid. Medicaid provides medical and long-term expenses to more than 40 million low-income families, elderly and disabled individuals. This is one out of seven Americans who benefit from this program. It serves as the cornerstone of America's health care safety net. Since 1995, Medicaid spending has grown an astonishing 211 percent. Let me repeat that. Since 1995, Medicare spending has grown 211 percent. According to CBO, this year the Federal Government will spend $183.2 billion on this important program, and over the next 5 years that spending will grow by over $1.1 trillion, an enormous rate of increase in this mandatory program.

So why have we allowed it to get to this point? And why are there still so few people who are willing to admit there is a problem, let alone trying to tackle the problem?

The first reason, mandatory spending is difficult to control. This spending is tied to a variety of factors outside Congress's control, demographics, economic conditions, medical prices and so on. In addition, we have an aging population, with longer life expectancy-- that is a good thing--increasing benefits and ever increasing medical expenses. In addition, the baby boom generation, my generation, is about to retire, adding huge strains to the resources of these programs.

Secondly, these programs address critical needs that must be met, Medicare payments, Social Security payments, commitments to our veterans.

Almost everyone is affected by one or more of these programs, either ourselves, our children, our parents, our grandparents. In many cases, people associate these programs with the one check that they receive with their name on it.

Now, all of these factors make it especially difficult not only to control entitlement spending but even to discuss getting it back under control without causing concern to good, deserving people who worry that their benefits will be changed. So we have a big problem to deal with, not only to get our hands around the problem, but to do it in a way that is fair for today's recipients and tomorrow's recipients.

The President's budget addressed this problem by including savings in mandatory programs, just slowing that rate of growth, as part of our effort to get the growth rate under control and to help reduce the current deficit. Our budget, while not an exact duplicate of the President's proposals, begins the process.

It is important to remind everyone that this is not happening in a vacuum. As the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Putnam) pointed out, we have already taken the first steps toward getting a grip on discretionary spending.

Specifically, what does this budget do? It provides, for the first time since 1997, reconciliation instructions to the authorizing committees. It directs each of them to find a specified amount of savings. What it does not tell them to do is where to find those savings. That will be left up to the committees. The budget has a number that is given to each committee, and it directs the committee of jurisdiction to find that amount of savings. This is a critical step to begin the process of getting our mandatory spending back to a sustainable level, simply slowing the rate of growth of programs such as the one demonstrated on this poster.

It is a critical step, and I ask all of my colleagues to support this effort by supporting the budget, and I thank my chairman again for putting together a resolution that addresses the very needed mandatory spending restraint that is going to be necessary for our future economic prosperity.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues from Florida for allowing me to participate in this tribute to our friend, Tillie Fowler.

I was privileged to get to know Tillie and to see how effective she was here in this body. I served with her on the Whip team, where her intelligence and leadership abilities were great assets. Tillie also had the universal respect of members of Congress in both parties because of her gentle demeanor and the way she got things done. She also enjoyed that same measure of respect from all the branches of our armed services. Tillie gained a seat on the Armed Services Committee and worked hard on issues to strengthen our military and improve the quality of life for our service personnel.

One of the newspaper stories referred to Tillie as a passionate advocate for the City of Jacksonville and for the military. There is no question about that, and she achieved success without raising her voice or pounding on the rostrum. She did it with a personal style that embodied all the characteristics of a Southern lady. Tillie was polite and courteous, always immaculately dressed, and easy to work with--yet tenacious in pursuit of her goals. Working Woman magazine once said about Tillie that she was a ``diminutive Southern belle but tough as an old Marine.'' She said she learned that lesson from her grandmother, who said being a lady doesn't mean you can't be tough.

Tillie heeded her grandnother's advice, and it served her well throughout a career that was marked by pioneering accomplishments. She was one of only five women in her Emory University Law School graduating class. She won a seat on the Jacksonville City Council and was elected as the council's first woman president. She earned high marks for her work ethic and ability to get things done. In 1993, she brought that same energy and determination to Capitol Hill.

She already had Washington experience as a former House staffer and in the Office of Consumer Affairs at the White House. Tillie's abilities were recognized quickly and she became a leader on issues relating to our military. She also became a member of the House leadership team, serving as vice-chair of the Republican Conference.

Even after leaving Congress in 2001, Tillie was still being called on to tackle tough assignments. She chaired the commission that investigated sexual misconduct allegations at the Air Force Academy and was named to the panel looking into issues surrounding the treatment of prisoners in Iraq.

She never moved to Washington, choosing to commute back home every weekend to be close to her family and her strong Jacksonville roots. While Tillie focused much attention on the district and on issues important to Florida, her work touched lives all across our great country--especially those with ties to our military. That was evidenced by the strong outpouring of support the family received from so many Americans who appreciated Tillie's faithful service.

The House of Representatives is a better place because Tillie Fowler served here. I am honored to help pay tribute to Tillie and her remarkable career.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentleman for his remarks. We can save the Social Security system and also we can get a better deal for our young workers in retirement.

Let me make one quick point and see if I have it right. There are actually three aspects to the Social Security system. One is Social Security disability, another is the survivorship program, and the other is the old age retirement program.

I think what most of us are saying is, we can save the retirement program through these individual accounts, but we do not have to do one single change to disability. People do not have to worry about losing their disability and they do not have to worry about the survivorship. So if people raise that red herring, that is exactly what it is: It is a false charge. Nothing will be done to disability and nothing will be done to survivorship; is that correct?

Mr. Speaker, I just want our constituents to understand that, and I want the Members of this body to understand that. I thank the gentleman for his leadership on this issue.

We are not going to do anything to Social Security disability and survivorship, but we do need to give our younger workers an opportunity not only to save the system for their future, but to get a better deal than the one-half percent return or 1 percent return that they are getting now.

We can do better; and if we can, we certainly ought to for retirees now and also for future generations. And I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) for that kind word of introduction.

I have to observe what a refreshing contrast we have seen tonight between the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) and those who occupied the previous hour of Special Orders on this floor tonight because of the great difference in the philosophy of government evidenced by all of the speakers tonight.

The gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) has outlined a conservative philosophy of efficiency with the taxpayer dollars, not taking the first answer at face value but looking for savings wherever we can find them because that is what the taxpayers expect us to do.

What we witnessed in the previous hour was an example of what we hear from our liberal Democrat friends year after year. I had to think as I was listening to them that these are the same arguments that we hear over and over again from the other side of the aisle. They say we are not spending enough. Regardless of the fact that Federal spending almost always increases, it is never high enough for our friends on the Democrat side of the aisle. They always, always want to spend even more.

Whatever tax level the President and the Republicans propose, the Democrats always want to tax more. They want to raise taxes on the American people. However high taxes might be, we can always count on our friends to make the argument year in and year out that they want tax rates to be higher. They may shed crocodile tears about deficits, but their solution to deficits is always higher taxes, always higher taxation, and their solution to deficits is never ever to find a way to make savings for the American people.

Their arguments are always the same, and I must admit more often than not their predictions are off the mark too, Mr. Speaker, their predictions about how the President's budget will affect the poor, the disadvantaged, the unemployed, the economy as a whole. We heard those predictions, those same dire predictions last year, and what has happened? As a matter of fact, what has happened is exactly what we on the Republican side of the aisle predicted: healthy growth in our economy, the gross domestic product of a sustained rate of now 4 percent continuing on now for several months, and the unemployment rate falling. Job creation is at a record high in the United States of America, and I am proud of that. It has come in spite of the dire warnings we had from our friends on the left who predicted last year when we tried to hold the line on budgeting that we would have all sorts of dire consequences for the American people.

One argument that was made previously that cannot go unchallenged is this argument about the term ``withering on the vine.'' I think some people in this town believe if you say something often enough, it will take on truth. As a matter of fact, no Representative on this side of the aisle has ever advocated Social Security withering on the vine. It is just factually inaccurate to say such a thing. We were actually accused of saying that not with regard to Social Security but with regard to Medicare, and it was not true about Medicare.

What a Speaker of the House at one time said should wither on the vine is this HCFA program which we have now renamed CMA that could command and control a health care system where government tries to manage each and every aspect of it. That is what he said should wither on the vine so Americans could have more choices about the way they get their health care.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to challenge every time I can this allegation that Republicans wanted either Social Security or Medicare to wither on the vine; it did not.

I want to applaud the President and my colleagues for saying tonight that we believe government can do better. We know there is waste and fraud and abuse in government spending.

And every single penny that is wasted, every single penny that is subject to fraud is money that could go to programs that actually do benefit Americans. And it is money that could go to tax reduction. It is money that could go to deficit reduction.

So central to the President's budget that he submitted to us this week is the fact that the President and Republicans in Congress are dedicated to providing stronger financial management and oversight for Federal programs. This should not be controversial. It ought to be a common-sense, bipartisan approach to Federal spending, and we invite all Americans to help us.

I hope that Americans will be contacting Members of this Special Order after tonight's Special Order, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that the phones will be ringing off the walls in congressional offices with Americans giving us examples of the way they know we can save money. My constituents instinctively know that this Federal Government is so big, so large, so unmanageable that there have got to be ways that we can effect savings.

So I look forward to this Special Order tonight. We have got, I guess, around 40 or 45 more minutes. I intend to stick around, Mr. Speaker, and if the gentlewoman from Tennessee will recognize me again, we might be able to cite some very specific examples that I think she might find interesting about ways in which we believe that we can begin to look for additional savings for the American people.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the gentleman would yield on that point, because I appreciate him making that very good point.

There are programs which are designed to help those people that cannot help themselves or that are at a disadvantage for whatever reason. The gentleman makes an excellent point that when someone cheats on a program like that, they are not only cheating the government and the taxpayers, but they are cheating the neediest Americans, the most disadvantaged Americans.

I wonder if I could go back to another point the gentleman from Texas made. Did the gentleman say that there is a 25 percent error rate in the earned income tax credit?

Oh, my goodness. Okay, it is even worse than I heard. So 32 percent of the earned income tax credit is claimed erroneously or fraudulently, one or the other; is that what you are saying?

The gentleman is an expert, and I am sure he can explain better than I can the purpose of the earned income tax credit, which is a worthy purpose.

And it is designed for parents of children and for working poor parents to help give them an extra opportunity. So when almost a third of the earned income tax credit money goes to people who are not entitled to it, certainly it hurts the people who

would be entitled to it. Perhaps we could give a more generous benefit to the EITC families. Perhaps we could give a tax cut to other working families, or pay down the debt.

So I just appreciate the gentleman mentioning that very good point. And when he said it, I had to go back to the earned income tax credit, a program we are not proposing to cut in any way, but would it not be wonderful if we could find that one-third that is going to people who are not entitled under the law?

Mr. Speaker, I probably interrupted the gentleman's train of thought, but I just had to jump in on that very excellent point he was making.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could interject one other thing at this point. We are about to run out of time, and I do not know if we have complimented the leader of this Special Order quite enough. She has been very generous in her remarks about us.

Actually, the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn) has been quite a champion in the area, particularly, of credit card fraud within the Federal Government. I understand this amounts to almost $100 million a year in lost taxpayers' money. The gentlewoman, I think, has introduced, along with the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson), legislation to address this problem; is that not correct?

Mr. Speaker, I know also, I would say to the gentlewoman, that she finds as refreshing as I do the remarks of our new Member who came to us from a business background and who is determined to work with us on this type legislation, someone who knows of what he speaks when he says he has taken other people's money and had to invest it wisely and make sure that it was used efficiently.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would yield on that point, the Federal Government could not account for $17.3 billion, with a ``b''. That means that $17.3 billion is just gone and the Federal Government cannot say what happened to it. Can we imagine? But this comes not from some story in some newspaper of doubtful authenticity, this comes from a report of the Department of the Treasury, the 2001 financial report of the United States Government.

Mr. Speaker, $17.3 billion with a ``b'', and we do not know where it went.

Well, let me just say, and these will be my final remarks and then I will yield back to the two of my colleagues for whatever they might want to say; I just look forward to working with my three fellow Representatives who have spoken on this Special Order tonight, and with the President, to say that we can be more diligent in the way that we spend the taxpayers' money, we can be more efficient, and we can continue in our effort

to root out waste, fraud, and abuse in our government.

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a resolution calling for Kofi Annan to step down as Secretary-General of the United Nations.

Under his stewardship, the U.N.'s Oil for Food Program has become one of the largest scandals in world history. Saddam Hussein was able to dodge U.N. sanctions, embezzle billions of dollars intended for humanitarian aid, and strengthen his brutal rule of the Iraqi people-- all under the cover of this U.N. program.

As a Member Nation that funds nearly a quarter of the U.N.'s annual budget, it is the United States' right and responsibility to press for a full accounting of this international embarrassment. Our government must help make certain the U.N. maintains the confidence and respect of the international community.

With evidence mounting of bribery throughout U.N. leadership, it is imperative that Kofi Annan resign as Secretary-General so all current charges can be fully and independently investigated. These allegations of corruption and mismanagement have irreparably undermined Mr. Annan's credibility and his capacity to head the U.N. He should step down.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Delaware as well as my friend from California for their remarks so far in this debate. I also want to thank the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), who, Mr. Speaker, has been enormously patient and helpful to me during this year-long effort to promote better knowledge of American history and civics. Thanks also goes to the ranking member of the full committee as well as the entire House leadership. I am very appreciative.

Mr. Speaker, we meet today in a Chamber that exhibits a magnificent portrait of George Washington just to my left. We meet at a location actually selected by George Washington, the father of our country. Just above the Speaker's podium is a profound quote from another of our distinguished patriots, Daniel Webster. We are governed today by rules promulgated in part by Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence and another of our great founders.

In that atmosphere, Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps hard for us to imagine that not everyone in our country shares our appreciation for this great system of government and this wonderful tradition and history of freedom and independence that we have in America or has even a rudimentary knowledge of that great system of government. Yet, sadly, as I talk to my colleagues about this issue, they have observed the same thing as they travel around the country that I have: an appalling, even shocking, lack of knowledge about American history and our American system. This is particularly true among our young people.

Just a few facts, Mr. Speaker. Sixty-two percent of Americans today cannot name the three branches of the Federal Government. An examination was given to seniors in 55 of our Nation's top colleges and universities, including Brown, Harvard and Princeton. The exam contained 34 questions, multiple choice, testing a high school level of proficiency on American history. Some 81 percent of the seniors in these colleges received either a D or an F on these examinations. Seventy-five percent of our high school seniors are not proficient in American history and civics, and one-third lack even a basic knowledge of this subject matter.

Part of the reason for this, Mr. Speaker, is that the curriculum at these same 55 elite universities does not require an American history course for graduation and 78 percent require no history credit at all to graduate from the best colleges and universities in our land. As a result of this fact, over one-half of our high school history teachers received their college degrees in subjects other than history.

This is not their fault, Mr. Speaker. This is simply a fact which we are trying to address today.

Simply put, what this bill does, as my friend from Delaware stated, is to authorize the Secretary of Education to award competitive grants from existing funds for summer academies that would promote civics and history education. The grants would be available to colleges and universities, to museums, libraries, nonprofit organizations, some of which are already engaged in this type of activity, and other entities that can demonstrate the capability to enhance the subject matter.

The sessions for teachers would focus on new ideas and more creative ways to communicate the history and civics curriculum to students. It would not dictate a curriculum. Separate academies for students would provide a unique and more comprehensive look at the important subjects of civics and education.

I would say to the Members in closing, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation has the support of a wide spectrum of Americans, from Paul Weyrich and Bill Bennett on the right, to Senator Ted Kennedy at the other end of the political spectrum. I think it simply demonstrates this: that knowledge and understanding of America and Americanism really has no ideology.

I again express my thanks to the leadership of the committee and of House of Representatives, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on the bill.